News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
April 9
In 1997, Oxford University Press published Between God and Gangsta Rap: Bearing Witness to Black Culture,” by Michael Eric Dyson, who at that point was a professor of communications at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has since gone on to bigger things; last summer, Dyson was named by Georgetown University as one of its University Professors. God and Gangsta arrived bearing glowing endorsements, including one by Houston A. Baker Jr., a former president of the Modern Language Association. (Two years ago, Baker left the English department at Duke University and joined the faculty at Vanderbilt University as Distinguished University Professor.)
In his new book, Betrayal: How Black Intellectuals Have Abandoned the Ideals of the Civil Rights Era (Columbia University Press), Baker recalls being stirred by his “hope for the black intellectual future to produce a supportive blurb invoking comparisons of Dyson with geniuses of times past. ”This, Baker now says, was “a grievous mistake.” Some tort lawyer should look into whether or not Baker is obliged to reimburse readers for the price of Dyson’s book.
Either way, it seems that Baker has now carefully read what he once so hastily blurbed, and found it wanting. “Dyson’s black public intellectual mode,” he says, “is a Sugar Ray Robinson-style duck and cover strategy. It intermixes metaphors, and dodges and skips evasively with the light drama of nonce formulations. There are no intellectual knockouts. Further, there is virtually no irony whatsoever.” About a subsequent work, Baker says that the main factor “at work in Dyson’s text — especially when he devotes lavish textual space to his own public appearances on ‘Meet the Press’ — is authorial self-promotion.... This is the stuff of tabloid journalism. It is not worthy work for a true black public intellectual.”
A complex set of transactions is under way among those three adjectives, even beyond their relationship with the noun they qualify. Some black public intellectuals, it seems, aren’t truly intellectuals. And other black public intellectuals aren’t truly black.The whole domain must be policed by someone who manifests all three qualities in perfect harmony. Said gatekeeper must be willing and able to represent what the author calls “the black majority.” For the true black public intellectual, the interests, intentions, and aspirations of his community prove wonderfully apodictic. Guess who qualifies?
Not, to be sure, Shelby Steele or Stephen Carter or John McWhorter — each of them a critic of affirmative action and of black popular culture. Baker treats these adherents of middle-class African-American assimilationism as so many fellow-travelers of the neoconservative ideology that emerged among Jewish intellectuals during the 1960s and ‘70s. Nor does Baker have much use for Henry Louis Gates or Cornel West. And his retroactive dis of the exceptionally telegenic Michael Eric Dyson has already been noted.
Betrayal takes on each of these figures through a mixture of critical analysis and personal insult — blended in portions of roughly one part to three, respectively. This is an extraordinarily repetitious book. The range of ways to suggest that one’s targets are the contemporary equivalent of those African-American performers of the 19th and early 20th centuries who “blacked up” for the minstrel shows is, after all, finite and soon exhausted. Even the more substantial element of the book — its critique of the emergence of a middle-class and centrist cohort of African-American intellectuals — proves redundant. The late Harold Cruse anticipated the trend in The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual more than 40 years ago, and Adolph Reed Jr. brought it up to date in 1995 in his blistering essay, “What are the Drums Saying, Booker? The Current Crisis of the Black Intellectual.” (It can be found in his book Class Notes: Posing as Politics and Other Thoughts on the American Scene, published almost 10 years ago but still an exemplary model of polemic as product of brain rather than spleen.)
What Betrayal offers is, primarily, is repetition of arguments others have made, spiced up with denunciations of motive (everybody loves money and going on TV) and passages that ventriloquize what Baker’s opponents are really saying. Thus, Shelby Steele tells white America: “You should have known the majority of these power-hungry, searching-for-weakness ‘minorities’ out there have no merit, excellence, or cultural treasure to add to the world’s store. It probably would have been better for American morality and its capital reserves had white supremacy never ended.”
So one reads Steele as quoted in Betrayal — followed by Baker’s quick, glossing addendum: “Again, my words.” For Steele never actually said it. ("Again, my words” indeed: Baker likes the method enough to use it every so often.) In a war of words, this qualifies less as a weapon of mass destruction than a labor-saving device.
