Patrick Iber
illustrated C.V.: writings and photos
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Migration
I'm migrating this site and its content over to patrickiber.org. I won't be updating here any more, so click over.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
My 15 minutes, one year later
My latest column for Inside Higher Ed updates my viral essay from March 2014 about the job market, and asks us to use a bit of Rawls to think about our fate:
And for those of us who do (or will, in my case) have the privilege of working as part of an increasingly rare model that supports our activity as researchers, I have increasingly found myself thinking about what we do and do not deserve, in the manner of the philosopher John Rawls. For Rawls, we cannot possibly deserve our lot in life. This is for many reasons: our skills and attitudes depend on accidents of birth and parentage, for example. More fundamentally, the qualities that we happen to possess are (or are not) valued in certain ways by our particular social arrangement at our particular point in time.
Rawls, famously, suggests that we should design a just society from behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing which position in it we will occupy after our birth. Under these conditions, Rawls thinks, we would grant everyone basic rights, and those inequalities that exist would exist only insofar as they benefited those least well-off. It would be hard to argue, looking only at the system of higher education employment that we have today, that it would meet any kind of Rawlsian standard of justice.
Those of us who have had good fortune to be on the tenure track need to be humble about our luck. We have indeed worked hard for our position, so it can be difficult to feel that we don’t deserve it. But the number of astonishingly talented people who also deserve what we have should shame us from such feelings. We are not behind a veil of ignorance, and we cannot build a new order from scratch. But we should make sure that we are attentive to ways that we can use our positions to improve conditions for those who are least well-off. We cannot deserve our privilege, and they deserve no less.
Thursday, March 05, 2015
Review of Deborah Cohn's "The Latin American Literary Boom"
A review I wrote of Deborah Cohn's The Latin American Literary Boom and U.S. Nationalism during the Cold War that will appear in the journal The Latin Americanist.
If the search for the great (North)
American novel goes on, the great Latin American novel was thought discovered
in 1970. That was the year that the English translation of Gabriel García
Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude
appeared and became a sensation in the English-speaking world. It was the
second work by a Latin American writer to make the New York Times bestseller list (after Jorge Amado’s Gabriela, Clove and Cinnamon), and it represented
the height of the “boom” in Latin American letters. The literature of the boom
generation, for good and for ill, continues to provide readers from around the
world with metaphors and points of reference for understanding Latin American
politics, society, and history. But, as Deborah Cohn argues in this subtle and
rewarding book, the boom happened neither precisely by accident nor by design.
It was the complex result of multiple factors, including the work of Spanish
publishing houses and literary agents, the solidarity of a small group of
talented Latin American writers, the international appeal of the Cuban
Revolution, and the Cold War politics of institutions and foundations in the
United States.
It is the U.S. Cold War politics of
the boom that are the primary subject of Cohn’s book, and they form a
particularly rich vein for thinking through problems of cultural transmission. Most
of the authors of the boom were resolutely left-wing—sympathizers and defenders
of the Cuban Revolution. García Márquez would be famous for his decades-long
friendship with Fidel Castro. And many of the novels of the boom explored the
decadence of the Latin American bourgeoisie and had clear anti-capitalist
interpretations. Yet U.S.-based foundations and organizations with
anti-revolutionary Cold War outlooks contributed to making the boom possible.
As Cohn writes, “Latin American literature’s circulation in the United States
thus paradoxically benefited from both hegemonic and anti-hegemonic forces—that
is, from endeavors that stemmed from commitments to anti-revolutionary and
revolutionary politics alike.” (4)
To make the argument, Cohn moves
through investigations of a number of institutions that had Cold War agendas at
work in the background but were made into something more complex than that by
their participants. She begins with a description of the McCarran-Walter Act of
1952, which denied visas to foreigners with suspected ties to Communism, a
provision that caused intermittent problems for many Latin American writers. The
subsequent three chapters cover the meeting of International P.E.N. in New York
in 1966, the growth of Latin American literature studies in U.S. universities
in the 1960s, the translations sponsored by grants from the Association of
American University Presses, and the Ford- and Rockefeller-funded Center for
Inter-American Relations (CIAR). The foundations that sponsored these
organizations had Cold War objectives—P.E.N. even received some money from CIA
fronts.
But in all cases, Cohn weaves
complex arguments about the consequences of institutional action, seeing less
capacity for ideological control than previous scholars who have examined related
topics. The P.E.N. meeting, for example, was a key moment for various Latin
American writers, many of them on the left, to meet each other and consolidate
the connections that sustained the “boom” as a community. And the CIAR,
similarly, promoted left-wing writers and perspectives. In Cohn’s words, “Cold
War efforts to neutralize the Communist threat motivated public and private
support for the cultural production of a region of great political interest to
the United States, creating a space for authors associated with the rising tide
of Marxism in Latin America and, by extension, for the expression and
dissemination in their works of the ideology that the state was trying to
eradicate.” (149)
This is an admirably subtle, and,
in my view, convincing argument. But perhaps it is not as surprising as it
first appears: both the Ford and Rockefeller foundations were going through politically
progressive moments in the late 1960s and 1970s, and practiced some
“self-criticism” regarding their sponsorship of earlier “Cold War” projects.
