Welcome to Part II of this piece on “Diversity” in bourgeois academic philosophy. In the first part I reviewed the Daily Nous piece that inspired these comments and introduced the Old and New Guard as they feature in bourgeois philosophy. There, I talked about “standards” and how both Old and New Guard conceptions of philosophy leave no middle ground for oppressed people between imperialist neo-colonialism and non-existence.
Here in Part II I’m going to go over some of the negative consequences that bourgeois liberal “diversity” has on non-euro-american, non-bourgeois-liberal people in the euro-american nation state as well as the rest of the world and discuss an alternative to bourgeois liberal diversity that avoids the pitfalls of liberal neo-colonial “reform” that people who don’t benefit from bourgeois liberalism and their euro-american allies can work on right away without having to settle for the neo-colonialism of euro-american liberals.
Some Consequences of Neo-Colonial “Diversity”
In Part I I connected bourgeois liberal “diversity” to euro-american settler neo-colonialism as an agenda item for white power. As such, bourgeois liberal “diversity” is not without negative consequences for both nationally oppressed groups within the euro-american nation state and nationally oppressed and economically exploited people internationally. Some of those consequences are the following:
First, as described in Part I, bourgeois liberal “diversity” reinforces euro-american settler neo-colonial power over nationally oppressed groups domestically –that’s the point. The alternative is non-existence.
Second, focusing on bourgeois liberal “diversity” lends legitimacy, on a global stage, to a fundamentally unjust system. In other words, it is cheerleading for imperialism that sends a defeatist message to the oppressed people of the world, encouraging docile servility on euro-american terms: “Look, you must just accept that you won’t be able to express non-euro-american social identities if they’re not bourgeois-liberal. Trust us, this is the best and only way it could be. You’ll see, you’ll be much happier once you come around to realizing this.”
Third –and related to the two points above, bourgeois liberal “diversity” has international consequences for the relationship between nationally oppressed groups in the first world and the rest of the world’s people: it drives a wedge between nationally oppressed groups in the first world and people in the rest of the world by forcing complicity with global imperialism. This means that while nationally oppressed groups in the first world are slurping up the scraps of first world privilege set aside for them by euro-americans through enthusiastic participation in the “diverse” “game” of euro-american, bourgeois philosophy (and in academia generally) they are concretely cheerleading on a global stage for euro-american’s system of neo-colonialism, and lending legitimacy to the narrative of annihilation that serves white power. This is a manifestation of the corrupting influence that imperialist superprofits have on sectors of traditionally oppressed groups in the first world creating labor aristocracies among the non-euro-american proletariat and aligning the non-euro-american petty bourgeois and bourgeois classes with euro-american agendas instead of with the anti-imperialist agendas of oppressed people all over the world.
Oppressed people’s ability to express their social identity via philosophy that serves their interests isn’t a numbers game.
Fourth, bourgeois liberal “diversity” squanders the resources and energy of oppressed people domestically and abroad by making a virtue of failing at expressing the social identity of non-euro-american, non-bourgeois people through philosophy that serves their interests as historically constituted groups. This is actually way too optimistic –a familiar pretense of bourgeois philosophy serving the interests of euro-american imperialism is that it “serves no interests”, and vehicles of culture, like philosophy, when they encourage self-determination and national democracy for oppressed groups aren’t on the agenda. But that’s the point: bourgeois liberal “diversity” is supposed to fail at expressing the social identity of oppressed and exploited people and succeed at destroying it. And this means that while euro-american and non-euro-american people are expending physical and mental effort as well as imperialist dollars, funding programs, hosting conferences, writing heart-felt blog pieces and editorials and basically spinning their wheels trying to increase “representation” and diminish “marginalization”, it is business as usual under the purview of euro-american white power. Consider for instance that the euro-american nation state has a Black president. There will be a woman president. There will be a gay president. But what there will never be is a president who opposes euro-american imperialism and supports national self-determination for the people oppressed by it. It’s the same with philosophy. What if everything the rank and file of the New-Guard desired came true today? What if all the statistics evinced equal “representation” of non-euro-american, LGBT and disabled people in philosophy departments? Nothing would have changed but the numbers. The fact is that those in the New-Guard who are obsessed with the numbers can do no more than cater to euro-american chauvinism at the expense of the people oppressed by bourgeois liberalism. And that’s because while the piss poor number of oppressed people in euro-american settler academia does expose the contradictions of that system, oppressed people’s ability to express their social identity via philosophy that serves their interests isn’t a numbers game. It’s about building, fighting for and having independent power in institutions that serve them. And a commitment to euro-american liberal “diversity” means losing over and over again at this.