Baker assures readers that he, at least, is using the best tools available to the true black public intellectual. “I am,” Baker assures us, “a confident, certified, and practiced reader of textual argument, implicit textual values and implications, and the ever-varying significations of written words in their multiple contexts of reception.... I forgo ad hominem sensationalism, generalized condemnation, and scintillating innuendo where black neoconservatives and centrists are concerned. The following pages represent a rigorous, scholarly reading practice seasoned with wit.”
After reading some two hundred pages of “ad hominem sensationalism, generalized condemnation, and scintillating innuendo,” one wonders if this passage, at least, may be a case of the “irony” that one of the blurbs for Betrayal attributes to it. I am not quite sure. But one moment of reading the book certainly had a profound effect on my grasp of just how seriously the book must be taken. This was when Baker discusses the affinity of certain contemporary black public intellectuals (the non-true kind) for neoconservatism.
Baker points out that in the 1940s, Irving Kristol, the founding father of that neoconservatism, abandoned the constricted world of left-wing politics “in search of a more expansive field of intellectual and associational commerce (one in which he would be ‘permitted’ to read Max Faber)....”
That parenthetical reference stopped me cold. I have a certain familiarity with the history of Kristol and his cohort, but somehow the role of Max Faber in their bildung had escaped my notice. Indeed, the name itself was totally unfamiliar. And having been informed that this book was “the product of “a rigorous, scholarly reading practice” — one “seasoned with wit,” mind you, and published by Columbia University Press — I felt quite embarrassed by this gap in my knowledge.
Off to the library, then, to unearth the works of Max Faber! But before I could get out the door, a little light bulb went off. Baker (who assures us that he is a capable judge of social-scientific discussions of African-American life) was actually referring to Max Weber.
It’s a good thing the author of this book is “a confident, certified, and practiced reader of textual argument, implicit textual values and implications, and the ever-varying significations of written words in their multiple contexts of reception.” Otherwise one would have to feel embarrassed for him, and for the press that published it. And not just for its copy editors, by any means.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
This can’t be true. Are you *sure* there’s no Max Faber? (Alright, I can accept there’s no Max Faber). But did you read a draft copy of the book? Some sort of pre-edited version? It could NOT have been published with that kind of error, right?
Right?
This is going to rattle me all day....
Cognitively Dissonant, at 2:10 pm EDT on April 9, 2008
I’m afraid the reference to “Max Faber” appears on page 53 of the hardback copy of the book now (or at least soon) in stores. A historian who has studied Kristol and his circle has confirmed to me in email, there’s really no doubt that it should be Max Weber.
Scott McLemee, columnist at Inside Higher Ed, at 2:20 pm EDT on April 9, 2008
Though it may seem simplistic and/or pedantic, some people of color, in their rush to distance themselves from their heritage and what they often see as inferior status, still have the need to be accepted by those they consider superior: professors, scientists, wealthy people.
This, to use the seemingly quaint but nevertheless apt term, search to become better is something I undertook, and something that took me a long while to get over. Having been born in the U.S. to an immigrant father, from Mexico, and a mother born in California, I “felt” early on that my family and I were not normal. I couldn’t put my little finger on it, but at school (and I didn’t feel this way at home), teachers and students made it clear, usually implicitly, that I was not one of them. Everything about me was different: skin color, Spanish accent, food, celebrations, values, and outlooks.
When I realized how different I was seen out of the house, I resolved to change so that I could be acceptable to peers and teachers, whom, we were taught ironically, that since they were educated there sole concern was to educate all students. But again, especially when my parents visited the classroom, teachers did not speak to my parents the same way they did to others. Their body language (guarded, suspicious, patronizing) said as much. They clearly felt, I later learned, that to speak with an accent and be from Mexico meant one was inferior. I wanted no part of that.
So I secretly changed from being Mexican to being Spanish, a term and condition much more acceptable to my peers. I refused to speak Spanish, eat Mexican food, or listen to Mexican music. I indulged in baloney (that’s how we spelled it) sandwiches dripping with mayonnaise. Rainbow Bread was the bread of choice.
