By Delgreco K. Wilson

In 1967, the social critic Harold Cruse published “The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual,” a magisterial and blistering assessment of Black thought leadership that remains startlingly relevant today. Writing as the civil rights era was coming to a close, Cruse argued that Black intellectuals had failed to develop independent cultural institutions, formulate a distinct ideology, and provide strategic political and economic leadership for their community. Instead, they relied on White liberal patronage, imported Marxist theories, and integrationist fantasies that left Black America vulnerable to the very power structures it sought to overcome.

Nearly six decades later, Cruse’s framework offers a provocative lens through which to view the role of Black intellectuals in contemporary America—especially in the face of the relentless racist White backlash embodied by the MAGA movement. This backlash, characterized by efforts to dismantle diversity initiatives, suppress historical narratives of race, and undermine Black cultural institutions, demands a response that Cruse would recognize as both ideological and institutional. Yet, too often, Black intellectuals remain tethered to the very dependencies he critiqued.

Delgreco Wilson formerly taught comparative politics and international relations at Lincoln University. He is a leading political analyst, educator and advocate whose work centers on empowering Black Americans through a deeper understanding of political strategy and its historical roots in the fight against systemic racism and White supremacy. (Courtesy photo)

The Crusean framework: A blueprint for self-determination

Cruse’s analysis was unsparing. He saw Black intellectuals as cultural architects whose primary role was to build autonomous institutions that could nurture and defend Black identity and power. This required:

  1. Cultural independence: Cruse believed that Black intellectuals must create their own theaters, publishing houses and media outlets to control their narrative. He criticized productions like “Porgy and Bess” as White-dominated misrepresentations of Black culture. Without cultural self-determination, he argued, Black America would remain trapped in a cycle of seeking validation from White institutions—a cycle that perpetuated dependency.
  1. Ideological clarity: Cruse rejected imported ideologies like Marxism and integrationism as inadequate for addressing Black America’s unique position. He insisted that Black intellectuals develop a homegrown philosophy rooted in the specific historical and cultural experiences of African Americans. This meant confronting uncomfortable truths, such as the tensions between Black and Jewish intellectuals in leftist movements, rather than subsuming racial justice under class struggle.
  1. Political and economic strategy: Beyond protest, Cruse called for intellectuals to chart a path toward tangible power—economic cooperatives, political coalitions, and educational institutions that could operate independently of White liberal patronage.

Cruse’s analytical framework was not without flaws. His excessive focus on Harlem led some critics to accuse him of regional bias, and his blunt critiques of figures like Paul Robeson and Lorraine Hansberry often felt personal. Yet, his central insight—that intellectual work must be tied to institution-building—remains powerful and applicable over time and across the entire nation.

The MAGA backlash: A challenge to Black intellectualism

The MAGA movement represents a modern incarnation of the White backlash Cruse anticipated. Its tactics include:

  • Defunding diversity initiatives: The Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle DEI programs and undermine Black cultural institutions (e.g., attempts to control the Smithsonian and Library of Congress) echo Cruse’s warnings about White resistance to Black cultural autonomy. For instance, Trump’s executive order “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” explicitly targeted the National Museum of African American History and Culture, accusing it of promoting “narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive.”
  • Erasing history: Book bans and legislative attacks on critical race theory seek to sanitize America’s racial narrative, denying Black Americans the tools to understand their own oppression. This assault extends to federal efforts to slash funding for libraries and museums dedicated to Black history, as seen in recent budget cuts to the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture.
  • Co-opting narratives: MAGA’s rhetoric often appropriates the language of pluralism while promoting a homogenized vision of America that marginalizes Black voices. This includes persistent attacks on “wokeness” as a cultural threat and unabated efforts to impose a “patriotic history” that erases the complexities of racial oppression.

This backlash is not merely political; it is cultural. As Cruse recognized, culture is the terrain where power is contested and identities are formed. The MAGA movement understands this intuitively—hence its war on “wokeness” as a cultural threat.

Black intellectuals face renewed pressure in the MAGA era as efforts to defund cultural institutions like the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture echo Harold Cruse’s warnings about dependency and erasure. His call for autonomous institutions and homegrown ideology remains urgent in the face of White backlash seeking to silence Black voices. (Photo Credit: Creative Commons)

The contemporary Black intellectual: Strengths and failures

Today’s Black intellectuals—academics, artists, journalists and activists—have made significant strides since Cruse’s time. The rise of Black Studies programs, the proliferation of Black-owned media platforms, and the cultural influence of movements like Black Lives Matter demonstrate progress toward Cruse’s vision. Scholars like Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cornel West have built institutions that center Black thought.

Yet, Cruse’s critiques still resonate:

  • Dependency on White institutions: Many Black intellectuals still operate within predominantly White universities, media outlets and philanthropic structures. This dependency can dilute radicalism and prioritize White approval over community needs. As Cruse noted, this often leads to a “brainwashing” where Black intellectuals serve external agendas rather than their own community’s interests.
  • Ideological fragmentation: The Black intellectual class remains divided between assimilationist, Marxist and nationalist traditions—often mirroring the same imported ideologies Cruse criticized. This fragmentation weakens collective action.
  • Neglecting institution-building: While cultural production thrives (e.g., Black film and music), sustained investment in Black-owned economic and political institutions lags. Without these, cultural influence remains vulnerable to co-option or suppression.

A Crusean path forward: Strategies for the current moment

To address the MAGA backlash, Black intellectuals must return to Cruse’s blueprint—updated for the 21st century:

  1. Fortify cultural institutions: Support and expand Black-owned media, publishing houses and digital platforms. Institutions like the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History in Detroit and the Schomburg Center in Harlem are modern equivalents of the autonomous spaces Cruse championed. As the Black Arts Movement understood, culture is a weapon that can “dethrone the great myth of White superiority.”
  1. Develop a unifying ideology: Forge a pragmatic ideology that blends historical awareness with contemporary realities. This ideology must be pluralistic yet rooted in authentic Black experiences, rejecting both colorblind liberalism and dogmatic Marxism. Cruse’s emphasis on “cultural pluralism”—where groups maintain distinct identities while engaging in society—offers a model.
  1. Build political and economic coalitions: Create alliances with other marginalized groups, but on terms that prioritize Black self-determination. Cruse was skeptical of shallow solidarity that subsumed Black interests, but he also recognized the need for strategic coalitions grounded in mutual respect.
  1. Reclaim education: Defend and expand Black Studies programs against political attacks. These programs are not just academic exercises; they are vital for nurturing the next generation of Black intellectuals. As Cruse argued, intellectuals must “assail the stultifying blight of the commercially depraved White middle class.”
  1. Embrace organic leadership: Intellectuals must engage directly with communities, translating theory into actionable strategies. This means partnering with grassroots organizations, supporting local economies, and prioritizing tangible outcomes over rhetorical victories.

Conclusion: The unfinished work

Harold Cruse’s legacy is a challenge—one that remains unmet. The MAGA backlash is not an aberration but a symptom of America’s unresolved racial tensions. For Black intellectuals, the response must be more than reactive; it must be transformative.

As Cruse wrote, the special function of the Negro intellectual is cultural. It is to build, to theorize, and to lead—not from the periphery, but from the center of an autonomous Black world. This is not separatism; it is self-determination. In a moment when White backlash seeks to erase Blackness from public life, that self-determination is not just a strategy. It is a necessity.

The crisis of the Negro intellectual, Cruse warned, was a failure of vision. Today, the vision is clear. The question is whether Black intellectuals will have the courage to build it.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the writer and not necessarily those of the AFRO.