Editor’s Pick
JANUARY 3, 2009 10:09AM
The Curious Case of the Missing Black Liberal Thinkers
A few days ago I received a daily alert from Barry Ritholtz’s The Big Picture, which offers “perspective on the capital markets, economy, technology and the media.” It’s a very good source regarding economic analyses.
Wrote Ritholtz on New Year’s Day, “Who Are the Most Influential Liberal Thinkers?”:
A friend who edits a well know [sic]conservative business magazine is anticipating the new Obama administration. He wants to know what liberal thinkers will be influential in the coming years.
He writes:
‘Barry: We’re putting together a list of the 50 most influential liberal thinkers/intellectuals in America (academics, thinktankers, columnists, even politicians...) for a XXXXXX.com Opinion section slide show. I’d love to have your thoughts on some names that should be there. . . Obviously not all 50, but as many as you can muster without cursing me out!’
The first few off of the top of my head are Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, George Soros, Al Gore, Barney Frank, Lawrence Lessig (Stanford), Dean Baker (Center for Economic and Policy Research).
Media: Keith Olbermann (MSNBC), Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (Comedy Central), Josh Marshall (Talking Points Memo), Mark Morford (SF Gate), Bob Herbert (NYT), Gary Trudeau (Doonesbury), Joe Conason (Salon),
Bloggers: Arianna Huffington, Kevin Drum (Mother Jones), Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (Daily KOS), Matthew Yglesias,
Authors: Greg Palast (author), Jake Tapper, Nat Hentoff (VIllage Voice).
And lastly, I have to add John Maynard Keynes, who remains to this day one of the most influential liberal thinkers in terms of economics. (How could I have forgotten Bono! — Oh wait, he’s not American!)
Who else would you consider an influential liberal thinker?
***
What struck me was the paucity of blacks on the list. As a matter of fact, if one reads the responses from others, the only blacks that did appear were Bob Herbert, Oprah Winfrey, and Cornel West.
Now, I really don’t consider Herbert or Winfrey “influential liberal thinkers.” I don’t find Herbert to be an engaging writer or thinker. Certainly not Winfrey; however, I do consider her to be a force for good.
West shoulder qualify as one, but I’ve always considered him a very slick con artist who gives the appearance of being intellectual; he performs as one, without offering anything of substance (see below).
If you have to come up with a black intellectual, West fits the caricature of what a “progressive” or “liberal” thinker is suppose to be.
In my mind, an “influential thinker,” liberal or conservative, has to be a man or woman who actually expresses, deals with, exchanges and challenges ideas. Such a person has to have a medium—books, newspaper, television, blogs, pulpit, lecture hall, etc—in which ideas are presented and expressed. To some degree, a thinker should also be able to synthesis ideas or develop new or original insights or interpretations, or break them down to such a degree that makes them more intelligible to others. Such a person has to have a depth of knowledge within his or her field, or has a broad general knowledge in order to engage other ideas.
I’ve often felt that today’s generation of black intellectuals lack this, especially academics like West and Michael Eric Dyson (West is really better known for his speaking ability than for the force or clarity of his ideas). Yet today’s black intellectuals have more money, more opportunities, more venues than black intellectuals of the previous generations had: W.E.B Du Bois, E. F. Franklin Frazier, Harold Cruse, James Baldwin, etc.
I have noted over the years that this generation of black intellectuals has been very successful at marketing themselves as “public intellectuals” while, in reality, being “market intellectuals,” selling attitude or acting as native informants with flavah. Others, like Houston Baker, have expressed a sense of “betrayal” regarding black intellectuals selling out the intellectual/activism legacy of one of the most influential liberal thinkers of the 20th century, MLK.
For years one could find black intellectuals, especially academics, mining the field of so-called cultural studies, constantly pimping black culture’s pop nuggets, especially hip-hop. This was due to the fact that it was far easier to talk about hip-hop than to reassess the last 40 years of the post-civil era, and far more lucrative than trying to map out what to do beyond civil rights.
Now, I really don’t consider Herbert or Winfrey “influential liberal thinkers.” I don’t find Herbert to be an engaging writer or thinker. Certainly not Winfrey; however, I do consider her to be a force for good.
West shoulder qualify as one, but I’ve always considered him a very slick con artist who gives the appearance of being intellectual; he performs as one, without offering anything of substance (see below).
