MANUFACTURING OUR WORLD: A SYMBOLIC CREATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Harry Targ

https://youtu.be/7ucF2IeJTfE  On spectacle, cultural hegemony, capitalism, and the media.

We are living in the midst of fiery debates about the manipulative effects various social media have over our lives. The media portray with justifiable outrage the ways in which Facebook and other electronic platforms project images of reality to serve political and commercial interests. While the methods are seemingly more powerful today, these same media outlets forget that print and old-fashioned television and radio have been manipulating the public mind for decades. And the Facebook monopoly looks a lot like the consolidation of print media (Gannett owns 250 newspapers for example) and a handful of global corporations dominating television and radio.

In addition, we learn that the foreign policy/military/covert intervention complex have been strategizing about new forms of war planning (reference to a recent NATO report below). Along with preparedness for nuclear war, conventional war, hybrid war, and cyber war, we now are engaged in building a capacity for “cognitive war.” The latter refers to ways in which information, symbols, and myths can be disseminated all across the face of the globe. The cognitive warriors draw upon psychology and biology to figure out ways to shape people’s consciousness. The imagery of the “fog machine” in Ken Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest describes well how inmates in an insane asylum are blinded from seeing reality clearly.

Insights from Social Science

Some time ago the eminent political scientist Murray Edelman wrote a book entitled The Symbolic Uses of Politics. In it he postulated that most people experience the political world not through concrete reality but through emotional symbols. For example, the classic way in which people relate to their political institutions is through the flag of their nation. Americans viewing the flag see images of men in combat fighting for freedom or men and women standing in line waiting to vote for their preferred political candidates. A colorful cloth with stars and stripes gets transformed in our consciousness into a rich, glamorized history even when the emotive images are in direct contradiction to people’s lives.

In addition, Edelman suggests the ways in which the emotional symbols get embedded and reinforced in the consciousness of peoples by borrowing from anthropological writings on myth and ritual. Myths are networks of emotional symbols that collectively tell stories that explain “reality.” Rituals reinforce in behavior the mythology of public life. We need only reflect on the pledge to the flag that opens elementary and secondary school class sessions in rich and poor communities alike and the singing of the national anthem at athletic events.

Edelman pointed out that emotional symbols (he called them “condensational”) provide the primary way people connect with the world beyond immediate experience. The extraordinary complexity of the modern world is reduced to a series of powerful symbols such as the threats of “international communism” or “terrorism.”

Media analyst Todd Gitlin wrote about “media frames,” that is the ways in which media construct the symbols and myths that shape information about the world. Print media shapes what we read, who are regarded as authoritative spokespersons, and what visual images shape our thinking about countries, issues such as war and peace, trade, investment, and the global climate. Television emphasizes visual images rather than words. Whatever the media form, points of view are embedded in the words and images communicated.

Writers such as Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, and Robert McChesney accept implicitly Edelman’s counsel that people experience the world indirectly and usually in emotional form. They also assume, as does Gitlin, that what we read, see, and hear about the world is framed for us. They go further to suggest that what Marx called the “false conceptions about ourselves” in symbols, myths, rituals, and frames are usually the product of ruling class interests.

Branding Purdue University

On October 27, 2021 a story appeared in Purdue Today, “Purdue Only University in Fast Company Magazine’s Inaugural List of ‘Brands That Matter’.” The story indicated that Purdue University was honored as the only university among companies and organizations that were named by 'Brands That Matter' “that give people compelling reasons to care about them, offer inspiration for others to buy in, and authentically communicate their mission and ideals.” “…Purdue joins 95 internationally recognized brands, including Nike, Zoom and Yeti and other large multinational conglomerates….”

President Mitch Daniels, Purdue University, praised the “entire Purdue community” for Purdue’s branding being singled out. “You can’t have a great brand without a great product, and our marketing team has worked hard to sell the world what this university stands for and how our faculty, staff and students impact lives.”

