Month: August 2022

As a Biology major I have to admit that I do not possess much previous knowledge on this subject. As I mentioned in class, my schedule is packed with biology labs so it is refreshing to have a seminar based course in which I am able to write and discuss my thoughts with others. I am also looking forward to hearing other people’s perspectives and their takes on the readings that we will tackle this semester. I think that listening to opposing viewpoints will help me better develop my own.

After reading the course syllabus I am excited to learn more about what makes up an intellectual. Specifically, I want to know more about the evolutionary history of intellectuals and how their identity has changed over time. I am looking forward to understanding how class and society have shaped the intellectual’s thought process as well. What stood out to me the most in the introduction was that intellectuals engage in critical thinking. I think that this is an important and necessary skill to be able to understand the social environment around us. Intellectuals do not only enhance their own knowledge but they also communicate this to the rest of society. Therefore, in order to understand intellectuals, one must also understand their social and historical backgrounds.

What stood out to me the most from Collins’ “Coalitions of the Mind,” was his description of “Truth” as a sacred object for intellectuals. My understanding of this passage was that intellectuals deem certain objects or passages to be sacred. When a product is given sacred status this means that it could be used in ritualistic practices. Intellectuals utilize these sacred objects in order to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the world.

In Molnar’s “The Emergence of the Intellectual,” he claims that there are indeed a variety of factors that have cultivated the identity of the intellectual. For instance he brings up religion, law, politics, and economics as shapers of intellectuals. Studying the human condition to me is fascinating because there are so many factors and events throughout time that affect it. Another concept that I found particularly interesting was the relationship between peace, unity, and prosperity. These factors are what Molnar describes to be understood by the best thinkers of society which are the intellectuals. I agree with Molnar and think that these are fundamental principles of society which must be analyzed with critical thinking skills in order to be fully understood. Furthermore, I found it refreshing that Molnar claims that is not one universal definition of an intellectual. This definition has evolved throughout time and taken many forms. To me, that is what makes learning about intellectuals so interesting. There is still much more to learn and research in this arguably relatively new field of study. As Professor Riley mentioned, many universities are resistant to teaching such material because they worry this material is provocative. Yet, I think it is necessary to study such information because intellectuals occupy a critical place in society and throughout history.

I feel that we didn’t talk much about this in class, but I think it is worth bringing up since it is closely related to both sociology and anthropology (which is one of my majors). In the reading religious institutions are said to be important in the understanding of the sociology of individuals such as the way humans think and feel emotions. Those interactions that those individuals have with one another in the religious institution are what shape their wholeness as group. There is a sit of so-called “ingredients” as presented in the Coalitions of the Mind chapter, which was that there need to be at least two people for the interaction ritual to be considered an interaction ritual. For some reason that made me think about what happens if there is only one person and would that make it more like “witchcraft” or sorcery? Since those individuals would be by themselves, instead of interacting with people who share a connection its more based on objects.  Symbols were also mentioned as a way to keep that connection when the group is not together. I just thought that whole section was interesting.

In the Emergence of the Intellectual, humans have goals spurred by ambitions and social systems and groups also start to form. New inventions would then help humans achieve those goals, but at the same time, classes are formed and we start to see groups that have power over other groups of individuals. In one of my other classes that I am also taking this semester, Marxism was brought up because its one of the causes of humans continuing to destroy the natural world and its resources for their own benefit, such as to make a profit. The chapter talks about Marxism and it seems that that way of thinking bro0ught abo0ut bad things for humanity like famine, war and poverty in the eighteenth century. On the other hand, it seems once religion came along and Christianity became popular, the so-called “ideal world” concepts of peace, prosperity and unity were lifted to a higher level than they ever were before. After even more time has gone by in history, it seems that individuals have a much stronger concept of what it means to be an intellectual and their function and purpose. Even so, going forward other important concepts come into play that continue to change group dynamics as a whole. Redistribution of power and applying scientific thinking to coming up with ways to solve problems. 

Overall both of these readings brought to light things that I had learned previously or had not had the opportunity to think about at all. I also think that this class (which will probably be my last sociology class at Bucknell) will be a good rounding out of all the sociology classes and anthro classes that I’ve taken at Bucknell. On the first day ive already made so many other connections between my classes and i can’t wait to see what other connections can be made throughout the semester. 

In thinking about the intellectuals as mentioned in class, I have never before thought of them as their social class. These three readings have helped me shift my mindset to see intellectuals as their class. But I think of them as a part of the bourgeois in a way. Not that all people of this high class have the same knowledge or drive for learning as the intellectuals or that all intellectuals are of the same monetary level as the bourgeoisie but rather that they both see themselves as higher up and more advanced than others. 