If you have to come up with a black intellectual, West fits the caricature of what a “progressive” or “liberal” thinker is suppose to be.
In my mind, an “influential thinker,” liberal or conservative, has to be a man or woman who actually expresses, deals with, exchanges and challenges ideas. Such a person has to have a medium—books, newspaper, television, blogs, pulpit, lecture hall, etc—in which ideas are presented and expressed. To some degree, a thinker should also be able to synthesis ideas or develop new or original insights or interpretations, or break them down to such a degree that makes them more intelligible to others. Such a person has to have a depth of knowledge within his or her field, or has a broad general knowledge in order to engage other ideas.
I’ve often felt that today’s generation of black intellectuals lack this, especially academics like West and Michael Eric Dyson (West is really better known for his speaking ability than for the force or clarity of his ideas). Yet today’s black intellectuals have more money, more opportunities, more venues than black intellectuals of the previous generations had: W.E.B Du Bois, E. F. Franklin Frazier, Harold Cruse, James Baldwin, etc.
I have noted over the years that this generation of black intellectuals has been very successful at marketing themselves as “public intellectuals” while, in reality, being “market intellectuals,” selling attitude or acting as native informants with flavah. Others, like Houston Baker, have expressed a sense of “betrayal” regarding black intellectuals selling out the intellectual/activism legacy of one of the most influential liberal thinkers of the 20th century, MLK.
For years one could find black intellectuals, especially academics, mining the field of so-called cultural studies, constantly pimping black culture’s pop nuggets, especially hip-hop. This was due to the fact that it was far easier to talk about hip-hop than to reassess the last 40 years of the post-civil era, and far more lucrative than trying to map out what to do beyond civil rights.
A few years ago, in 2004, I wrote this unpublished piece:
"Brain Dead in Black America: The Critical Failure of Black Intellectuals in Post-Soul America":
Last December while on a “Pass the Mic” tour, which featured Tavis Smiley, Cornel West and Michael Eric Dyson, the question of why Al Sharpton did not have a stronger organization in the 2004 election campaign was raised by a phone- caller on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show.
The general consensus, after all three expressed their “love” and admiration for the reverend, was that Sharpton was the victim of a series of actions to which he couldn’t be entirely held accountable, meaning Jesse Jackson not leaving behind a strong organizational legacy or the general state of black leadership. Most interesting, however, is that Dyson had earlier mentioned Sharpton’s style and rhetorical flair stemming from the black church.
Yet not one of them thought that this may have been the problem: that black political leaders, from the black church charismatic tradition, tend not to establish strong organizational mechanisms to ensure a continuance of political efforts or the promotion of ideas beyond the political season. That neither West nor Dyson, supposedly “two of America’s most important social thinkers,” experts on black affairs and culture, as touted by Smiley himself, failed to acknowledge or even recognize this tendency of African American political culture says a great deal.
Yet one Dead White Male provides some insight into “charismatic authority”:
The general consensus, after all three expressed their “love” and admiration for the reverend, was that Sharpton was the victim of a series of actions to which he couldn’t be entirely held accountable, meaning Jesse Jackson not leaving behind a strong organizational legacy or the general state of black leadership. Most interesting, however, is that Dyson had earlier mentioned Sharpton’s style and rhetorical flair stemming from the black church.
Yet not one of them thought that this may have been the problem: that black political leaders, from the black church charismatic tradition, tend not to establish strong organizational mechanisms to ensure a continuance of political efforts or the promotion of ideas beyond the political season. That neither West nor Dyson, supposedly “two of America’s most important social thinkers,” experts on black affairs and culture, as touted by Smiley himself, failed to acknowledge or even recognize this tendency of African American political culture says a great deal.
Yet one Dead White Male provides some insight into “charismatic authority”:
In contrast to any kind of bureaucratic organization of offices, the charismatic structure knows nothing of a form or an ordered procedure of appointment or dismissal. It knows no regulated ‘career’, ‘advancement,’ ‘salary,’ or regulated and expert training of the holder of charisma or of his aids. It knows no agency of control or appeal, no local bailiwicks or exclusive functional jurisdictions; no does it embrace permanent institutions like our bureaucratic ‘departments,’ which are independent of persons and of purely personal charisma.