This need to change, to become something acceptable, made me turn my back on my Mexican friends and of course my relatives. I suddenly saw them as uncivilized, ignorant about important things such as how to dress and speak and carry oneself, unbelievably low class, especially when they listened not to Elvis or the Everly Brothers, but to Jorge Negrete, Mariachi Vargas, and Tito Puente.
I resented who I was, tried like hell to become, as corny as it sounds, Beaver Cleaver or Rusty on “Rin Tin Tin.” I hated Tonto, the Cisco Kid, and Speedy Gonzalez. These emotions and views were not transitory or in any sense something that would soon pass.
When I entered college, full of guilt and yet also pride because I was going to college, none of my classes were multicultural. Everything I read and studied was based on the deeds of mostly white men, with a few white women here and there. To me this was normal. Thus I concluded no one but white people did anything worthwhile in the academic world.
Then a bomb hit me: Ethnic Studies. In these classes, I learned why I felt as I did, how these emotions were generated, and how society perpetuates superiority to the point that many people of color (some desperately passing as white if their pigmentation allowed) refuse to have others know of their ethnicity. Many people of color, then, more than willingly adopt a culture they think is acceptable and sophisticated and loaded with superiority, to the point we end up declaring that our ethnicity, and that of all people of color, is inferior.
We run from ourselves, hide the evidence of our foreign grandparents, and do all we can to be seen like those we admire. Carlos Fuents’ great novel, “The Death of Artemio Cruz” explores this need to be like the “norteamericano,” though we may hate him. We subsume that hate and do all we can to become superior, to the point that we castigate and snipe at those people of color who inconveniently define and explain why we’ve forsaken our heritage and culture.
When this happens, those who’ve betrayed themselves tend to attack those who tell us about ourselves.
I somehow think about Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice and Alberto Gonzalez as I write this. All three are beneficiaries of Affirmative Action in some way, yet they in the end denied the importance of that fact.
Thus it’s painful to see “intellectuals” of color attacking one another, trying to argue away the importance of Multicultural and Ethnic Studies, striving to retain superiority.
Such is the effect of racism and superiority in this country, assimilation and aculturation, inferiority and superiority.
The irony is that so many of our parents literally killed themselves so we could rise in terms of education and jobs, so we could t least become middle class—yet when some of us reach that situation, we think we’ve become better than those we’ve left behind. And we hide behind academic credentials and publications to prove that we are better. Of course, it’s pointless to do so, but that doesn’t stop us from trying, so ingrained is our early education that told us we’re not good enough.
At some point, we need to take steps to not use our education solely to prove academic legitimacy and superiority, instead using our education to help others leave the imposed squalor, academic and otherwise, imposed on them by attitudes that makes betray outselves and our families.
Leonard Adame, Community College Instructor, at 6:05 pm EDT on April 9, 2008
Your comment reminds me of the film _Salt of the Earth_. So much of our appeal in education is that of rising up into the middle class and leaving poverty or working class family and community behind. That misses the point, doesn’t it? At a crucial moment in the film Esperanza (played by the late Rosaura Revueltas) tells her husband (who has been trying to restrict her union activism and keep her “in her place” at home): “And whose neck shall I stand on to make me feel superior?. . . I don’t want anything lower than me. I want to rise and push everything up with me as I go.”
Susan Alexander, at 8:40 pm EDT on April 9, 2008
If my 1960s G.I. German still serves me well, “Faber,” in German, means “color,” as in “colored.” Perhaps, unconsciously, Professor Baker is outing Max Weber as a person of color passing for white. On the other hand, he could be outing himself. Doctor Freud would have fun with this.
Robert Hinton, New York University, at 11:40 am EDT on April 10, 2008
Somewhat weirdly, Max Faber IS the name of a playwright who adapted Ibsen and Strindberg. I think I have an old copy somewhere of his The Wild Duck, written for Broadway way back in the early ‘50s. It didn’t run three weeks.