Emir Rodríguez Monegal, who edited the magazine Review for CIAR for a time, was fresh off of the exposure of the
CIA connections of his previous effort—the infamous Mundo Nuevo—and was eager to demonstrate that he had been an
independent socialist all along. And it is not clear that the “boom” literature
would always read to North American audiences as “Marxist”—as Cohn points out,
modernist literary techniques that were widely used by “boom” writers like
Gárcia Márquez were associated with anti-Communist politics in the United
States, though not in Latin America. But Cohn’s book is an important and
rewarding study that should be of interest to scholars from multiple
disciplines, and even to those outside Latin American studies who work on Cold
War institutions. She has succeeded in making the politics of the boom simultaneously
more complex, and more intelligible.
Labels:
Cold War,
Intellectuals,
Latin America,
writing
Thursday, November 06, 2014
Review of Phillip Deery's "Red Apple"
I did a review of Phillip Deery's new book "Red Apple" for the Australasian Journal of American Studies.
In the absence of any objection, I'll post the review below.
Red Apple. By Phillip Deery, Fordham University Press,
New York, 2014, pp. xi + 252.
Few areas of historical scholarship are as contentious as that of
American Communist history, for the questions that it seeks to answer are still
politically charged. How much of a threat was Communism to American society,
and what kind of response was justified as a result? Scholars run the risk of
being seen as apologists for Stalinism on the one hand, or for McCarthyism on
the other. The great contribution of Red
Apple is to show the value of going small to address these big problems: in
five tight and partially self-contained chapters, it uses intimate portraits of
individuals to give some texture to the period of the early Cold War. The
result is a careful and balanced history that shows us how lives were shaped by
the politics of the era.
Each of the five
chapters in Red Apple stands on its
own, but there are some unifying themes. Each takes place in the city of New
York at the dawn of Cold War repression, from 1945 through to the early 1950s.
The introduction states that the book is about ‘the effects of McCarthyism,’
although this is truer of some chapters than others. [1] The first three chapters
are effective, though not necessarily unsurprising, accounts of anti-Communist
repression. The first chapter deals with the case of Edward Barsky, a surgeon
at Beth Israel Hospital and member of the Joint Anti-Fascist Rescue Committee,
a body created in 1942 to aid Spanish Republican refugees then in France. The
JAFRC came to be seen by the FBI and other agencies of the U.S. government as a
Communist ‘front,’ and members of its executive committee, including Barsky,
were held in contempt of Congress for refusing to disclose their donor lists.
Barsky served his prison term, only to find on release that his medical license
was not renewed. The second chapter concerns the well-known Communist writer,
Howard Fast, who was also jailed as a member of the board of the JAFRC and
similarly found opportunities closed to him after his release. The third
chapter deals with the less known cases of two professors at New York
University, Lyman Bradley and Edwin Burgum, who were fired from NYU after
invoking their Fifth Amendment rights before Congress. Of this group, Fast and
Burgum were members of the Communist Party, but Bradley and Barsky were not. Yet
they were all criminals in the eyes of the government, and, in a climate of
McCarthyism, their troubles extended to their relationships with private institutions.
These three chapters nicely illustrate the manner in which different government
and private agencies worked “together,” even without coordination, to punish those
who were perceived as a threat to national security because of their political
commitments.
The final two portraits, of the
composer Dmitri Shostakovich and the lawyer O. John Rogge, are somewhat
different in tone and composition. (They are based on excellent articles that
have appeared in American Communist
History and Cold War History,
respectively.) These are not straightforward cases of McCarthyist repression,
but instead chronicle the difficulties that the Cold War climate created for
independent thinkers. As a Russian, Shostakovich would seem an outlier among
the book’s major figures, but he appeared in New York as part of the Cultural
and Scientific Congress for World Peace, better known as the ‘Waldorf
Conference’ of 1949, at the behest of Stalin. (‘Peace’ became a major theme of
Soviet propaganda during the early Cold War, though Deery argues that the
Waldorf Conference was only partially organized by Communists.) There, Shostakovich
had to engage in humiliating self-criticism he did not believe in order to
safeguard his own life and that of his family. O. John Rogge, meanwhile, was
the JAFRC’s lawyer, concerned in the late 1940s with what he saw as creeping
fascism in the United States, and also a frequent guest at the Soviet-aligned Peace
events. Yet he was also an independent thinker, and generally the only delegate
at ‘Peace’ events who would criticize both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. (instead
of only the former) for their belligerence. In 1950, Rogge made an open break
with the Soviet peace groups and formed his own Independent Americans for Peace.
