Page 164 - Cultural Studies and Political Economy

Time and Space 153

ing monopoly of knowledge based on superstition and arbitrary power, in the
end, according to Saul, a new and equally if not more insidious monopoly of
knowledge arose, one based on reason unmodified by humanist (or, in Innis’
terms, “time-binding”) values. And this monopoly still dominates. As Saul
declared:

The twentieth century, which has seen the final victory of pure reason in power,
has also seen unprecedented unleashings of violence and of power deformed. It
is hard, for example, to avoid noticing that the murder of six million Jews was
a perfectly rational act [given the “structure” within which the perpetrators
acted]. . . . Reason is no more than structure. 10
In making these remarks Saul is endorsed, to a limited extent, by Niet-
zsche. Philosopher George Grant, interpreting Nietzsche, noted that instru-
11
mental reason in support of ill-defined ends is really irrationality. But, on
the other hand, Saul’s invoking the period of German fascism to support his
point is really over-the-top. As noted by Paul Heyer, “it was the unreasoning,
anti-Enlightenment dream, steeped in romantic nationalism, which gave birth
to the Third Reich, a historical development that would have made cringe the
Enlightenment philosophes that Saul sees as unwitting culprits in the prom-
ulgation of what we now call instrumental rationality. For Voltaire, Diderot,
Condorcet, and Co, one of reason’s first principles is tolerance.” 12
Like Innis, Saul maintained that elites purposefully confuse illusion and re-
ality. Innis compared modern-day media presentations to a shell-and-pea
game at a county fair. He was most concerned, of course, that contemporary
media distort the life situation in the name of profit by neglecting time. For
Saul, similarly, elites propagate misconceptions. For one thing, the world is
presented, according to Saul’s account, not with the doubtful, skeptical mind
of a Socrates, but through the template of unduly rigid, taken-for-granted
models. He declared: “Today’s power uses as its primary justification for do-
13
ing wrong the knowledge possessed by experts.” Probably the most impor-
tant falsity spread by elites today, in Saul’s view, is denial of the existence of
a public good (a time-binding, communal concept in Innis’ terms). Elites do
this on the one hand by largely disregarding (neglecting to mention) the pub-
lic or common good; it is seldom incorporated in their systems and models.
On the other hand, elites continually promote its opposite—self-interest.
Nowhere is the citizenry encouraged to adopt a “disinterested” (i.e., selfless)
perspective from which to contemplate the larger well-being of society. 14
Saul and Innis, then, both focused on monopolies of knowledge as a key
to understanding governance in society. Saul wrote: “Power in our civiliza-
tion is repeatedly tied to the pursuit of all-inclusive truths and utopias,”
which is to say “systems” or “ideologies.” And again, “The possession,
15