Bourgeois liberal “diversity” squanders the resources and energy of oppressed people domestically and abroad by making a virtue of failing at expressing the social identity of non-euro-american, non-bourgeois people through philosophy that serves their interests as historically constituted groups.
The general waste of oppressed people’s time and resources that is bourgeois reformism is worth commenting on further. The basic idea that “reformers” like to push around when challenged is that slow gradual changes –“moving the needle”, “including more non-euro-american people”, “including more disabled people”, “including more LGBT people” (it’s never “including more non-bourgeois liberal people, by the way), will win greater concessions for oppressed groups from the euro-american settler power structure, while simultaneously, on an individual level, encourage euro-americans to be less oppressive, patriarchal, ableist etc. In general it’s never really “encourage euro-americans to be anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist ―usually this just goes as far as the hope that euro-americans can be imperialist social democrats of the Bernie Sanders or Green Party type. From the point of view of being able to freely express the social identity of oppressed people via philosophy that serves their interests, this is terrible reasoning. Here’s why it’s just awful: it has to do with the way power, institutions and socialization work. When oppressed people start banging their head against the wall of academic whiteness trying to freely express their social identity through philosophy that serves their interests, what happens is not that their voices somehow gain popular support from euro-americans. Instead what happens is that oppressed people end up diluting their standpoint in order to gain concessions and favor from the existing power structure. Because euro-american white power structures do respond to euro-american liberal pressures of a petty-bourgeois nature when they make a lot of noise, what oppressed people end up doing, quite vocally in these structures is NOT clamor for independent institutions and independent power, but take up euro-american’s position that “power is not playing fairly” and it needs to make concessions so that everything is OK. The experience of oppressed people working with their euro-american “colleagues” in academia “fighting” for “diversity” is generally one of having to decide between sacrificing the free expression of their social identity and being completely alienated. Internationally, scholars from Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Americas (the “global south”) carry out superhuman feats of intellect, grit and determination only to be treated and positioned as tokens by their most “progressive” “colleagues” in euro-american settler academia and to be shut down as soon as the expression of their social reality is at odds with imperialist settler neo-colonialism. But we have now come full circle, because that alienation is the fruit of the narrative of annihilation that is euro-american, bourgeois liberal “diversity” that’s been discussed above.
And generally, while euro-americans might need “reforms” to be hand-held into being in the same room with the people whose oppression and exploitation they benefit from and they may feel the need to be coddled into not being racist, ableist, imperialist sons of bitches as a whole, that’s just not the case with all people, and especially not with people who are oppressed by bourgeois liberalism. Despite the bullshit you read in the New Yorker, the Atlantic and listen to on NPR, there are people, even in the euro-american nation state who don’t want to waste their time with euro-american’s “reforms”.
As things stand, you can’t carve out a middle class career out of standing up for non-bourgeois, non-liberal people.
Fifth, bourgeois liberal diversity encourages a focus on glamour, “respectability”, and careerism. This is a no-brainer. As things stand, you can’t carve out a middle class career out of standing up for non-bourgeois, non-liberal people. The only way you can win recognition and or some big fancy prize of the types raved about in the official organs of academic bourgeois philosophy organizations and on bourgeois philosophy blogs and social media is if you’re a euro-american bourgeois liberal pursuing basically anything that expresses your social identity –that is bourgeois philosophy. Now, neo-colonialism means you might have a chance if you’re non-euro-american, but you have to be “extraordinary” and of course, do a song and dance for the euro-americans promoting a bourgeois liberal agenda. You may be able to get away with something “edgy” that isn’t straight up navel-gazing, but it must be something glamorized or fetishized by euro-americans, like carrying on about philosophical questions surrounding bourgeois conceptions of prisons, teaching bourgeois philosophy to children, and abstract moralizing about war, or the same about “race”. And only then in a way that is palatable to the rank and file of the New-Guard or completely reactionary and in line with Old Guard values. In any case, it must meet the criteria of bourgeois philosophy and evince servility to euro-american bourgeois liberalism. Another way to put this is that oppressed and exploited people are expected to play respectability politics with euro-americans –we are supposed to police ourselves into making sure our philosophical practice is compatible with, or crippled to look like an extension of the social identity of euro-american liberals. The point of all this is that oppressed people, instead of just doing philosophy that expresses their social identity and serves their interests as a group ―non-bourgeois philosophy― have to focus on being unicorn shaped snowflakes that whistle and dance, rub their head and their belly at the same time while singing the tune of bourgeois philosophy, backwards, in German, just to exist on the back-burner of settler academia. Of course, philosophically minded oppressed people could just say “fuck it” and refuse to focus on glamour, respectability and careerism in the academy, but then, again –yes, again, we have come full circle, because this guarantees the type of obscurity that is born of the narrative of annihilation that is euro-american, bourgeois liberal “diversity”.
