I'm not sure what Bendik Wold, literary editor of Morgenbladet, wants to say with this opinion piece in Dagbladet. It has something to do with "the intellectuals", their failure to influence those in power, and their thirst for phony antagonism. Baudelaire is quoted, and academic terminology liberally applied. We're demonstrated how to use words and phrases like "logocracy", "perverted Habermasianism" and "esthetical autonomy". And that's the short version. The full extended version of the essay also contains terms like "lifegiving sperm" and "schismogenesis", and metaphors comparing "the intellectuals" to rappers and World War I veterans.

It all sounds very internal, like a commentary on a subculture I'm unfamiliar with, so I'll just jump to the part where Wold explains why we shouldn't invite right-wingers into the public debate:

Anders Giæver in VG is not much of a right-winger. Nevertheless he wants a larger number of intelligent right-wingers in the public sphere - otherwise the debates will be dull! A wish like that - actually: a summons of enemies - can only come from a player in a field where discussions are only carried out for the sake of discussion. Can we imagine a similar situation in Stortinget? A politician from the Socialist Left hopes the election goes well for the Progress Party, so that parliamentary discussions can become more "vital"?

Furthermore Giæver's proposal is essentially to postpone the problem. The blandness of the intellectual conversation is not caused by the stifling effect of everyone agreeing with each other, but by the separation of intellect from power. For the same reason, the fear of a left-wing intellectual "hegemony" is unfounded: On the contrary, what's typical of the culture of talk is not that it is hegemonical, but that it is powerless.

Wold heard someone talking about left-wing dominance in the public sphere, and thought they were referring to himself and his intellectual friends. So he goes to the trouble of quoting philosophers for several pages to tell us that no, he and his friends don't have any power, they just talk a lot. And thank God for that. Can there be anything worse than a society dominated by left-wing intellectuals who quote Baudelaire?

The whole left-wing dominance angle is overrated. Fine, point out bias, incompetence and left-slanted assumptions, but don't insult the left by claiming that it has the press in its pockets. A tilt towards the left is only one and far from the largest of the problems of the Norwegian public sphere.

Unanimity, on the other hand, is a real problem, and it is disappointing to see Wold dismiss criticism of unanimity as "discussion for the sake of discussion". First, what's wrong with discussion for the sake of discussion? I've thrown myself into all kinds of debates over the last decade, and I've always done it for the fun of it. I learned from every one of them, and I believe in a detached way that what I do here is useful, but fun - love of the battle - has always been the motivation.

Second, thinking is impossible without discussion. Ideas rot and die when they're taken out of the battlefield and placed in artificial protective environments. It's like raising an animal in a zoo, it forgets how to survive in the wild. Even if we're wrong, the left needs us right-wingers to test their defences. And if we're right, they need us to explain why.

Baudelaire quoting literary editors of marginal magazines are not a threat to open debate - media gatekeepers are. But even for them, keeping entire sections of the political spectrum out of the public sphere is a lost cause. So is keeping out the interesting, the provocative and unusual, whatever its affiliation - unanimity in practice. It's all thanks to the web. Even if Bendik Wold's intellect had the power he thinks it deserves, he could do nothing to change that.

Bendik Wold wrote:

"Så la oss si det slik: Fra nå av er det nok koseprat. Fra nå av skriver vi i stedet for å pludre, og skyter når det er tomt i blekkhuset. I stedet for å pimpe gratis vin på forlagsfester, pressekonferanser, Fritt Ord-seminarer – bli hjemme og skriv polemikk!"

Let us remember this qoute and see if he turns up at Aschehaugs gardenparty this year or stays at home writing angry essays as he promises...

--he and his friends don't have any power, they just talk a lot.--

Global warming?

BTW, there's a couple of interesting articles on the "global warming" topic.

The air is getting cleaner so the sun's hitting the earth more, and the atmosphere might clean/scrub itself better than we thought.

Kyoto's coming down, what a waste of money.

Well, if this reflects the level of intellectual discourse on the left, no wonder they feel isolated.

A wish like that - actually: a summons of enemies - can only come from a player in a field where discussions are only carried out for the sake of discussion. Can we imagine a similar situation in Stortinget? A politician from the Socialist Left hopes the election goes well for the Progress Party, so that parliamentary discussions can become more "vital"?

It is pretty obvious that nobody would want a party they strongly disagree with in power. But that is hardly a relevant comparison. What Wold is saying is that he doesn't want political opponents to be heard. He doesn't want to listen to their arguments, and nobody else should either.

