“Italian Signs” of Italian American Scholars: Genovese, Lentricchia, DiLorenzo, Parenti and Paglia … Outsiders – Inside Academia

Tom Verso (February 23, 2015)

The work of some of the most renowned Italian American humanities and social science scholars reveals little if any American Italianita – per se. This is to say: humanities scholars, ‘NOT Specializing’ in Italian and Italian American Studies, such as Genovese, Lentricchia, DiLorenzo, Parenti and Paglia, grandchildren of immigrants, raised in Italian American families and communities and having a distinct sense of being Italian. Yet, nothing in their work, if published anonymously, would suggest to the reader that the writer was Italian American. They are American scholars plain and simple; suggesting that there is no such thing as Italian American culture beyond family and nostalgic remnants. /// /// However, when the careers and work of such scholars are juxtaposed to non-Italian American scholars – ‘Perhaps’ one sees clues and patterns of subliminal Italianita … akin to Gardaphe’s “Italian Signs” … Or Not! …

Tools

Preface – Italian American Literati by the Numbers

In the category of Ph.D. literati, there are not a great many Italian Americans. According to the US Census Department’s very scientific “American Community Survey” (ACS), in the population of approximately eleven-million Italian Americans over the age of 25; there are about 125,000 Italian Americans holding Doctorate Degrees (e.g. Ph.D., Ed.D. – to be differentiated from “Professional Degrees” e.g. M.D., DVM, JD, etc.).

In percentage terms: 1% of Italian Americans over the age of 25 hold a Doctorate degree (i.e. 125,000/11,000,000 *100 = 1% – see ACS I/A Education data table at end of article).

Although there is no breakdown of the major fields of Doctorate studies, one can mentally factor out the degrees in education, natural sciences, engineering, etc. Accordingly, one reaches the conclusion of a relatively small number of Italian Americans holding Ph.D.’s in the humanities/social science (i.e. less than 1% over age of 25).

Further, also mentally factoring out Italian specialist Ph.D.s, it is an obvious conclusion that the population of Italian American humanities/social science Ph.D.s is relatively small vis-à-vis the Italian American population as a whole, and infinitesimally small relative to the total American population over the age of 25.

Social scientifically minded students of Italian American culture – i.e. those who get beyond the endless descriptions of ‘Italians in America’ such as the current running(“old wine in new skins”) four-hour Public Broadcasting System program – wonder:

- How does Italian American heritage affect the scholarship of the few who attain the hallmarks of scholarship (not to mention: why are there so few)?

- In turn, how do the Italian American scholars affect the culture of Italian Americana?

- Is there a reciprocal relationship wherein the Italian American culture affects the scholar, and vise versa the scholar affects the culture of Italian Americans?

- Or, is there a cultural abyss between the scholar and his heritage… an abyss between: ‘personal nostalgic Italian American experiences’, on the one hand, vs. ‘scholarship denuded of Italianita’, on the other?

When considering such possible reciprocating affects between Italian heritage and scholarship a few case study anecdotes come to mind – Anecdotes that provide no logical basis for generalization; rather, models for ongoing research and analysis into the reality of Italian America culture … if indeed there really is such a culture beyond the ‘nana’s wooden spoon’ nostalgic descriptions.

Five Scholars in Search of Company … Outsiders on the Inside

Eugene D. Genovese was a grandchild of Sicilian immigrants born in Brooklyn NY. He received a Ph.D. in History from Columbia University and quickly established himself as a scholar par excellence in American anti-bellum plantation history and culture. He went on to become a teacher at nationally / internationally renowned Rutgers University. Clearly on a crème de la crème academic career path.

Then he opened his mouth … so to speak. He publicly and vociferously denounced the Viet-Naum War and announced, “I hope the North Vietnamese win the War”. Not to confuse correlation with cause; nevertheless, shortly after that he found himself in a very not national /internationally renown middleclass liberal arts college in Rochester, NY (a college that pretentiously calls itself a university on the strength of its famous very well funded medical and music schools)

Genovese’s scholarly fame increased geometrically while at Rochester. Ostensibly, all the documentation of Genovese’s career is of a scholar totally integrated into the academic system – a quintessential establishment insider. And yet if one looks at the minutia of his career, to my mind, there is a certain outsider quality about him.

