Wed 8 Mar 2006
In thinking through Marx, I recently came up with the following formulation, based on my days of high school debate:
“RESOLVED: That the establishment of a [advanced critical languages program at Williams], is a more valuable goal than the expansion of economic diversity within the Student Body.”
The Lincoln-Douglas format, of course, requires individuals to argue each side of the proposition in quick succession. Wonderful training.
The phrase in brackets is, of course, shorthand for one of my own personal hopes and visions. Feel free to substitute some other seemingly ’socially worthwhile’ project– more resources for the study of Economics, for instance, or some kind of co-ordinate program in Diplomatic History, an open electronic college, renewed athletics facilities, a College “devoted to the enrichment and well-being of our region” through practical projects, … and so forth. I’m using my store of ideas; surely you have more, and surely each of our visions is as potentially questionable as it is potentially laudable.
We need not agree with all of the projects in specific, and indeed will not. All of you, could and would do a better job than I just did, of suggesting particular projects for the College. Perhaps an integrated program of tutelage in the sciences and mathematics (or English); perhaps an expanded tutorial program (yes, each has been done). Where should our focus and efforts lie?
Three propositions:
1: Evaluate the “resolution” above as a summation, iterating through the imagined value of each possible project that could be inserted for the phrase in [brackets]. I believe that the sum of the area under such a curve is, intuitively, greater than whatever Marx may be suggesting.
2: (Corollary) Attempt to substitute the right side of the equation– Marx’s project– with any imagined [braketed] project above. Again intuitively, I do not believe any proposed bracket [project] can be substituted on the right side of the equation and leave the resolution with the same meaning. What does this say about Marx’s project, and the ‘nature’ or ‘identity’ of the formula presented?
3: (Presumption or Conclusion) This thought experiment indicates a fundamental inequality between Marx’s proposition and traditional (daresay I “conservative”) visions of advancement (daresay I, in Arendt’s words, “love of the world?”). Cf. Frank’s mockery of all our mortal visions.
What does the above say about Marx?
Footnote: (Or “extra credit:”) Which Marx are we talking about?
2006-03-08 19:15:58
In the history of thought there has been a significant place for mockery.
2006-03-08 20:03:04
The problem here is that the phrase “expansion of economic diversity” is not well-defined since you do not specify how that diversity is achieved. For example, I would have no problem with tripling the number of Tyng awards and using them to lure away poor students from academic rank 1 applicants from H/Y/P/S. I would object strongly to getting the same number of equally poor students by accepting AR 3s and 4s that we currently reject even though the dollar cost of this would be less.
2006-03-08 20:31:53
David,
I would indeed agree with you on that point.
I intent to referring to Marx’s project. Feel free to offer another phrase.
Is the expansion of Tyng as you propose above equivalent to what is happening at Amherst? I believe not.
Would Marx be willing to get “the same number of equally poor students” by accepting “AR 3s and 4s…”? While I might take issue with that at another point, I think it reasonable to assume for the same of the above.
We can argue about diamonds in the rough, but I don’t think that’s Marx’s project.
What is Marx’s project, what is its place and appeal (in, say, the history of ideas), and why are so many willing to follow?
2006-03-08 22:10:14
I would rather argue you have created a false oversimplification in the above presentation of the debate. In your corollaries, you invite changing one side of the debate, but not the other. Thus, in all cases, we will compare “expansion of economic diversity” to some goal of our own creation. Similar thought experiments could be created replacing the above quoted phrase with “anthropology” or “american studies” or “the cluster system” or “racial diversity” or “diversity of intellectual interests” or…(you get my point by now, probably).
This is presenting a questionable, if not fundamentally false, zero-sum argument. It is either A or B. I believe Marx, and I can assure you that I certainly believe, that this is nowhere near a zero-sum debate. Nor is it as simple as A or B, it could also be C or D or E.
2006-03-08 23:23:14
The ‘calculus’ above is not intented to be a zero-sum game as such. Rather a sort of mockery– though I invite mocking of me as well, as such a calculus is absurb.
In the specific “corollary” to the “proposition,” I invite you to switch the left side with the right. Is it conceptually possible? Does it mean the same thing to compare any of the propositions on the left with each other, in the way we could compare them with Marx?
My suggestion is that we cannot. And that the reason is that Marx proposed a “world-historical” project, as it were.