He was seen as a traitor by the Communists but not fully trusted by the
professional anti-Communists, and he met with little success. In addition to
advancing what little is known about the Soviet-aligned Peace movement, these
two chapters show thoughtful individuals trying to engage with the ethical
dilemmas of the early Cold War, and will be of particular interest to
historians of the period. They should also be useful in the classroom, where
they will give students much material to use and think about.
The virtues of the book’s rather narrow focus do also entail some
limits. The research is thorough and comprehensive but perhaps not expansive,
drawing extensively from New York University’s Tamiment Archives and from FBI
files that the author obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. The
sources are perfectly appropriate for a study of post-war repression, but they can’t
contain any great revelations of Soviet thinking or action. And though the book
does not aim to be a comprehensive look at the phenomenon of McCarthyism, all
of the major characters are white, male professionals.
Yet taken together, the multiple biographies of Red Apple make an important argument. There really were Communist
‘front’ organizations, but, as Deery puts its, the idea of the Communist
‘front’ is ‘problematic, not axiomatic.’ Some were more tightly controlled than
others, and organizations like the JAFRC were ‘consistent with, but not rigidly
determined by the doctrines of party leaders in New York and Moscow.’ [12] Deery’s
is not an argument for the equivalence of Stalinism and McCarthyism: he makes
plain that, of all the characters, only Shostakovich’s life was in danger. Dissent
in the United States did not mean death. Yet these well-drawn portraits serve
as a kind of existence proof: these lives were damaged by McCarthyist anti-Communism,
and no one was made safer for it. That in itself is an important result.
PATRICK IBER
University of California, Berkeley
Monday, October 27, 2014
Syllabus for Spring 2015: Ideologies of Social Justice in the Twentieth Century
Political Economy 160
Ideologies of Social Justice in
the Twentieth Century
Professor Patrick Iber
Spring 2015 / MW 4-5:30 / 56 Barrows
Office Hours: Stephens 140; Friday 12-2
The twentieth century has been called the “century of the
intellectual” because of the important role that men and women of letters
played in debating, creating, and legitimizing the intense ideological conflict
that defined the era. This course will use their writings to examine the
ideological foundations of the century’s major political movements: from
Communism, fascism, and libertarianism to feminism and anti-colonialism. How
did each movement define social justice and injustice? What historical circumstances
created and shaped their beliefs? And what should we learn from the bloody
twentieth century’s debates about political economy when thinking about what we
should do in the twenty-first?
Course texts:
Terry Eagleton, Ideology:
An Introduction, Verso, 2007, ISBN 1844671437,
978-1844671434, $25.
Csezlaw Milosz, The
Captive Mind, Vintage, 1990, ISBN 0679728562,
978-0679728566, $13.
Clayborne Carson (ed.), The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Warner Books, 2001, ISBN 0446676500,
978-0446676502, $16.
Aimé Césaire, Discourse
on Colonialism, Monthly Review Press, 2001, ISBN 1583670254,
978-1583670255, $10.
James C. Scott, Two
Cheers for Anarchism, Princeton University Press, 2014, ISBN 0691161038, 978-0691161037,
$13.
Week 1: Introduction
W, January 21:
Introduction to the class
Week 2: What is Ideology?
M, Jan. 26: No class meeting
W, Jan. 28: What is
ideology?: discussion of Eagleton’s book
Terry Eagleton, Ideology: A Very Brief Introduction
Week 3: Major Ideas in
Political Economy I: Communism
M Feb. 2: Lecture:
Communism and the Beginning of the Short Twentieth Century
W Feb. 4: Discussion
Lenin, The State and Revolution, Chapter 5, http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm
Rosa Luxemburg, The Russian Revolution, Chapter 6, “The
Problem of Dictatorship,” http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch06.htm
Stalin’s conversation with
H.G. Wells, 1934:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/h-g-wells-it-seems-me-i-am-more-left-you-mr-stalin
Week 4: Major Ideas in
Political Economy II: Fascism
M Feb. 9: Lecture: The
Logic of Fascism’s Rise
W Feb. 11: Discussion
Giovanni Gentile and Benito
Mussolini, “The Doctrine of Fascism”
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
F.T. Marinetti, “The
Futurist Manifesto” http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/T4PM/futurist-manifesto.html
Week 5: Major Ideas in
Political Economy III: Anti-fascism
M Feb. 16: UNIVERSITY
HOLIDAY
W, Feb. 18: Ken Loach, Land and Freedom [film in class]
Week 6: Major Ideas in
Political Economy IV: Market Fundamentalism / Conservative Libertarianism
M, Feb. 23: Lecture: What
does conservatism seek to conserve?
