Letter: government by enlightened littérateurs?

See also:

I agree with Ruth Cashman's criticisms of James Marriott's essay "The Dawn of the Post-Literate Society", which I used as a jumping-off point to argue for a dedicated effort to rebuild a culture of what I called "deep literacy" on the left and in the labour movement.

Some similar criticisms were in my article, including highlighting Marriott's failure to locate the source of the trends he critiques in questions of political economy, including the neo-liberal marketisation of higher education. I also agree with Ruth that Marriott's historicisation is deeply flawed. I said in my article: "Marriott’s historical picture — an 'age of print', which inculcated democratic politics, being overthrown by a counter-revolutionary 'age of the screen', which precipitates the 'death of democracy' — is dramatically oversimplified. It has surely not escaped his notice that some of the worst affronts to democracy in human history took place in the pre-smartphone era."

I also strongly agree with Ruth's points about the necessity of discussion, the deep value of the spoken word, and the "emotional" capacities of the written word. Perhaps ironically, the hyperboles in Marriott's article on these points, for example arguing that the "world of print" is uniquely "orderly, logical, rational", are presumably flourishes aimed at boosting the viral potential of the piece. Ruth's conclusion, that Marriott's article is "more of a manifestation of the insubstantial, instant and outraged literary style of the internet than a concrete analysis it" is therefore probably fair enough, at least to some extent.

I am not sure Ruth is right to say Marriott's "belief in enlightened administration as the route out of our current crisis is wrapped up in his thesis". One can read Marriott's personal politics between the lines of his article, and infer them from his other writing, interviews he has given, etc. But his original Substack does not particularly suggest any "route out of our current crisis" at all. His presentation is shrilly alarmist, but also nihilistic and defeated. He concludes: "As tech companies wipe out literacy and middle class jobs, we may find ourselves [in] a second feudal age. Or it may be that we are entering a political era beyond our imagining. Whatever happens, we are already seeing the world we once knew melt away. Nothing will ever be the same again." He does not appear to be advocating government by enlightened littérateurs. Perhaps his forthcoming book, which expands the article's themes, will do that. Let's see.

Fortunately, Ruth doesn't throw the proverbial baby out of the bathwater by refusing to acknowledge the problem Marriott points to because she finds fault with his analysis of its origins or disagrees with his implied solutions. Others should take care to do likewise.

Comments?
We welcome replies, corrections and debate pieces. Contact us