Branding stories that made the “news” included those on data science, the creation of Purdue’s polytechnic high schools in Indiana cities separate from public school systems, frozen tuition,  successes in dealing with the pandemic, and admitting the largest incoming class in the university’s history despite a housing shortage.

The article also added that:

-Purdue was “propelling the world forward through continued discovery and innovation, inclusive collaboration and a culture of persistence that leaves nothing undone.”

-as quoted by the editor-in-chief of Fast Company the company “is excited to highlight companies and organizations that have built brands with deep meaning and connections to the customers they serve.”

-the Senior Vice-President for Marketing and Communications, Purdue University, said that “students and their families trust Purdue to provide an extraordinary educational experience as demonstrated by record-setting numbers of applications and our highest-ever enrollments….” Purdue provides “…a clear sense of rigor and collaboration, transformative educational opportunities and innovative approaches to accessing and affording a valuable Purdue degree.…”

The article ends with a paragraph about Purdue University “developing practical solutions to today’s toughest challenges;” becoming one of the most “innovative universities in the United States”; providing “world-changing research and out-of-this world discovery;” offering “hands-on and online real-world learning;” and finally providing a “transformative education to all” with frozen tuition and graduating students with a debt free education.

We live in a World of Cognitive Warfare

 A recent document prepared by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)  suggested that “in cognitive warfare, the human mind becomes the battlefield. The aim is to change not only what people think, but how they think and act. Waged successfully, it shapes and influences individual and group beliefs and behaviors to favor an aggressor's tactical or strategic objectives.”

https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2021/05/20/countering-cognitive-warfare-awareness-and-resilience/index.html)

This NATO document, of course, is addressing the world of international relations but the concept of “cognitive warfare” seems to parallel efforts “to change not only what people think, but how they think and act.” This project animates the efforts of media conglomerates-print, electronic, social media platforms. Changing how people think and act has its historic roots in campaigns to convince citizens to support wars, consume cigarettes, forget climate disasters, and to find flaws in populations because of class, race, gender, sexual preference, and/or religion. The processes of “branding” are similar in all realms of human experience.

Perhaps challenging the process of “branding” should be on the agenda for all those who seek a more humane society. Break up “branding machines.” Democratize the ability to describe and express experiences. And, in the educational sphere, teach students to analyze brands and to evaluate their relative accuracy.

Another World Was — and Still Is — Possible (a repost)

 Harry Targ

A powerful concept animated the vision of young people in the 1960s, the idea of community. Many of us came to that decade with little interest in politics. We were not “red diaper” babies but we became outraged by Jim Crow, McCarthyism, and war. Our education had communicated an early version of Margaret Thatcher’s admonition, “there is no alternative,” and our impulses told us then that “another world was possible.”

New and old ideas about a better world began to circulate from college campuses, the streets, some churches, and popular culture. A whole body of engaging literature caught the fancy of young people. For me Paul Goodman’s description of youth growing up in the sterile 1950s, Growing Up Absurd, resonated. He wrote about alternative possibilities in such books as Utopian Essays and Practical Proposals.

Perhaps most startling to a young reader was the earlier analysis Goodman published with his brother Percival, Communitas. In that book the Goodman brothers argued that societies, big and small, were products of values. Architecture and the organization of space, social and political forms, and the ease with which people could communicate and interact with each other varied. And the variations created in space and social forms affected whether communities valued life and sociability or consumption and profit maximization.

The Goodmans opened up new intellectual doors for me. I looked at earlier anarchists, such as Peter Kropotkin, who argued that humans — if not separated by time, space, and power structures — often lived in solidarity with their neighbors. A “mutual aid” principle was natural to human existence. And, as a result “the state” sought to stamp it out and replace it with top down authority.

Martin Buber, in Paths in Utopia , identified a “centralistic political principle” that emerged when groups and states sought control of markets and natural resources and “the most valuable of all goods,” the lives of people who lived with each other changed as “the autonomous relationships become meaningless, personal relationships wither; and the very spirit of [being human] hires itself out as a functionary.” The alternative for Buber was what he called a decentralized social principle, or community which is “never a mere attitude of mind” but of “tribulation and only because of that community of spirit; community of toil and only because of that community of salvation.”