Interestingly, another scholar’s view echoed that of the above, but was about black charismatic authority and the black church. He wrote:
[T]he major organizations among black Americans, the Christian churches, followed a polity farthest removed from modern bureaucratic and hierarchical forms of organization. In this sense, the organizational form of most Afro-American churches, charismatic and often autocratic in leadership, neither promoted nor encouraged widespread respect for and acquisition of bureaucratic skills requisite for accountable leadership and institutional longevity. In short, the Christian churches’ organizational form imposed constraints on the administrative capabilities and institutional capacities of black people.
The first passage was from Max Weber, renowned German sociologist, famous for The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism; the second passage is from Cornel West’s own book, Prophesy Deliverance!, which he apparently doesn’t remember writing.
Both West and Dyson represent the role of today’s black intellectual; supposedly critical thinkers but essentially “market intellectuals.” They sell attitude….
Both West and Dyson represent the role of today’s black intellectual; supposedly critical thinkers but essentially “market intellectuals.” They sell attitude….
***
So, does the lack of influential black liberal thinkers say more about the circles that people like Ritholtz travel in or refer to?
Is this a problem of black liberal thinkers not having the right kind of platform to present their ideas?
Or, is this merely the reality that black liberal thinkers really don’t have much to offer regarding the pressing issues of the day?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Salon.com
Comments
(As for others, it could be because they haven't any selected friends on OS.)
Rated.
Surely, new voices have emerged from underground that African-Americans recognize in this area, right? If not, what factors, in your opinion, have contributed to the cavernous intellectual absence?
More important than making a list is the stimulation of evolving exposure of either liberal or conservative thought representing all areas of society, ... which your article does. A little thinking about thinking.
Extending or agitating dialogue educates all of us.
This was well written, articulate, and truly thought provoking.
And the hostility is profound, because to be a black liberal, you have to confront black conservatism directly, and the conservative component of black society is deep, entrenched, and defining in a great many ways.
Once you get past (a rather shallow view of ) civil rights, you're talking about a huge number of downright reactionary elements.
The only thing black people want to know these days is how to get our hands on the prosperity we see floating in front of our eyes.
If you can figure out how to engage an audience by showing them the connection between intellectual development and the continuation of prosperity, you might have something.
And please, let's not forget Manning Marable or Henry Gates or bell hooks.
What do you think of John McWhorter? I've found his writing to be very interesting.
What's a "black liberal thinker" --as opposed to a liberal thinker who happens to be black-- and from whence does their "influence" flow?
In another perverse irony of racism, the influence of black thinkers, liberal or conservative, is primarily a function of how well the are presumed to "represent" the thinking of the race itself. (Even black conservatives are only as good as how much they challenge or just plain piss off the generally liberal "representatives" of the race.)
As one commentator noted, there are a great many black liberal intellectuals that could have been on the list, including Stanley Crouch, Nelson George, Greg Tate and, most notably for my point, Malcolm Gladwell. These frequently brilliant thinkers come from several different places and at least two different generations. But what they have in common is they are generally uncomfortable at "representing the race" in their speaking and writing. Without commenting on their politics or their degrees of nationalist bona fides, these guys (and I know there are a bunch of women in this category too) are liberal intellectuals first and black second.
Sometimes its a very close second, consistent with the Civil Rights generation tradition.
But the newest generation, the one for whom the war for the freedom to be themselves was fought, is less and less likely to be associated with the "black community", much less be mistaken for having influence within the community.
That's what I meant by perverse irony of racism. Malcolm Gladwell would have a much easier time getting on a non-restricted list of influential American thinkers than getting on the black list because, apart from his oft noted bi-raciality, he has slipped the bonds of race identification.
It's one thing, a great thing, to shatter boundaries that confine black thinkers to black subjects (think astrophysicist Neal DeGrasse Tyson). But the price is exclusion from consideration on the kind of lists that still confine and concern the imaginations of white America.
Once you can't answer the question "what are the Negroes thinking" (as Stanley Crouch might put it) then your just another black person who has to be twice as good to get half the recognition.
I think there are quite a few Black liberal intellectuals out there, but they are not public (read: name brand) intellectuals.
I found most of that list offered just wrong, and let's not even talk about the lack of women, therefore women of color, on that list.
Oh, and come on, anything Tavis is associated with isn't going to be that 1) liberal, 2) intellectual, 3)idea-driven or 4) progressive (in all manners of the term). Stop playing, LOL
We are talking about Black progressive/liberal intellectuals, right? Not just any Black prof whose written books?