Intellectual: Largely Social Critique

[coberst]

Intellectual: Largely Social Critique

 

All thought is saturated with egocentric and sociocentric presuppositions. That is, all thought contains highly motivating bias centered in the self or in ideologies such as political, religious, and economic theories. Some individuals are conscious of these internal forces but most people are not.

 

Those individuals who are conscious of these biases within their thinking can try to rid their judgments of that influence. Those who are not conscious, or little conscious of such bias, are bound to display a significant degree of irrational tendencies in their judgments.

 

“Can the intellectual, who is supposed to have a special and perhaps professional concern with truth, escape from or rise above the partiality and distortions of ideology?”

 

Our culture has tended to channel intellectuals, or perhaps more properly those who function as intellectuals, into academic professions. Gramsci makes the accurate distinction that all men and women “are intellectuals…but all do not have the function of intellectuals in society”.

 

An intellectual might be properly defined as those who are primarily or professionally concerned with matters of the mind and the imagination but who are socially non-attached. “The intellectual is thought of not as someone who displays great mental or imaginative ability but as someone who applies those abilities in more general areas such as religion, philosophy and social and political issues. It is the involvement in general and controversy outside of a specialization that is considered as the hallmark of an intellectual; it is a matter of choice of self definition, choice is supreme here.”

 

Even anti-ideological is ideological. If partisanship can be defended servility cannot; many have allowed themselves to become the tools of others.

 

We have moved into an age when the university is no longer an ivory tower and knowledge is king but knowledge has become a commodity and educators have become instruments of power; the university has become a privately owned think-tank.

 

“A profound change in the intellectual community itself is inherent in this development. The largely humanist-oriented, occasionally ideological minded intellectual dissenter , who saw his role largely in terms of proffering social critiques, is rapidly being displaced either by experts and specialist, who become involved in special government undertakings, or by generalist-integrators, who become house-ideologues for those in power, providing overall intellectual integration for disparate actions.”

 

The subordination to power is not just at the individual level but also at the institutional level. Government funds are made available to universities and colleges not for use as they deem fit but for specific government needs. Private industry plays even a larger role in providing funds for educational institutions to perform management and business study. Private industry is not inclined ‘to waste’ money on activities that do not contribute to the bottom line. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’

 

Each intellectual is spouting a different ideology, how does the individual choose what ideology? Trotsky once said “only a participant can be a profound spectator”. Is detachment then a virtue? To suggest that intellectuals rise above ideology is impractical. Explicit commitment is preferable to bogus neutrality. But truth is an indispensable touchstone.

 

I think that the proper role for the intellectual is commitment plus detachment. Do you think many of our present day intellectuals qualify as committed and detached?

 

Quotes and ideas from “Knowledge and Belief in Politics” Bhikhu Parekh

[Overdog]

There are, broadly, three modern definitions at work in discussions about intellectuals. First, “intellectuals” as those deeply involved in ideas, books, and the life of the mind. Second, “intellectuals” as a recognizable occupational class consisting of lecturers, professors, lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. Third, “cultural intellectuals” are those of notable expertise in culture and the arts, expertise which allows them some cultural authority, which they then use to speak in public on other matters

 

Which of these types of intellectuals do you mean?

 

While there is some truth to the statement that "he who pays the piper calls the tune" I do not believe this to be a universal truth. And I think it is even less likey to be true among intellectuals.

 

There are lots of avenues available to intellectuals (HYPOGRAPHY for example) that did not exist fifteen years ago. I would say that intellectuals today have greater opportunity for intellectual persuits than at any other time in history.

 

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you mean by "committed and detached". Can you elaborate?

[coberst]

Which of these types of intellectuals do you mean?

 

I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you mean by "committed and detached". Can you elaborate?

 

I am speaking about all categories of intellectuals. It appears to me that those individuals who formerly acted as intellectuals for our society have become hired-guns for corporations and government.

 

I think that an intellectual is someone who is committed and yet detached. By that I mean someone who is committed to a principle but is still able to maintain a rational rather than an ideological prospective about that principle.

[Overdog]

Ok, I see what you are saying.

 

It appears to me that those individuals who formerly acted as intellectuals for our society have become hired-guns for corporations and government.

 

I have experienced a similar change in my own perception of this over the past few years, however I am not sure why. While my perception has changed somewhat, I have not come to the same conclusion as you.

 

Of course this is just my own opinion, but in answer to your question, my sense is that many of our present day intellectuals are still both committed and detached.

 

I also believe there are a lot more intellectuals today than ever before, so it may be this increase accounts for my change in perception, but I'm not sure.

I don't know how we could really measure it.