We might assume that phiÂlosÂoÂphy is an ivory towÂer disÂciÂpline that has litÂtle effect on the unloveÂly operÂaÂtions of govÂernÂment, driÂven as they are by the conÂcerns of midÂdle class walÂlets, upper class stock portÂfoÂlios, and the ever-present probÂlem of poverÂty. But we would be wrong. In times when presÂiÂdents, cabÂiÂnet memÂbers, or senÂaÂtors have been thoughtÂful and well-read, the ideas of thinkers like FranÂcis FukuyaÂma, Leo Strauss, JurÂgen HaberÂmas, and John Rawls—a favorite of the preÂviÂous presÂiÂdent—have exerÂcised conÂsidÂerÂable sway. Few philosoÂphers have been as hisÂtorÂiÂcalÂly influÂenÂtial as the GerÂman thinker Carl Schmitt, though in a thorÂoughÂly destrucÂtive way. Then there’s John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, ArisÂtoÂtle… even Socrates, who made himÂself a thorn in the side of the powÂerÂful.
But when it comes to the mostÂly French school of thinkers we assoÂciate with postmodernism—Michel FouÂcault, Roland Barthes, the Jacques Lacan and DerÂriÂda, and many others—such influÂence is far less direct. The work of these writÂers has been often disÂmissed as frivÂoÂlous and inconÂseÂquenÂtial, speakÂing a lanÂguage no one underÂstands to out of touch coastal elites on the left edge of the specÂtrum. PerÂhaps this is so in the UnitÂed States, where powÂer is often theÂoÂrized but rarely radÂiÂcalÂly criÂtiqued in mainÂstream pubÂliÂcaÂtions. But it has not been so in France. At least not accordÂing to the CIA, who closeÂly monÂiÂtored the effects of French phiÂlosÂoÂphy on the counÂtry’s domesÂtic and forÂeign polÂiÂcy durÂing their long-runÂning culÂture war against ComÂmuÂnism and “anti-AmerÂiÂcanÂism,” and who, in 1985, comÂpiled a research paper to docÂuÂment their invesÂtiÂgaÂtions. (See a samÂple page above.)
RecentÂly made availÂable to the pubÂlic in a “sanÂiÂtized copy” through a FreeÂdom of InforÂmaÂtion Act request, the docÂuÂment, titled “France: DefecÂtion of the LeftÂist IntelÂlecÂtuÂals,” shows itself surÂprisÂingÂly approvÂing of the politÂiÂcal direcÂtion post-strucÂturalÂist thinkers had takÂen. VilÂlanoÂva UniÂverÂsiÂty proÂfesÂsor of phiÂlosÂoÂphy and author of RadÂiÂcal HisÂtoÂry and the PolÂiÂtics of Art Gabriel RockÂhill sumÂmaÂrizes the tenor of the agency’s assessÂment in the L.A. Review of Books’ PhiloÂsophÂiÂcal Salon:
…the underÂcovÂer culÂturÂal warÂriors applaud what they see as a douÂble moveÂment that has conÂtributed to the intelÂliÂgentsia shiftÂing its critÂiÂcal focus away from the US and toward the USSR. On the left, there was a gradÂual intelÂlecÂtuÂal disÂafÂfecÂtion with StalÂinÂism and MarxÂism, a proÂgresÂsive withÂdrawÂal of radÂiÂcal intelÂlecÂtuÂals from pubÂlic debate, and a theÂoÂretÂiÂcal move away from socialÂism and the socialÂist parÂty. FurÂther to the right, the ideÂoÂlogÂiÂcal opporÂtunists referred to as the New PhilosoÂphers and the New Right intelÂlecÂtuÂals launched a high-proÂfile media smear camÂpaign against MarxÂism.
The “spirÂit of anti-MarxÂism and anti-SoviÂetism,” write the agents in their report, “will make it difÂfiÂcult for anyÂone to mobiÂlize sigÂnifÂiÂcant intelÂlecÂtuÂal oppoÂsiÂtion to US poliÂcies.” The influÂence of “New Left intelÂlecÂtuÂals” over French culÂture and govÂernÂment was such, they surÂmised, that “PresÂiÂdent [FranÂcois] Mitterrand’s notable coolÂness toward Moscow derives, at least in part, from this perÂvaÂsive attiÂtude.”
