The hero cult in academia

 

I am fascinated to an unhealthy degree by academic gossip and the subtweeting of all those nesting high fliers. Since the appearance of the letter in support of Comaroff, signed by the Harvard stars, and the appearance of the oopsy letter of retraction signed by the same Harvard stars making clear that their only mistake was idealism and their belief in the higher things mind you, (rather than endorsing a sex pest and the system that protects him, cause that would be a too literal reading of their literal words), there’s been abundant spillover and a joyous run on vows to non-cite the likes of Jill Lepore and Henry Gates and Paul Farmer and other “heroes”. This was followed by Paula Chakravartty’s account of academic bullying by one of Comaroff’s supporters, Arjun Appadurai, which lends so much veracity to my prejudices against academic highfliers that it is almost a nightmare come true – really, these people are, in their lives, Profiles in Pecking Order Pecksniffery. I’ve known this from forever – I remember talking to a man who was leading a search committee at U.T. in the 1980s who told me that he simply tossed applications that were not from people from the big four universities, thus conveniently narrowing everything down.

Narrowing down – with “no alternative”, these are the slogans that ride mankind.

Anyway, in the hubbub, there is a certain charismatic gleam that is of interest to me. For there is a strong streak, in academia as in Hollywood, of looking for “heroes”. The citation of Appadurai or of x, y, or z is often not a monument to Weberian rationality, but a monument to Weberian charisma: the citation is a temple to a local hero.

The hero is a character type that has been on the upswing for some time. Its nemesis, the anti-hero, came out of the closet in the sixties and seventies, and seemed for a while to harsh everybody’s mellow. I have a very strong sense, from having experienced this a bit, that Derrida was so shocking to the old timers in the eighties by seeming to want to dispense with heroism all together – which of course turned out not to be the case, as Derrida was made into a hero himself, and so on and so forth. We know the terms of the contract.

The hero figure is inseparable from the roots of modernity - it is hard to see how the work of Enlightenment can be done without it. Which is why, contemplating this storm in a teacup among the whole pyramid of teacups and blood that lords it over us all, I’m thinking of Balasar Gracian.

Gracian’s first book to acquire a European reputation was The Hero. It was translated into English in the seventeenth century, and into French in the early 18th century by a translator who remarked on Gracian’s resemblance to La Bruyere. A book with such a title, one might expect, is an essay on heroes that one finds in history or literature. But this isn’t so – the book is in a sense a how to book about how to become a hero, or great man. Gracian worked in the field of worldly wisdom – his distant heirs now retail banalities about “leadership science”.

The heirs are writing for an audience of essentially uneducated businessmen, and are often as lacking in education themselves, and make up for this last point by being ardent collectors of the inspirational sayings of the famous. Context, of course, isn’t the point – leadership disdains context, which is full of obstacles and other people’s objections, and marches proudly into war, or a higher ROI, with the conviction that the long term will simply be taken up with collecting various sayings of the leadership that did it, to inspire others, and will pay no attention to the blood and guts on the field, the fired help, the long term disasters born out of intoxicating short term gains.

Leadership, in other words, is a royal screwing.

But we can’t blame Gracian for this sad state of affairs, since he was evidently intent on giving advice on how to become a universal man (suitably Catholicized). One of the properties of the hero that Gracian promoted was what his English 17th century translator called “gusto” – evidently, taste had not yet grown out of its vulgar accountrements of tongue and appetite at this point:

“Every great capacitie is ever hard to be pleased: The Gusto must as well be improv'd as the wit. Both rais'd and improv'd are like Twinns begotten by capacity and coheirs of excellency: Never sublime wit yet bred a flat or abject Gusto. There are perfections like the sun, others like light. The Eagle makes love to the sun. The poor frozen fly destroyes her self in the flames of a Candle. The height of a Capacity is best taken by the elevation of a Gusto.”

Gracian’s Gusto operates though the logic of praise and dispraise. The taste of the hero is perfect in as much as its praise and its scorn are appropriate to the object – and there’s the rub. There’s a crooked line under the skin of the culture that leads from Gusto to fandom, or from the universal man to the fan. The world of like and dislike – our ultimate buttons – have simplified and rationalized Gusto until it works for anything. Until, I think, it gets in front of everything.

The poor frozen fly, in contrast to the hero, “destroyes herself” – o that gendered fly – by having, as Chakravartty points out, the wrong pedigree. Or by existing as a “her” – in a higher education system that is much like the Democratic party, dominated at the top by old white men and women who depend on and despise the intersectional oppressed that vote for them. When the poor flies, however, start to give up the hero cult: then things get interesting.