You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
I am critical of two basic aspects of Dr. Liebert's study: (1) the way in which it was undertaken; (2) that it was undertaken.
1. Throughout his paper, Dr. Liebert, in the best academic tradition, is concerned with explaining what the Columbia strike really was, as opposed to what it appeared to be.
To the casual observer, the crisis at Columbia was a rebellion against certain policies and practices of the University. But this study tells us that, actually, “… in major respects, the struggle in the world today was being played out in microcosm.” Everything represents something else.
For instance, “… the two substantive issues of the Columbia Strike—the Gymnasium and The Institute for Defense Analysis—stood as symbols which condensed feelings about the ills of Columbia and of the larger sociopolitical structure of outside America.” That is like saying that eviction notices are symbolic of Columbia's contempt for the community and that napalm is a symbol of American aggression in Asia.
Similarly, if radical students describe feelings of isolation and alienation in a society which values property above people and sets every man against every other, it is really because, in their infancy, mother-love was alternately lavished upon them and then withdrawn. And if students seized the President's office to obstruct the functioning of the institution, their action “significantly resonated with unconscious taboos against destroying the token father.”
And so on.
2. I find Dr. Liebert's “model” of the activist personality rather accurate, and also extremely pleasing in that he takes pains to show that we are not all raving loonies. Nonetheless, my over-all reaction to the study is “So what?” What matters is political
effect, not psychological cause. Whether our activism springs from current politics, late toilet-training, or early exposure to television can be of concern only to those who would control or prevent our struggle rather than support it.