These obserÂvaÂtions stand in conÂtrast to the preÂviÂous genÂerÂaÂtion of “left-leanÂing intelÂlecÂtuÂals of the immeÂdiÂate postÂwar periÂod,” writes RockÂhill, who “had been openÂly critÂiÂcal of US impeÂriÂalÂism” and activeÂly worked against the machiÂnaÂtions of AmerÂiÂcan operÂaÂtives. Jean-Paul Sartre even played a role in “blowÂing the covÂer of the CIA staÂtion offiÂcer in Paris and dozens of underÂcovÂer operÂaÂtives,” and as a result was “closeÂly monÂiÂtored by the Agency and conÂsidÂered a very seriÂous probÂlem.” By the mid-eightÂies, the Agency statÂed, triÂumphantÂly, “there are no more Sartres, no more Gides.” The “last clique of ComÂmuÂnist savants,” they write, “came under fire from their forÂmer proÂteges, but none had any stomÂach for fightÂing a rearÂguard defense of MarxÂism.” As such, the late Cold War periÂod saw a “broadÂer retreat from ideÂolÂoÂgy among intelÂlecÂtuÂals of all politÂiÂcal colÂors.”
A cerÂtain weariÂness had takÂen hold, brought about by the indeÂfenÂsiÂble totalÂiÂtarÂiÂan abusÂes of the “cult of StalÂinÂism” and the seemÂing inescapaÂbilÂiÂty of the WashÂingÂton ConÂsenÂsus and the multiÂnaÂtionÂal corÂpoÂratism engenÂdered by it. By the time of Communism’s colÂlapse, U.S. philosoÂphers waxed apocÂaÂlypÂtic, even as they celÂeÂbratÂed the triÂumph of what FranÂcis FukuyaÂma called “libÂerÂal democÂraÂcy” over socialÂism. Fukuyama’s book The End of HisÂtoÂry and the Last Man made its starÂtling theÂsis plain in the title. There would be no more revÂoÂluÂtions. HarÂvard thinker Samuel HuntÂingÂton declared it the era of “endism,” amidst a rash of hyperÂbolÂic arguÂments about “the end of art,” the “end of nature,” and so on. And, in France, in the years just priÂor to the fall of the Berlin wall, the preÂviÂousÂly vigÂorÂous philoÂsophÂiÂcal left, the CIA believed, had “sucÂcumbed to a kind of listÂlessÂness.”
While the agency credÂitÂed the difÂfiÂdence of post-strucÂturalÂist philosoÂphers with swayÂing popÂuÂlar opinÂion away from socialÂism and “hardÂenÂing pubÂlic attiÂtudes toward MarxÂism and the SoviÂet Union,” it also wrote that “their influÂence appears to be wanÂing, and they are unlikeÂly to have much direct impact on politÂiÂcal affairs any time soon.” Is this true? If we take seriÂousÂly critÂics of so-called “IdenÂtiÂty PolÂiÂtics,” the answer is a resoundÂing No. As those who closeÂly idenÂtiÂfy postÂmodÂern phiÂlosÂoÂphy with sevÂerÂal recent waves of leftÂist thought and activism might argue, the CIA was shortÂsightÂed in its conÂcluÂsions. PerÂhaps, bound to a Manichean view fosÂtered by decades of Cold War maneuÂverÂing, they could not conÂceive of a polÂiÂtics that opposed both AmerÂiÂcan and SoviÂet empire at once.
And yet, the retreat from ideÂolÂoÂgy was hardÂly a retreat from polÂiÂtics. We might say, over thirÂty years since this curiÂous research essay cirÂcuÂlatÂed among intelÂliÂgence gathÂerÂers, that conÂcepts like Foucault’s biopowÂer or Derrida’s skepÂtiÂcal interÂroÂgaÂtions of idenÂtiÂty have more curÂrenÂcy and relÂeÂvance than ever, even if we don’t always underÂstand, or read, their work. But while the agency may not have foreÂseen the perÂvaÂsive impact of postÂmodÂern thought, they nevÂer disÂmissed it as obscuÂranÂtist or inconÂseÂquenÂtial sophistry. Their newÂly-released report, writes RockÂhill, “should be a cogent reminder that if some preÂsume that intelÂlecÂtuÂals are powÂerÂless, and that our politÂiÂcal oriÂenÂtaÂtions do not matÂter, the orgaÂniÂzaÂtion that has been one of the most potent powÂer broÂkers in conÂtemÂpoÂrary world polÂiÂtics does not agree.”
RelatÂed ConÂtent:
How the CIA SecretÂly FundÂed Abstract ExpresÂsionÂism DurÂing the Cold War
Michel FouÂcault: Free LecÂtures on Truth, DisÂcourse & The Self (UC BerkeÂley, 1980–1983)
IntroÂducÂtion to PolitÂiÂcal PhiÂlosÂoÂphy: A Free Yale Course
Josh Jones is a writer and musiÂcian based in Durham, NC. FolÂlow him at @jdmagness
Leave a Reply