In 1974, I wrote in summation about these theorists and many others that “ the architectural forms and social structures of the Goodmans can profitably be blended with the spiritualism and socialism of Buber to construct a synthesis of all that the utopians and anarchists set out to achieve. The Goodmans show how community can be created in the industrial age and Buber illustrates how the best features of the entire community tradition fit together.”

The ideas of community, empowerment, and social justice spread from these and other sources. They were articulated for the sixties in The Port Huron Statement , written by founders of the Students for a Democratic Society. While written by and for a relatively privileged sector of disenchanted youth in a period of booming economic growth and military expansion, the document spoke to the passion for justice, participation, and community; “…unrealized potential for self-cultivation, self-direction, self-understanding, and creativity.” It called for the creation of “human interdependence” replacing “power rooted in possession, privilege, or circumstance” by “power and uniqueness rooted in love, reflectiveness, reason and creativity.”

By the late sixties many of us were identifying a new society that must be built on core principles. These included:

• local control and participatory democracy
• racial justice
• gender equality
• equitable distribution of resources and the collective product of human labor
• commitments to the satisfaction of minimal basic needs for all of humankind
• the development of an ethic that connects survival to human existence not to specific jobs
• human control over technology
• a new “land ethic” that conceives of humankind as part of nature, not in conflict with it

Many of us began to explore the impediments to the construction of a society based on human scale that celebrated both individual creativity and community. Growing familiarization with the critique of capitalism suggested that the capitalist mode of production, dominant over two-thirds of the world, was based upon the exploitation, oppression, dehumanization, and repression of the vast majority of humankind.

Incorporating an understanding of the workings of capitalism did not contradict the vision that Buber called the decentralized social principle and the many eloquent calls by others for “community.” It did suggest that building a new society entailed class struggle which would manifest itself in factories and fields, in rich and poor countries, and in political venues from the ballot box to the streets. Bringing about positive change was a much more complicated affair than activists originally thought but the sustained and sometimes brutal opposition to our visions validated the general correctness of them.

Today, new generations of activists, along with older ones, are reflecting and participating in diverse social movements in our cities and towns. They observe with enthusiasm the mobilizations, the militancy, and the passion for justice still unfolding in the Middle East. The efforts of Venezuelans, Bolivians, Ecuadorians, and the Cubans who inspired us so much over the years are applauded. Important debates about social market economies, workers’ management of large enterprises, this or that candidate or political party are occurring on the internet and in the streets.

Although the times are so different from the 1960s, perhaps the vision of community that animated our thinking then (which we in turn learned from those who preceded us) may still be relevant for today. Without creating new documents or dogmas perhaps it can be proclaimed that we remain committed to the sanctity of human life, to equality, to popular control of all our institutions, to a reverence for the environment, and to the idea that the best of society comes from our communal efforts to make living better for all.

STAR WARS AT PURDUE

Harry Targ

“Purdue is one of 11 universities initially selected to join the UPP (University Partnership Program). Establishing strategic partnerships with this select set of nationally renowned universities allows the Space Force to recruit and educate a diverse, high-caliber workforce, offer opportunities to advance research in specific areas of interest, and develop a 21st-century, technology-savvy service” (“Space Force, Purdue partner on STEM education, innovation,” Purdue Today, September 29, 2021).

“We are eager to serve the national security interest of this country any way we are asked to do so,” he said. “We’re expanding our capacity. We’re about to do more classified work than Purdue ever has.” Mitch Daniels (https://indianapublicradio.org/news/2021/09/purdue-university-announces-partnership-with-u-s-space-force/)

\

“The promise of aerospace-related jobs that Purdue President Mitch Daniels for years has insisted the university was ripe to get finally landed on Wednesday...Saab will invest $37 million and  employ up to 300 people at a facility expected to make fuselages for the Boeing T-X, advertised as the U.S. Air Force’s next generation jet trainer…. Holcomb (Governor of Indiana) called it “a proud patriotic day for Indiana and its place in advanced manufacturing in the name of cutting-edge national defense.” (Dave Bangert, “Purdue Lands SAAB Plant,” Journal and Courier, May 9, 2019).