These are all quite nasty things. And they’re just some of real consequences of the cultural imperialism that that’s passed off as the most “enlightened” “progress” in the euro-american, bourgeois liberal academy.
If not “Diversity” then what?
If non-bourgeois, non-liberal people want to be able to freely express their social identity and shared understanding through philosophy that serves their interests as a group they don’t need euro-american liberal “diversity” –“deeper” or otherwise. In the same way that Black and Brown people don’t need “better trained” euro-american and non-euro-american but neo-colonial police enforcing euro-american settlerism on our land and neighborhoods; in the same way that we don’t need “community” involvement in euro-american settler institutions enforcing laws that protect white power –we just don’t need “diversity”. In order to be able to carry out philosophical activity that expresses our social identity in a way that serves our interests as a group, we need a clear, attainable alternative to euro-america’s bourgeois liberal diversity that avoids the pitfalls of neo-colonial reform and that we can start working on right now.
We need a clear, attainable alternative to euro-america’s bourgeois liberal diversity that avoids the pitfalls of neo-colonial reform and that we can start working on right now.
To this end, let’s define the Vanguard: these are people who reject Old and New-Guard liberal neo-colonialism and who work to empower non-bourgeois, non-liberal people, and people who don’t benefit from global imperialism, including prisoners, slaves, proletariat, lumpen-proletariat, undocumented immigrants, refugees, people in imperialist detention centers, and people from countries under the heel of euro-american and European imperialism, to freely express their social identity through philosophical activity and institutions that serves their interests as groups.
In line with the claim that the problem of the shared understanding of philosophy is a problem of history, ideology and power, the Vanguard recognizes that people who don’t benefit from global imperialism can’t at the current time freely carry out philosophical activity that expresses their social identity in a way that serves their interests in the institutions of bourgeois philosophy. This is a fundamental barrier to preserving and advancing resistance to the bourgeois culture of imperialism –resisting the narrative of assimilation and annihilation that corresponds, at the level of ideology and culture, to the economic exploitation and military oppression that the people who benefit from liberalism carry out against most of the world’s people. The existing settler institutions enabling bourgeois philosophy and expressing the social identity of euro-american settlers, schools and universities, academic departments, academic associations, academic conferences, academic publishers, academic blogs and blogs about the “profession”, collectively known as “academia”, have the resources to promote and advance non-bourgeois philosophy. But they don’t because white people just don’t want to. The cultural plight of people who don’t benefit from imperialism isn’t one of euro-america’s priorities. Euro-americans would rather hand wring about “diversity” and basically do anything but something that goes against their social identity founded on drawing benefits from imperialism. In such a context the Vanguard promotes institutions promoting non-bourgeois philosophy independent from settler power and understands that this part of oppressed people’s struggle against bourgeois culture is part of a larger fight for independent institutions to provide land, food, housing, education, medical care, clothing, justice and peace for the people who don’t benefit from imperialism and its liberal bourgeois ideology.
The principal material difference between the vanguard and the Old and New Guards is that the latter enjoy the benefit of being under the auspices of the entire, massive cultural and financial machinery of euro-american imperialist society –they’re part of this system, plugged into a feeding tube of imperialist support structures. The Old and New Guards have the “popular” support of the mass base for imperialist social democracy in the euro-american nation state. “Popular” is in scare quotes because the “populace” doing the supporting is actually the global minority of people who benefit from imperialism, but who through war, theft, betrayal and genocide, have come to effect overwhelming influence and control over the world’s economic, financial and cultural institutions. From a first-world chauvinist perspective, you’d think everything is hunky-dory and that “academia serves the people”. That’s really cute, but it’s not the perspective we’re working from. We’re working from the perspective of building a successful radical alternative to bourgeois philosophy based on the creation of a counter-narrative and independent power.
