"The Common Man" and "His" Counterparts: Poking Fun at Intellectuals

I'm not one to theorize universal categories of the "universal (hu)man," mostly because my post-modern sensibilities find this incredibly problematic. However, lastnight a friend and I were jokingly describing our mutual acquaintances and ourselves. This resulted in "types" or "categories" of people. As someone who buys into post-structuralism--the theories of Deleuze and Guattari, post-colonial theory, and critiques of universalism as imperialist--I often poke fun at theories of human nature in the liberal tradition, which imply some kind of rational essence to human beings, or some kind of universal essence to their behaviours. Yet, as a scholar, I continuously find myself placing things into predefined categories. In my defense, I was trained as a Political Scientist, where analytical thinking, and placement of events, ideas, bodies, modes of being, etc., into predefined categories is the hegemonic method. So, simply as a joke, here are my "Types of Men." I use "men" facetiously here to play back to the philosophical tradition which theorizes about "human nature" as "the nature of men."

The Man with His Feet on the Ground and His Head Upright

The Common Man. The one who is hardworking, pragmatic, rational, reasonable, and is "in touch with reality."

The Man with His Feet on the Ground

and His Head Underground

The Political Activist. The one whose feet remain in the material relations of society, the one who experiences struggle, yet burrows his head in revolutionary ideas and political theory. Many Marxists fall into this category.

The Man Underground

The Hippie Commie Anarcho Anti-Civilizationist. This is the one who has built his own counter-hegemonic world, the one who refuses to engage with society. This is also the Marxist who spends so much time in his arm chair theorizing that his feet are no longer on the ground; he is no longer rooted in material struggle, but rather theorizes about it.

The Man with His Feet on the Ground

and His Head in the Clouds

The Philosopher. This man can still relate to the Common Man, but spends his time day dreaming and idealizing. He takes joy in pondering life's philosophical questions, and then takes a break to watch the hockey game, or to go to the pub.

The Man in the Clouds

The Philosopher of Metaphysics. This is the man who spends all his time philosophizing. It is difficult for him to relate to The Common Man, as he finds his interests banal, and void of substance. The Man in the Clouds is happiest when he is in his arm chair, pondering everything but "life."

The Man with His Feet on the Ground

and His Head Up His Ass

The Art Theorist. This man has his feet on the ground enough to be a part of the world, well at least a part of the art world. He believes his interests are "too high brow" for The Common Man, and his interest in them can only be explained in the length of an essay, that only he can understand. As his head gets further and further up his ass, as his intellectual interests become increasingly narcissistic and self-absorbed, and his taste in art about which he theorizes becomes more and more obscure, this man becomes:

The Man in the Clouds with His Head Up His Ass.

The Philosopher of Avant Garde Art.

. . .

I hope it is painfully obvious that these highly offensive and stereotypical type-castings are intended to be a playful joke, poking fun at myself and intellectuals. Please do not take these seriously, or as a serious representation of my work as a scholar or of my opinions about scholarship and intellectual life. I think I have qualified as all of these "Men" at one time or another. I've painted a kind of vulgar and crude picture of philosophy here, and maybe of theory as well. Please do not think that I actually draw distinctions between "The Common Man" or that I think philosophers are up in the clouds and have their head up their ass. I don't. I value theory and philosophy, and I do not think there is even a category for what is called "The Common Man" or even "philosophy" or "theory." This is the point of creating these categories. They are futile, meaningless, and poke fun at the process of categorization in general.