 

“Purdue University’s Discovery Park has positioned itself as a paragon of collaborative, interdisciplinary research in AI and its applications to national security. Its Institute for Global Security and Defense Innovation is already answering needs for advanced AI research by delving into areas such as biomorphic robots, automatic target recognition for unmanned aerial vehicles, and autonomous exploration and localization of targets for aerial drones….

It has become apparent that the United States is no longer guaranteed top dog status on the dance card that is the future of war. To maintain military superiority, the focus must shift from traditional weapons of war to advanced systems that rely on AI-based weaponry...we must call upon the government to weave together academia, government and industry for the greater good.” (Tomas Diaz de la Rubia, (former)Vice President Discovery Park, Purdue University “Academia a Crucial Partner for Pentagon’s AI Push,” National Defense Magazine, February 11, 2019).

“President Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first president to grapple with the effect of space technology on international relations and so began championing what is known as the “sanctuary doctrine” of space. Eisenhower put forth the idea that space should be preserved for use by all mankind, with weapons of mass destruction prohibited.”( Gregory Niguidula, “ Trump’s Space Force is a strategic mistake,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, January 21, 2019).

                                                        ******

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan was instituting a military budget that in total was greater than all US military expenditures from the founding of the nation until the 1980s. Military doctrine, in accordance with the huge increase in military spending, shifted from maintaining a capability to deter aggression from other nations, particularly the former Soviet Union, to the development of a first strike capability, that is to be able to strike an enemy first. This shift in policy was coupled with the president claiming that the former Soviet Union constituted an “evil empire,” one that had to be pushed back, weakened, and destroyed.

As part of the reinstitution of a New Cold War with the Soviet Union, after a decade of détente, Reagan announced in a dramatic speech the development of the new Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which became known as the “Star Wars” program. The president claimed that the United States could develop a space-based defensive shield that could protect North America from any attack from a foreign power.

SDI became a boondoggle for the military/industrial complex. Especially universities saw the project as a source of significant increases in revenue. However, large sectors of the scientific community declared that Star Wars was wasteful and technologically impossible to achieve. (Many Purdue professors signed a petition promising not to accept any Star Wars funding).

Along with its lack of feasibility, most strategic analysts questioned the President’s claim that SDI was merely a defensive weapon. They argued, in the context of Reagan’s hostile rhetoric about the Soviet Union and the claim that the US could achieve physical protection from attack, that the Soviets would perceive SDI as an offensive weapon. They might conclude that the United States was developing a defensive shield so that it might choose to launch a first-strike against the Soviet Union.

The military doctrine of “deterrence,” dominating military thinking on both sides of the Cold War for years was that neither power could afford to launch a first-strike attack on the other because the second-strike response would be so devastating that functioning societies in both countries would be destroyed. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara aptly labeled this doctrine Mutually Assured Destruction (or MAD). In short, with SDI, an enemy of the US could believe that they might be attacked at any time. As a consequence “Star Wars” was profoundly destabilizing, increasing the possibility of nuclear war.

Twenty-six years later, President Trump declared that the United States henceforth would recognize that space should be the site for military preparedness to defend national security. To achieve this goal the US Space Force would lead the way (Gregory Niguidula, “Trump’s Space Force is  a Strategic Mistake,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 21, 2019). In the National Defense authorization Act of 2020, Congress approved the idea of establishing a new sixth branch of the military, the United States Space Force.

Meanwhile, the United States in 2021 continues to have over 700 military bases of various sizes around the world and military programs with almost 40 countries, sometimes including private military contractors. The United States also pursues what VJ Prashad calls “hybrid wars,” economic sanctions, covert operations, and ideological campaigns against so-called “authoritarian” states.

