COMMUNICATIONS
A POLITICS OF AUTHENTICITY
We oppose the opiruons expressed by Sartre in the 'interview
with 'Frank Gerassi, published ' in
The 'Manchester .Guardian
and re–
printed in
The New York Times Magazine;
for the very reason that
Sartre proposes them, that is, in order 'to help create a responsible and
imaginative Left opposition in the United States.
Although Sartre draws upon his French experience, he is basically
addressing himself to American radical intellectuals, most of whom are
connected with the academe.
The argument runs as follows. The accelerating crisis in Western
civilization notwithstanding, intellectuals have, on the whole, profited
from their status - they have made money and been granted prestige.
Even Left intellectuals have. come to constitute a kind of priesthood,
relatively
~une,
yet freetb criticize the society which supports them.
It
is intolerable 'and corrupting for Left intellectuals to profit from
this
crisis. They can only authenticate themselves by taking an active
part
in the struggle 'against . the establishment. Signing one's name to un–
popular petitions, or merely writing, merely thinking, no matter how
radical, are, in the abSence of action, counterrevolutionary.
It follows, the argument runs, and here
is
where our disagreement
begins, that intellectuals must i;0me out of their offices or studies into the
streets, playing whatever role
is
necessary - demonstrating (in lonely
bands, not insulated by thousands of liberals), distributing pamphlets and
running the risk of being beaten up. (Sartre makes the latter point very
strongly.) Above all, they must forge a new language in order to get in
touch with, while being mentois to, the workers and, presumably, the
lumpenproletariat.
They should set up a sort of workers' press. Sectarian
or academic jargon -only impedes communication, and must
be
aban-