Wait. Kristol was never a big Broadway buff, was he? I could really see him breaking with his fellow lefties because they wouldn’t let him talk about the musical numbers in Oklahoma.
book/daddy, Or maybe it was “South Pacific”, at 12:10 pm EDT on April 10, 2008
I read the review (critique?) of Baker’s book with interest. Baker’s book seemed full of self-important puffery. It was very amusing that he was caught in an error of the magnitude of Max Faber. I read on into the comments to find out how others had reacted, and found the gem of Professor Adame’s response. How beautifully you have stated the reality of the assimilation experience. It is one of the wonderful aspects of our life today that we can be in the middle class, without having to be totally of the middle class. The self-consciousness of your changes and choices alters so much. I teach a class where we talk a lot about ethnicity and race and gender, I will take your comment to them. It reminds me of Arturo Madrid’s essay “Missing Persons and Others.” That is high praise. You write of your experience in a manner which makes it very accessible. It is not puffed up at all by academic jargon. Thanks.
Rebecca Shipman Hurst, Community College Professor, at 1:10 pm EDT on April 10, 2008
Adame’s comment is ambiguous, though. Does it apply to Baker himself, i.e., is Baker the insecure social-climber who’s forgetting about his original milieu, and disavowing the obligation to help the less fortunate? Based on the quotes that McLemee’s included, it would seem Baker is making precisely this argument against other black intellectuals.
Krynoid, at 3:15 pm EDT on April 10, 2008
Mr. Adame, Thank you for your post!
I took some courses at college in a number of departments that heavily rely on postmodern theory that this author seems to champion. It was discouraging because it seemed like my professors felt that the only way to address the real and toxic problem of racism in our country and social structures was for people to align with a radical and very narrow worldview. This worldview banks so much on rhetoric and calls racist or oppressive people who would chose a number of things deemed “normative” like finding comfort in a domestic setting, fulfillment in ones profession, or a belief in the necessity of war. All these things are problematic but the viewpoints endemic in so many humanities departments find them to be completely incompatible with a healthy society. I had thought the goal should be for people to be secure and free enough that they can come to their own conclusions about how society and personal lives should be led, hopefully with an eye still firmly on the well being of everybody else. If this means that they choose to be ridiculously bourgeois or blatant careerists or radical polyamorous ecofeminists, that should be OK. All this esoteric, exclusionary stuff just seems like so much wheel spinning.
Who Asked You, at 3:15 pm EDT on April 10, 2008
Houston Baker provided a spectacular demonstration of his spelling, proofreading and “public intellectualizing” prowess, as well as his basic manners, during the Duke lacrosse fiasco.
Patricia Dowd, the mother of an unindicted lacrosse player, wrote him politely on December 31, 2006, “asking for your help.” She noted,
“Whatever you believed in March, I am sure you must be questioning the actions of DA Nifong. Therefore, I respectfully request that you join Pres. Brodhead in asking for a special prosecutor. In addition, I respectfully request you petition Pres. Brodhead to allow Collin and Reade to resume classes this spring. Our paths may have been different, but I am sure all of us seek the truth and justice. This can only be accomplished with an impartial prosecutor. Collin and Reade, along with Dave, have had to put their lives on hold due to a false accusation. I trust that with the filing of ethics charges by the NC State Bar and the Conference of District Attorneys calling for DA Nifong to recuse himself, we can all agree that justice can best be served with Nifong’s removal.”
Here is the full text of Baker’s reply:
“LIES! You are just a provacateur [sic]on a happy New Years Eve trying to get credit for a scummy bunch of white males! You know you are in search of sympaathy [sic] for young white guys who beat up a gay man in Georgetown, get drunk in Durham, and lived like “a bunch of farm animals” near campus.
I really hope whoever sent this stupid farce of an email rots in .... umhappy [sic] new year to you ... and forgive me if your [sic] really are, quite sadly, mother of a “farm animal.””
And this is an excerpt from an email that Baker sent to K. C. Johnson on Nov. 25, 2006:
“Who but those who are seeking drunkenly to concel [sic] engages such behavior? I know you are suggesting Roberts did not reprot [sic] her “hired relationship” to the drunken, peeing off the porach [sic], sex toys demanding, and broom handle waving youngwhite men assembled.”