Because of this imbalance in power, building independent institutions for people who don’t benefit from imperialism to carry out philosophical activity that expresses their social identity in a way that serves their interests will be, for the moment, much more grass roots and community based. It’ll be like one of Black Panther Party’s Serve the People programs. For example, in the case of the Breakfast for Children Program, in spite of not having any of the cultural and financial machinery of euro-america available to them, the Black Panthers were able, with minimal resources, to make sure poor kids had breakfast before going to school –something that euro-america neglected and in practice demonstrated they cared nothing about. In general, the breakfast, food, and medical programs of the BPP each promoted independent institutions for people who didn’t benefit from euro-american imperialism. This is the model for building independent power to carry out philosophical activity that reflects the shared understanding of people who don’t benefit from imperialism.
The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense is the model for building independent power to carry out philosophical activity that reflects the shared understanding of people who don’t benefit from imperialism.
The programs in the case of non-bourgeois philosophy can be anything from blogs (like this one), to independent lecture and or video series, study and reading groups, workshops, independent journals, associations, or anything that can be used to encourage and carry out philosophical activity from a non-bourgeois perspective. While describing the general tasks of such programs requires more space than this post can offer, I can say that they will focus on the study and critique bourgeois philosophy, and the creation of non-bourgeois philosophy. The study of bourgeois philosophy is essential –through it we learn the fundamental assumptions and methods of the dominant ideology of our age which also provides part of the raw material left by imperialism to people who don’t benefit from it to use in a new, non-bourgeois way. Critique of bourgeois philosophy is also important from the point of view of strengthening and building up the understanding of the people who don’t benefit from imperialism. The bourgeois philosophy of people who benefit from imperialism either offers the ideological justification for the evils of imperialism in distorted and disingenuous ways and or disarms people who don’t benefit from imperialism by promoting the hegemony of the bourgeois liberal understanding of “quality” philosophy produced to “high standards” as something “pure”, “empty” and devoid of political content. Non-bourgeois critique is essential to countering this in a constructive and useful way. Lastly, rejecting all notions of “pure” and “empty” philosophy and “standards” motivated by bourgeois understanding, Vanguard programs work to create products of philosophical activity that express the national, class, and gender identity of the people who don’t benefit form imperialism –opposite the way bourgeois philosophy does for those who do. And the Vanguard sets out to do this in ways that avoid the rampant liberalism (as in Mao’s “Combat Liberalism”) and disdain for people who don’t benefit from imperialism that constitutes the status quo in bourgeois academia. This means that non-bourgeois philosophy cannot be carried out in isolation from the people whose interests it serves –this is a nice way to tell who is legit and who is full of shit (e.g., “academic Marxism”), and it must help them work with what they have to improve both its form and content in ways sensitive to existing social conditions. For example, at the present time, overemphasizing “form and style” can lead to becoming entrenched in bourgeois philosophy not only because bourgeois philosophy fetishizes “form and style” over content to the detriment of on people not served by it, but due to the inequities of global imperialism, the principal forms and styles covering philosophical activity in the here and now are bourgeois. In other words, even if we subjectively reject bourgeois philosophy, and work to build institutions independent from it, it permeates all philosophical thinking and must be actively resisted. So, continuing with the example, it may be prudent to de-emphasize “form and style” and emphasize content, which is something that bourgeois philosophy’s own standards generally neglect (this is part of the reason people in general think philosophy is “useless”) and people who don’t benefit from imperialism can use to their advantage.
This should give some idea of the types of institutions and programs that provide an independent way for people who don’t benefit from imperialism to carry out philosophical activity that expresses their shared understanding and serves their interests as groups.
What about euro-american liberals and the New-Guard rank and file?