For example, scuttlebutt around the watercooler has it: he found himself in various conflicts with colleagues in the Rochester History Department. He conflicted with President Carter’s confidant Christopher Lasch ideologically. He also had a conflict with a fellow Marxist and friend in the department that was reminiscent of the Sartre – Camus rift.

A Marxist of the Gramsci school, he was a fiery promoter of mainstream academia liberal social causes especially in matters of race. Yet, he did not let his social philosophy and politics affect his commitment to the objective study of history. Accordingly, he broke with the liberal American historiography establishment by defending and promoting the work of southern Jim Crow era writers such as historian Ulrich Bonnell Phillips and the culturati who came to be know as “The Southern Agrarians”.

In short, he was an outsider on the inside of the American History profession.

Frank Lentricchia an Italian American from Utica is almost identical to Genovese, a brilliant scholar and voluminous writer of literary criticism, nationally renown both in academia and popular literati culture (e.g. Village Voice, Slate, etc.). Yet, the tincture of alienation can be seen behind the accolades. He’s quoted:

“I didn’t feel comfortable among academics – still don’t – and didn’t want to look like one.

“ My writing on literary theory was all about taking down what was fashionable at elite institutions – if it was fashionable it couldn’t be right. And that got me the nickname in the Village Voice of the Dirty Harry of literary criticism – this lone gun approach. (see: “Frank Lentricchia Essays on His Work”. editor DePietro, e-Book location L 1418)

Like Genovese, Lantricchia seems to have been an outsider on the inside of the American Literary Criticism profession

Thomas DiLorenzo

A Pennsylvanian, DiLorenzo, who takes umbrage at denigrating comments about Italians, has a Ph.D. in Economics and is an economics professor at Layola University Maryland Selinger Schoool of Business. As such he may be considered well integrated into the academic economics profession – an academic insider

However, the particular economy theory he embraces known as the “Austrian School” is juxtaposed to the econometric economic theories that are dominant in academia. Accordingly, he may be considered as a fringe academic insider.

However when he decided to write a couple books about Abraham Lincoln, he moved decidedly to the outside. In a C-Span interview, he refers pejoratively to establishment Lincoln scholars as the “The Church of Lincoln” and “Lincoln cultist”, he says:

“The Church of Lincoln is sort of a closed society, this whole Lincoln - what I call the Lincoln cult. And when you only are around other people who think alike, and not only that, who pressure you to think alike and punish you professionally if you don't think like everyone else...

Regarding the professional punishment:

I've been around some of these Lincoln scholars before and I've had some experiences that were sort of appalling.

In the interview, he goes into many other examples of how he is alienated, indeed insulted in the most crude fashion, from the Lincoln history profession because he is so out of step with the prevailing ideological milieu. (see: video http://www.c-span.org/video/?204650-1/qa-thomas-dilorenzo at about 44:00 in the tape and forward)

In short DiLorenzo is an outsider on the inside of Lincoln History profession

Michael Parenti

Parenti was born and raised in the New York Little Italy neighborhood known as East Harlem. He attained a Yale Ph.D. in Politic Science, authored over two-dozen books, and was very a popular college campus speaker. He taught a various colleges including Cornell but never attained a permanent position. Indeed, he is found of saying:

“I’ve been kicked out of the best universities in the country. I was considered a wild man by colleagues.”

Again, the insider who gets accepted into and graduates from an Ivy League University, teaches at major universities, highly published; and yet spends his career outside the academic world.

… an outsider on the inside of Political Science profession

Camille Paglia

From Endicott, NY, she attained a Yale Ph.D. in Art / Literary Criticism: the renowned scholar Harold Bloom became her mentor guiding her doctorial dissertation. Indeed, she did not ask him to be her mentor; he solicited her for the mentorship. The respected academic publishing house Yale University Press published her dissertation as the now famous, though I suspect seldom read, “Sexual Persona”.

Again, one would think that a Yale Ph.D. and mentoree of a virtual giant in American literary criticism such a Bloom would be on an academic crème de la crème academia fast track. Again, like Genovese, she became a teacher in a small Philadelphia college. Although she achieved national recognition as a writer of both scholarly works and pop-culture commentary, she remained largely outside of the academic mainstream (indeed, maybe even a pariah).