It’s a miracle his book only contains one ‘Max Faber.’
John Steed, at 5:45 pm EDT on April 11, 2008
Max Faber is also, with Georg Bernhard Hummel, co-author of “Succincta theologiae anti-deisticae delineatio, cujus cap. I et II ... proponunt,” (1764) a crucial influence on Irving Kristol and the neocons. How could you not have known this?
Jay Weiser, Associate Professor of Law & Real Estate at Baruch College, at 11:40 pm EDT on April 11, 2008
I admit at the outset that I have not (yet) read Houston Baker’s book (although I’ve read some of his other work, as well as that of Gates and some of the other black scholars and intellectuals mentioned). But what struck me most about this article is the failure to mention a single black woman intellectual—even a clearly PUBLIC intellectual like bell hooks (let alone important black feminist thinkers like legal scholar and theorist Patricia Williams or black feminist philosopher Patricia Hill Collins). Perhaps some of the male public intellectuals (black, white, and “other") are engaged in an agonistic dispute over which of them should best carry the mantle of black public intellectualism forward, but please don’t restrict discussions or analyses of public intellectuals (black, white, or others of color) to the men only. It’s rare enough to see women of color granted the public space for their intellectual life to be publicly visible and thus influential for public conversations about race, culture, politics, etc. (and not only important for other academics and for intellectuals located outside of academia). When public intellectuals are visible in mass media—e.g., when they appear on television or are featured in major magazines—it usually seems like only male public intellectuals are even considered. I hope Baker’s book does include some discussion of black women public intellectuals, even if this article about his book does not.
Marilyn, Associate Professor, at 8:40 pm EDT on April 12, 2008
As commenter John Steed reveals above, it’s no surprise that the name of Houston Baker is tarnished at Duke. When will Vanderbilt catch on?
He’s the face of the university on its website! See It To Believe It, posted by KC Johnson at Durham-in-Wonderland.
Stu Daddy, Duke University T’77, at 5:00 am EDT on April 16, 2008
I’m wondering whether Baker employs a ghostwriter for his published work.
“Faber” insted of “Weber” isn’t a typo. And Baker couldn’t really have thought that Max’s correct name was Faber. It’s a phonetic error. Someone other than Baker misheard “Weber” ("vayber") as Faber.
Baker’s e-mails show that, left to his own devices, he has serious difficulties with grammar, spelling, punctuation and general coherence of thought.
And several of the passages quoted by the reviewer — where Baker announces that he’s a certified reader of textual arguments, that he plans to forego sensationalism and scintillating innuendo, that he’s going to give us scholarly reading seasoned with wit etc — read more like background instructions to a ghostwriter than material any sensible author would put in a book.
If so, it sounds as if he ought to find a better one.
John Steed, at 9:10 pm EDT on April 16, 2008
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
Colorado State University — Assistant Professor of English: Anglophone Literature and Postcolonial Studies see job
Empire State College’s Northeast Center/Saratoga Springs Unit seeks applications for a full-time, tenure-track faculty ... see job
Position: The Department of Family Sciences is seeking a highly qualified candidate for a tenure-track position in the Family ... see job
East Carolina University, a constituent institution of the University of North Carolina, is a doctoral institution with an ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Willamette University the first University in the West! If you embrace our vision and motto, Non Nobis Solum Nati Sumus — ... see job
The Politics Department at the University of California, Santa Cruz, seeks applications for a tenure-track or tenured ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
In Search of Max Faber
I am certain that Inside Higher Ed would have carried this commentary on Houston A. Baker’s book if it were in praise of Michael Eric Dyson and other black men. What seems fascinating is that Inside Higher Ed did not spot Baker’s sinister ride to notoriety. The fact is that the way to fame, for some folk, is to criticize a black man or black person on the rise. Watch and see where Baker ends up. Then call me a liar.
Elliott, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Edinboro University of PA, at 11:50 am EDT on April 9, 2008