W, Feb. 25: Discussion
Friedrich Von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, [condensed version,
pdf available], pp. 39-89
Ayn Rand, Anthem, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1250/1250-h/1250-h.htm
Week 7: Major Ideas in
Political Economy V: Liberalism
M, March 2: Lecture: What
is liberal about liberalism?
W, March 4: Discussion
Isaiah Berlin, “Two
Concepts of Liberty”
Edward Shils, “The End of
Ideology?,” http://www.unz.org/Pub/Encounter-1955nov-00052
Michael Sandel, Justice, Chapter 6 on John Rawls, pp. 140-166
Week 8: The Self and the
Global I: Ex-Communism
M, March 9: Lecture:
Ideologies and the Cold War
W, March 11: Discussion
Czeslaw Milosz, The Captive Mind
Week 9: The Self and the
Global II: Feminism
M, March 16: Lecture: The
Gender Line
W, March 18: Discussion
Woolf, A Room of One’s Own
[especially chapters 3 and 6]
Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, Introduction and Chapter
1, http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/
SPRING BREAK, March 23-27
Week 10: The Self and the
Global III: Decolonization and Third World Liberation
M, March 30: Lecture: The
Core and the Periphery
W, April 1: Discussion
Aimé Césaire, Discourse on Colonialism
Week 11: The Self and the
Global IV: Civil rights and anti-racism
M, April 6: Lecture: The
Color Line
W, April 8: Discussion
Carson (ed.), Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Week 12: Ideas Shaping the
Contemporary World I: Late Neoconservatism
M, April 13: Film: Arguing the World
W April 15: Discussion
Jeane Kirkpatrick,
“Dictatorships and Double Standards”
William Kristol and Robert
Kagan, “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 1996, http://carnegieendowment.org/1996/07/01/toward-neo-reaganite-foreign-policy
National Security Strategy
of the United States of America, 2002, http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf
Week 13: Ideas Shaping the
Contemporary World II: Environmentalism
M, April 20: Lecture: The
Idea of Environmental Justice
W, April 22: Discussion
Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, pp. 1-37
Garrett Hardin, “The
Tragedy of the Commons,” Science 162
(13 December 1968): 1243-1248.
Naomi Klein, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/23/climate-change-fight-of-our-lives-naomi-klein
Chris Hayes, “The New
Abolitionism,” http://www.thenation.com/article/179461/new-abolitionism
Week 14: Ideas Shaping the Contemporary World
III: Post-libertarianism
M April 27: Lecture: The
State and the Legacy of the Short Twentieth Century
W April 29: Discussion
James C. Scott, Two Cheers for Anarchism
RRR Week, May 4-8
Final paper due: May
15
Insofar as grades interfere with your learning, you should
ignore them. The most important thing you can do in a semester is to work to
improve as a reader, writer, and thinker. But since we must do grades, this is
how they will be determined:
1) Participation: 24%. Good participation is thoughtful and considerate
of your role within a community of learners.
2) 11%: discussion document. Once during the semester, you
will sign up to bring in a primary document relevant to that week’s readings.
It could be a piece of art, music, or a document, but it should be carefully
chosen to illuminate a significant debate or dilemma regarding the ideology
under examination that week. You can send it to me to be displayed on screen,
or you can make copies, depending on what would be appropriate. You will
briefly explain your object to the class (just two or three minutes, please!)
and pose a question for brief discussion. One presentation will take place at
the end of Monday’s class, and one at the beginning of discussion on Wednesday.
3) 32%: two short papers. Twice during the semester, you
will write a short paper of approximately 4 pages (1000 words). At least one of
the papers needs to be done by week seven of the class. The short paper should
imagine what that week’s thinkers would identify as one of the major problems
facing the world today, and how they would want to respond to that challenge. I
will comment on your first paper and grade it on a credit/no credit basis. The
second paper will be given a letter grade.
4) 33% final project. Your final should be a medium-length
research project. You can present it either as a traditional paper, as a web
site, or as an art project. Written projects should be about 12-15 pages or the
online equivalent. One possible final project would involve finding an
intellectual or literary review. Examine it in its most important year(s). What was its project, politically and
aesthetically? How did it expect to
achieve its goals? Who contributed to it
and why? As a useful exercise, I would
encourage you to do this without
consulting the secondary literature. An alternative final paper structure would
involve writing a short intellectual biography of a person of interest to you.
An art project or performance is a riskier final and would have to be connected
directly to the themes of the class. Whatever you choose, please make the time
to visit me at least briefly during office hours to talk about your plans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)