But how do you know you got it right if you are not willing to engage criticism? Obviously, conversation is interesting in itself. I love a good debate. But it's also very useful; you get your own convictions challenged and either it sharpens your own argument or you can correct your errors and adjust. Wold wants none of this. He knows he is right, without knowing or wanting to know what others even believe.

If it gets lonely in the echo-chamber, they only have themselves to blame.

It is said of the late Sir William Whitelaw, after a visit to Northern Ireland, that his first exclamation after returning to England was: What a bloody country! Give me a double whisky!

Having read mr. Wold's drivel, I feel like I need a triple one.
For sheer pompocity and self-righteousness, this must be an award winner for 2005.

I wonder, can this be serious? Can it not be written tongue-in-cheek?

Then I go to the source, Samtiden, and observes that it besides an article by Stein Lillevolden, local revolutionary, who only through amazing luck hasn't killed anyone yet, at least in Norway. God knows what mr. Lillevolden has done overseas, he tends to go to Cuba to reinforce his instincts.

Mr. Wold(through an unintentional pun the name actually can be translated as "violence")should be translated, if only as an example of violation of good language and common sense.

"Can there be anything worse than a society dominated by left-wing intellectuals who quote Baudelaire?"

Maybe, but I'll have to get back to you on that one :-)

I read Morgenbladet, simply because it is one of the few newspapers in this country where they even try writing about something else than Idol. But there is a little bit too much pseudo-intellectual newspeak for my taste. Danish Weekendavisen is better.

Granted, the piece quoted is pretty opaque, but it seems to me you're all deliberately misreading it in order to support already established views that all leftists are loonies.

"What Wold is saying is that he doesn't want political opponents to be heard. He doesn't want to listen to their arguments, and nobody else should either."

Actually, that's not what he's saying:

"The limpness of the intellectual debate is not a result of the numbing consensus of the participants, but of the schizm between thought and power. For the same reasons, the fear of a leftist-intellectual "hegemony" is rather unfounded: On the contrary, it is characteristic of this culture of conversation that it is not hegemonic, but practically powerless."
[My translation]

You may or may not agree with this, but I just can't see that he's saying what you're all saying that he's saying.

The Pew Research Center http://pewresearch.org/, claims they are an independent opinion research group that studies attitudes toward the press, politics and public policy issues. They claim they are best known for regular national surveys that measure public attentiveness to major news stories, and for polling that charts trends in values and fundamental political and social attitudes.

According to the Pew Center, the less you like to fly the American flag, the more likely it is you are Democrat. The more you think hard work and personal initiative aren't the ticket to the good life, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. The more you believe the United Nations is a better steward of international relations, while America is a negative actor on the world stage, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. The more you believe that the government is there to help, the more likely it is you are Democrat. The less seriously you take religion, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. Flip all of these values around and the more likely it is you are a Republican -- or that you vote that way. The ideas, assumptions and prejudices held by the statistically typical Democrat voter, according to the Pew study, are quite simply, European. Europeans believe in a strong social welfare state, for rich and poor alike. Europeans are cynical. They look askance -- these days -- on patriotic sentiment (hence the rush to form a new European nation). The church pews of Europe would make a great hideout for bank robbers since they're always empty. The United Nations is, in the typical European's worldview, the last best hope for mankind. From the death penalty to gay marriage, the more similar you are to a typical European in your political and social outlook, the more likely you are to be a Democrat."

I encourage everyone to take their Political Typology questionnaire, which will classify you into one of nine categories within the political, middle, right, or left. Pay close attention to how the questions are presented and your limited options to respond. This should prove to be educational on how a public opinion poll can result in fortifying a desirable outcome. The PRC evaluation appears to twist politically conservative respondents answers to suggest a negative social view and out of step with other respondents.

One could discuss Mr. Wold's literary qualities, but the problem he confronts in this article is actually an interesting one.
he claims that the leftist intellectuals are more concerned with making a good figure, than making a difference, and my experience with this subject, is that he is somewhat correct.

atleast i got something out of the "samtiden" article, being a leftist with the tendency to provoke more than i suggest. ;)

The limpness of the intellectual debate is not a result of the numbing consensus of the participants, but of the schizm between thought and power. For the same reasons, the fear of a leftist-intellectual "hegemony" is rather unfounded: On the contrary, it is characteristic of this culture of conversation that it is not hegemonic, but practically powerless.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1574