Paglia further differentiates herself from the mainstream academicians, who stroll into a classroom and ramble on more or less on topic, by her passionate commitment to education. Accordingly, she has written two brilliant pedagogic works, where in she writes:

“One of my central concerns is the reform of education, which has degenerated since my generation made relevance a quickie standard of judgment. (“Sex, Art, and American Culture” p.vii)

“The current cafeteria-style curriculum makes art history courses available but not required. With rare exception, colleges have abandoned any notion of a core body of learning. Humanities departments offer a hodgepodge of courses tailored to professors’ research interests.
(“Glittering Images: A Journey Through Art from Egypt to Star Wars Kindle Locations 115-117).

Paglia … outsider on the inside of the Art / Literary Criticism profession

“Just the Fact’s Ma’ma” … Joe Friday

From 1949 through 1957, “Dragnet” was a very popular radio and TV crime show. The lead character was Joe Friday, a Los Angeles detective who became renown for saying to witnesses, variations of what came to be a parody phrase, “Just the facts ma’ma”. When witness’ reporting tended to wander into areas of value judgments and speculations, Friday would keep them focused on Just The Facts.

To my mind, Joe Friday is an appropriate metaphor for the above Italian American scholars. The works of all five are characterized by a profound attention to meticulous documentation of Factual Details and valid Logical Inferences. Just one example to illustrate what I judge is characteristics of all.

Camille Paglia’s book “Sexual Persona” is a masterful work of scholarship consisting of 673 (small print) pages; 810 footnotes; 18 page index, wherein Paglia’s seeks “to demonstrate the unity and continuity of Western Culture from antiquity to the end of the nineteenth century.” To that end, the factual base is enormous and the conceptual constructs such as ‘androgyny’ and ‘paganism’ effectively bring ostensibly diverse works of art into a classification system and a unified theory of Western culture.

The works of the others show a similar, almost compulsion for source documentation of facts and then aggregating the mass of factual data into meaningful conceptual social constructs, and valid logical inferences.

This is not to say or imply that these Italian American scholars are the only ones who pay attention to meticulous factual details, concepts and logic. However, to my mind, a random sample of academic humanities/social science publications would reveal a very large number of scholarly publications characterized by a blasé disregard for epistemological rigor. Much of what passes for such scholarship is in essence subjective value judgments.

In statistical parlance, on a normal curve of academic verisimilitude, the above five Italian American scholars would be outliers (i.e. “observation points that are distant from other observations”).

It is interesting to see the pattern of epistemological rigor consistent across the works of these five out-sider/out-lier Italian American scholars. One wonders …

Conclusion … “Philosophize with the Hammer”

All five of the above Italian Americans are American scholars. This is to say their research and writing are about American history economy, political science, literature and culture; and written for American readers. So far as I can tell, based on a limited reading of their prodigious writing, there is virtually (literally?) no hint of Italianita in their work.

And yet, there is a common behavioral pattern in all five that MAY imply Italianness.

In his critique of German culture “Twilight of the Idols, Or, How to Philosophize With The Hammer”, Nietzsche posited: “One is fruitful only at the cost of being rich in contradictions.”

To my mind, the work of these five Italian American scholars may be characterized as Philosophizing with the Hammer. They critiqued the works of their respective professions and society at large by “hammering” at the prevailing academic and cultural paradigms.

In turn, they are “fruitful at the cost of being rich in contradictions”; the insider-outsider “contradiction” drove their fruitful scholarly quests.

I wonder: Is their manifested insider-outsider pattern of relationship with the academic establishment …

– their failure to fully integrate into academia

– their passionate quest for knowledge manifested by encyclopedic research and writing

– their unyielding commitment to truth …

is all of this a function (at least in part) of their Italianita culture (not genetics!)?

Does their work have any affect on Italian American culture?

Where is Socrates when you really need him?

Combined Male and Female Doctorate Degrees (77,042 +47,438 = 124,480)

DISCLAIMER: Posts published in i-Italy are intended to stimulate a debate in the Italian and Italian-American Community and sometimes deal with controversial issues. The Editors are not responsible for, nor necessarily in agreement with the views presented by individual contributors.

© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - RIPRODUZIONE VIETATA.
This work may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission.
Questo lavoro non può essere riprodotto, in tutto o in parte, senza permesso scritto.

Add a comment

Sign in | Log in