Perhaps most threatening from the standpoint of increasing the probability of war is a dramatic increase in verbal hostilities toward China. The rhetoric has been coupled with warnings from influential think tanks that the United States, “the world’s leading democracy,” was falling behind Chinese in influence, power, economic capabilities, and mostly technological advances. In addition, the Obama Administration declared that the United States was pivoting its security concerns to Asia. Trump and Biden have moved US ships to the South China Sea, sought an alliance with Asian nations against China, and most recently President Biden signed a naval agreement with Australia.

Observers of the international scene regard these developments in US/China relations, over the last three administrations as profoundly destabilizing, perhaps a “New Cold War.” Of course the most horrific possibility is escalation from conventional to nuclear war. Therefore, it is in this context that the creation of a sixth branch of the military, the United States Space Force, and its growing penetration of major domestic institutions, including universities, is troubling.

This new branch of the military, seeking legitimacy and the expansion of its own power and resources, is embedding itself in what could be called the military/industrial/academic complex. And, from the standpoint of universities, which are experiencing declining financial resources, new space-oriented research constitutes a vital source of revenue paralleling that provided by the dubious Star Wars program of the 1980s.

In this context, President Mitch Daniels announced on September 29, 2021  that Purdue University has signed a memoranda of understanding to increase research and educational collaboration with the USSF. Ten other universities were also making commitments to work with the USSF.

The USSF/Purdue agreement raises at least three concerns:

First, the Purdue arrangement skews the university’s research agenda further in the direction of militarism. It is logical to assume that resources, research and production, related to the militarization of space take away funds that could be used to address issues of health, the environment, human rights and reducing the likelihood of war.

Currently Congress is engaged in a conflict over President Biden’s Build Back Better economic program that will serve the needs of the vast majority of Americans. Many of the same Congress people who oppose the $3.5 trillion ten-year program supported the largest military budget in US history. President Daniels has written often about the dangers of deficit spending. Ironically a long-term commitment to building a space force would parallel, if not exceed, expenditures for the fulfillment of human needs. 

Second, and President Daniels made this clear, the role of the university is being reconceptualized as an institution that serves United States “national security.” University administrators, ever since the onset of the Cold War in the 1940s, justified support for higher education in “national security” rather than educational terms.

Third, and perhaps most dangerous, the university/USSF connection is justified as a necessity because of the “Chinese threat.” In the dark days of the conflict with the Soviet Union trillions of dollars were wasted on both sides in military expenditures, wars were fought all around the globe, and on numerous occasions conflicts almost escalated into nuclear war. The “enemy” was the Soviet Union. Now it is China.

So the USSF and its memorandum of understanding with Purdue University, a new arm of the military and a major university, are collaborating in projects that may be wasteful and dangerous for the stability of the international system.

 

 

WOODY GUTHRIE ON EVICTIONS

 Harry Targ

 

 

I was thinking about an old Robin Hood song written by Woody Guthrie in the 1930s about an Oklahoma legend, Pretty Boy Floyd. According to Woody’s rendition, Pretty Boy Floyd got into a fight with a deputy sheriff and killed him. Floyd was forced to flee and allegedly took up a life of crime. At least authorities and journalists blamed Floyd for every robbery or killing that occurred in the state of Oklahoma. “Every crime in Oklahoma was added to his name.”

But in true Robin Hood fashion Pretty Boy Floyd stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Floyd, the outlaw, paid the mortgage for a starving farmer. Another time when Floyd begged for and received a meal in a rural household, he placed a thousand dollar bill under his napkin when he finished dinner. One Christmas Day Floyd left a carload of groceries for starving families on relief in Oklahoma City.

And in these days of massive unemployment, mortgage foreclosures, criminal wealth, and staggering poverty, through the voice of Pretty Boy Floyd, Woody Guthrie tells the wrenching story of capitalism that today is not too much different from during his time.

“Yes, as through this world I’ve wandered
I’ve seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen.

And as through your life you travel,
Yes, as through your life you roam,
You won’t never see an outlaw
Drive a family from their home.”