David Rieff's 2024 work "Desire and Fate" presents a provocative and penetrating analysis of the contemporary crisis facing liberal higher education, arguing that the collapse of the liberal university reflects a broader societal breakdown of liberalism itself. Writing as an avowed leftist, Rieff challenges conventional narratives about campus politics and offers a sobering assessment of how progressive ideologies have paradoxically served to reinforce existing power structures while hollowing out the intellectual foundations of academic institutions1. The book stands as both a lament for lost liberal principles and a call for what Rieff terms "tragic realism" in confronting the transformation of higher education into what he characterizes as expensive finishing schools masquerading as academies of radical activism1.
Rieff's fundamental thesis challenges the dominant explanation for the crisis in liberal higher education by rejecting the notion that universities have been undermined from within by "cells of scheming Marcuseans in a long march through the institutions"1. Instead, he argues that the liberal university has collapsed because "liberalism as the governing consensus of US society has collapsed"1. This perspective represents a significant departure from both conservative and progressive interpretations of campus upheaval, positioning the university crisis as symptomatic of a much larger civilizational shift rather than the result of specific ideological infiltration.
Drawing on the insights of Hannah Arendt's prescient analysis in "Authority in the Twentieth Century" (1956), Rieff traces the roots of educational transformation to liberals' acceptance of the radical critique that social progress requires the diminishment of non-democratically sanctioned forms of authority1. This concession, he argues, set in motion a process whereby "education without authority" would inevitably undermine pedagogical outcomes while emboldening reactionary responses1. Rieff's analysis suggests that contemporary campus conflicts represent the logical endpoint of this earlier capitulation to progressive demands for the democratization of authority structures.
Central to Rieff's critique is his analysis of what is commonly termed "wokeness" as a form of symbolic exchange that serves capitalist interests while creating the illusion of radical transformation. He argues that wokeness functions as "a moral emollient" that allows for symbolic remediation toward individuals to replace any broader program of redistribution1. This analysis draws on Jean Baudrillard's theory of symbolic exchange, whereby institutions process and divert challenges to their legitimacy by rewriting materially grounded social relations as a code of signifiers1.
Rieff demonstrates how contemporary identity politics serves entrepreneurial ends, creating "forms of subversion that are compatible with capitalist incentives, allowing for the reconstitution of elite groups in the name of greater diversity while leaving underlying systems of power and privilege intact"1. He quotes political scientist Adolph Reed Jr.'s observation that "the real project of Woke was to diversify the ruling class," illustrating how progressive rhetoric masks fundamentally conservative outcomes1. This insight helps explain how figures like Ibram X. Kendi can maintain radical credentials while striking lucrative deals with corporate entities like Netflix1.
The book also examines how elite colleges have transformed into what Rieff characterizes as "bespoke luxury brands with lucrative international franchises"1. He argues that these institutions now promise a secular equivalent of salvation through expected future income and social status, creating an implicit compact whereby admitted students must be celebrated as extraordinary and denied nothing1. This transformation has led to what Rieff describes as a peculiar ritualistic inversion where prospective students petition for entry based partly on victim status while simultaneously positioning themselves as agents of global justice1.
One of the most significant strengths of Rieff's analysis lies in its ability to transcend conventional left-right political categories to offer a more sophisticated understanding of contemporary campus dynamics. By positioning himself as a leftist critic of progressive orthodoxy, Rieff demonstrates how critique from within can be more devastating than external opposition2. His work has been recognized as "the profoundest reflection on woke culture yet to appear" and praised as "a rare, breathtaking instance of an exquisite moral imagination in full flight"2.
Rieff's integration of diverse theoretical perspectives, from Hannah Arendt's analysis of authority to Jean Baudrillard's theory of symbolic exchange, provides a robust analytical framework for understanding complex institutional dynamics1. His insight that pursuing an ideal might lead to its very nemesis offers a compelling explanation for how progressive movements can inadvertently serve conservative ends2. This theoretical sophistication allows readers to grasp the deeper structural forces at work beyond surface-level political conflicts.
The book's unflinching examination of liberal complicity in current crises represents another significant achievement. Rather than simply blaming external forces, Rieff forces liberals to confront their own role in enabling the transformation of higher education1. His analysis of how emotional sensitivity and historical injustice have become grounds for curtailing free expression provides valuable insight into the erosion of foundational academic principles1.
Despite its analytical strengths, Rieff's work faces several limitations that constrain its impact and utility. Perhaps most significantly, while the book offers a devastating critique of current conditions, it provides limited guidance for constructive alternatives. Rieff's call for "tragic realism" and his insistence that colleges "cannot continue to function simultaneously as academies of radical activism and expensive finishing schools" identifies the problem without offering concrete pathways forward1.
The book's pessimistic tone, while intellectually honest, may limit its ability to inspire the kind of institutional reform that Rieff himself acknowledges as necessary. His observation that it would be "naïve to think that the university can resist the transformation of the culture at large" suggests a deterministic view that may discourage efforts at meaningful change1. This fatalistic perspective risks becoming self-fulfilling, undermining the very possibility of the recovery that Rieff claims to desire.
Additionally, while Rieff's focus on symbolic exchange and cultural dynamics provides valuable insights, his analysis may underestimate the continuing importance of material factors in shaping institutional behavior. The book's emphasis on ideological and cultural explanations, while illuminating, may not fully account for the economic pressures and structural constraints that also drive institutional decision-making in higher education.
David Rieff's "Desire and Fate" represents a significant contribution to understanding the crisis facing liberal higher education, offering a sophisticated analysis that transcends conventional political categories while exposing the deep contradictions within contemporary progressive politics. The book's greatest strength lies in its ability to reveal how ostensibly radical movements can serve fundamentally conservative ends, providing a framework for understanding the persistence of elite privilege despite decades of diversity initiatives1. However, the work's pessimistic conclusions and limited prescriptive guidance may constrain its practical impact on institutional reform efforts. Ultimately, Rieff has produced what may be described as a necessary autopsy of liberal higher education—brilliantly diagnostic but offering little hope for resuscitation of the patient.