What can euro-american people do who are genuinely committed to the free expression of the philosophy of people who don’t benefit from imperialism? Well, we’ve seen that in general, the call for “diversity” in philosophy offers no ground for non-euro-american, non-bourgeois people. But I think it’s important to take bourgeois philosophers to task about diversity, since they like to make a big deal about it. The Daily Nous piece says that figuring out some supposed “intermediate position” amenable to euro-american liberals can be “emotionally hard”. Although there is no “intermediate position” that is consistent with the free expression of the social identity of non-euro-american, non-bourgeois people available that centers philosophical activity on the shared understanding of euro-american bourgeois liberals, I won’t deny that the way forward is going to be “emotionally hard”. I hereby cordially extend a welcome to all bourgeois philosophers to the world of emotionally hard stuff.
I hereby cordially extend a welcome to all bourgeois philosophers to the world of emotionally hard stuff.
What’s the hardest part? Well, euro-americans need to give up the reins of white power. To be sincere about the free expression of the social identity of non-euro-american, non-bourgeois people in philosophy, bourgeois philosophers must struggle to operate from the point of view, not native to them, that bourgeois philosophy is a superstructure of euro-american imperialism, that academic philosophy is part of the cultural imperialism of euro-america and that you can’t stop marginalization in a neo-colonial system whose historical purpose is appropriation of land, labor and cultural dispossession and whose current purpose is the continued global hegemony of euro-american imperialism.
What does it mean to say that euro-americans hold the reins of power in academic philosophy? Huey Newton’s comments on white liberals and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) are relevant here:
“HUEY: There was somewhat of an unhealthy relationship in the past with the white liberals supporting the black people who were trying to gain their freedom. I think that a good example of this would be the relationship that SNCC had with its white liberals. I call them white liberals because they differ strictly from the white radicals. [This distinction is important. I’ll say more about it below –@replicakill]. The relationship was that the whites controlled SNCC for a very long time. From the very start of SNCC until here recently whites were the mind of SNCC, They controlled the program of SNCC with money and they controlled the ideology, or the stands SNCC would take. The blacks in SNCC were completely controlled program-wise; they couldn’t do any more than these white liberals wanted them to do, which wasn’t very much. So the white liberals were not working for self-determination for the black community. They were interested in a few concessions from the power structure. They undermined SNCC’s program…
Stokely Carmichael came along and realizing this started to follow Malcolm X’s program of Black Power. This frightened many of the white liberals who were supporting SNCC. Whites were afraid when Stokely came along with Black Power and said that black people have a mind of their own and that SNCC would be an all-Black organization and that SNCC would seek self-determination for the Black community. The white liberals withdrew their support leaving the organization financially bankrupt. The Blacks who were in the organization, Stokely and H. Rap Brown, were left very angry with the white liberals who had been aiding them under the disguise of being sincere. They weren’t sincere.”
Think of all existing bourgeois philosophy institutions as the SNCC. The New-Guard are the white liberals (no scare quotes needed!). Bourgeois liberal “diversity” is the “disguise of being sincere” while the reality of neo-colonial white power betrays euro-american liberal insincerity. So, the same problems Stokely Carmichael and H. Rap Brown faced banging their head against euro-american SNCC leadership are those faced by non-euro-american, non-bourgeois people trying to do philosophy that serves their interests in bourgeois liberal academia.
Euro-americans shouldn’t worry though. Help is forthcoming by way of a pro-tip: One great way to give up the reins of white power is to work under the leadership of people who don’t benefit from imperialism to build independent institutions that promote the free expression of philosophy that serves their interests as groups. Now is not the time (and it never was because non-euro-american people have never had a real choice between neo-colonial subjugation by euro-america and liberation from white power ―it’s always been neo-colonialism imposed at gunpoint and justified through racist paternalism) to be pussyfooting around with abstractions about “inclusiveness” and “diversity” (color-blind racist terms for “euro-american neo-colonialism”) as opposed to “marginalization” (the color-blind racist term for the cultural dispossession that accompanies euro-america’s appropriation of brown people’s land and labor). But it is the time to turn your back on white-power, choose your friends wisely and take action.
Here again we turn to the Black Panther Party for leadership. In an interview from 1968, Huey Newton distinguishes between euro-american liberals and euro-american radicals/revolutionaries. The distinction is founded on action. The euro-american liberals take action to hinder the self-determination of Black and Brown people and of those who don’t benefit from euro-american imperialism and who are critical of its bourgeois ideology. The euro-american revolutionaries, on the other hand, either accept the leadership of the oppressed or work independently (these are not mutually exclusive, by the way) in the interests of the oppressed.
After having described some of the concrete problems facing Black people and people under the heel of euro-american imperialism generally (kind of like I’ve done here and in Part I for non-euro-american, non-bourgeois people who want to practice philosophy under imperialism), Huey Newton has this to say about what sincere euro-americans ought to do (emphasis is mine):
“As far as I’m concerned the only reasonable conclusion would be to first realize the enemy, realize the plan, and then when something happens in the black colony-when we’ re attacked and ambushed in the Black colony–then the white revolutionary students and intellectuals and all the other whites who support the colony should respond by defending us…we’re willing to accept aid from the mother country as long as the mother country radicals realize that we have, as Eldridge Cleaver says in “Soul on Ice”, a mind of our own. We’ve regained our mind that was taken away from us and we will decide the political as well as the practical stand that we’ll take. We’ll make the theory and we’ll carry out the practice. It’s the duty of the white revolutionary to aid us in this…So the role of the mother country radical and he does have a role, is to first choose his friend and his enemy and after doing this…then to not only articulate his desires to regain his moral standard and align himself with humanity, but also to put this into practice…”
As we know, when speaking of euro-americans putting their benevolent desires into practice, Huey was emphasizing euro-american settler police terror –which is to this day a life-and-death problem for Black people and others nationally oppressed by settler imperialism– and he urged euro-americans to take action to defend Black people from it. In the context of building an alternative to bourgeois philosophy, Huey’s message translates into taking all that beautiful New-Guard talk about making philosophy “accessible”, “safe”, “diverse”, “inclusive”, “representative”, etc., and putting it into practice by supporting and defending non-neo-colonial independent institutions that promote the free expression of philosophy that serves the interests of people who don’t, as groups, benefit from euro-american imperialism.
So, following Huey Newton, for New-Guard philosophers giving up the reins of white power means:
- Understanding that the euro-american neo-colonialism and its bourgeois philosophy are set out against the interests of non-euro-american, non-bourgeois people (realize the enemy)
- Understanding that people who don’t benefit from imperialism have a mind of their own and are set on building a successful radical alternative to bourgeois philosophy based on the creation of a counter-narrative and independent power (realize the plan)
- Deciding to be on the side of continued euro-american neo-colonialism or against it (choose your friends/enemies)
- Supporting and defending non-neo-colonial independent institutions that promote the free expression of philosophy that serves the interests of people who don’t, as groups, benefit from euro-american imperialism (put lofty moral desires into practice)
There’s so much more to say about these four points and how they cash out in practice. But the important thing from the point of view of rank and file New-Gard folks is that there is no space to do any of this in the existing bourgeois academy and that if they want to make a difference and pay more than lip service to “diversity” in philosophy they have to start thinking outside of the narrow confines of bourgeois liberalism and start working with people who don’t benefit from imperialism in a way that respects their self-determination in matters of philosophy. New-Guard rank and file can do this either independently by taking the free expression of philosophy that serves the interests of people who don’t benefit from imperialism as a principal goal for philosophy and promoting this goal in ways free of neo-colonialism or by accepting the leadership of people who don’t benefit from imperialism and working with them to build independent institutions.
So that’s that.
We’ve seen in Part I that talk about “standards” and “diversity” is duplicitous, serving the interests of euro-american settler neo-colonialism. And we saw how Old and New-Guard conceptions of philosophy leave no middle ground for oppressed people between imperialist neo-colonialism and non-existence. Here in Part II we’ve seen how bourgeois liberal “diversity” has negative consequences for non-liberal, non-bourgeois people both in the euro-american nation state and globally. This is positioned against the Black Panther Party’s Serve the People Programs as the model for independent, non-neo-colonial alternatives to bourgeois liberal diversity. This model avoids the pitfalls of liberal neo-colonial “reform” and it’s something that people who don’t benefit from bourgeois liberalism and their euro-american allies can work on right away without having to settle for the neo-colonialism of euro-american liberals. And I’ve outline some ways (points 1-4 above) in which New-Guard academics can take action and get serious about the lofty ideals that they claim to espouse.
There’s so much more to say about non-bourgeois philosophy programs in the style of the Vanguard that we can work on and nuts-and-bolts stuff about their relationship to the bourgeois academy and to the New-Guard but I think it’s best to leave that for a later post.