Their relationship as Molnar laid out advanced each other. The intellectuals power seeking mindset is blinded. By this, I mean that intellectuals would not see themselves as power-seeking or greedy but rather they would see themselves as motivated to learn and advance. In the time period in which Molnar wrote this, they would see more of a positive lens on what they do rather than a negative connotation. 

When looking at intellectuals’ work we do need to look at them through a slightly different lens through which they view themselves. It is essential to see the world as they do to truly understand their work and how they fit into the social world, not just the intellectual realm. But in order to be critical of their work and of them, one can not look at everything the way that they do because then one too will become blinded and only see through one lens. To answer the second part of the question posed on the blog, yes this is the same for other objects of study. There will be no advancement in the world or righting wrongs if everyone thinks the same. In order to be challenged people need to know why you think the way you do and then push back and ask questions. In this instance diversity of thought becomes the most important. If the group of intellectuals is fading out of existence then that means there is no evolution to them and they have not adapted to the ever-changing world. 

Something that I would like to discuss further in this course is why Humanistic intellectuals have become more alienated. Many groups feel as if they should be of a higher status than others and should have more power, and society feeds into that and allows them to do so. So my question is what makes these Humanistic intellectuals so different from the rest of the power-hungry? Is there a difference, or do we no longer value knowledge and look for charisma as a society? With these questions, I want to further understand the difference in which we weigh social groups and the reasoning behind it, especially if it is not due to social identifiers such as race/ ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Or are these reasons why this group of people has dwindled from our social world? Do they have anything in common besides their knowledge? Feel free to comment below or we can discuss it in class.

It is important to consider intellectuals in an analytic lens that is not their own. Studying intellectuals in the way they study other subjects will help to eliminate potential bias. This is beneficial as what they consider to be “true” and the reality of what is true can be discovered. If intellectuals were only considered in a lens that is their own, we would only learn what they believe and want us to know. Approaching intellectuals with an outside perspective can allow for a critical examination. In this lens, asking questions and disagreeing with opinions creates discussion. Furthermore, taking this position allows us to gain a deeper understanding of intellectuals and the community they build. Posing questions also heightens curiosity. Additionally a benefit of studying intellectuals in the same way they study other subjects is that there are now multiple facets in which to study. If viewing them within the same lens, only that intellectual’s way of thinking and devoting to finding the truth would be studied. It will be difficult to determine what is “truth” vs what is opinion if we did not consider intellectuals in a lens that was not their own. Studying intellectuals in a traditional way of studying allows us to learn about the truth in a way that is diverse.

I am fascinated by the content of this course because the material is unlike any other subject that I have studied. I do not tend to critically analyze “Truth” in people. The majority of my classes are STEM based, therefore I am analyzing data sets based on validity from prior knowledge. I am excited to learn more about how to come about finding the “Truth” in an approach that is similar to the way I learn about other subjects, but with material that is out of my comfort zone. This course will challenge the way I think, which is important to grow and learn. Thinking critically about intellectuals will also make me think critically about myself. I will reflect upon what I hold to be “true” and what are just strongly held beliefs based on what I value. I think too often, we do not stop to challenge the truth because now there is so much information readily available, that one can find a source to support their truth. Therefore, I am excited to learn about how to devote your life to finding the “sacred object” of “Truth” and how it will shape my learning about the world around me. 

This week we are starting to learn about intellectuals as a social class. Mainly, we are defining intellectuals as people who “produce decontextualized ideas.” So everyone can produce ideas. In fact, people probably produce their own ideas all the time. But what separates the layman from the intellectuals is that the intellectuals produce ideas that are decontextualized – ideas that are ought to hold true in various contexts. A contextualized idea might be “I am feeling hungry” or “I am tired because of the amount of work I have.” But a decontextualized idea can be “humans feel hungry when they need to eat food and intake energy” or “people often feel more tired and stressed when they have workload that exceeds what they are used to, thus leading to lower productivity,” like what we see in psychology research. So a mathematician can be an intellectual; scientists can be intellectuals. But we should also note that musicians and artists can also be intellectuals, as the work they produce can also be said to be decontextualized. Moreover, we can also categorize people like philosophers or people who seek to influence the society by producing decontextualized ideas as intellectuals.

As intellectuals, knowledge and ideas are like sacred objects to them, similar to religious systems. Prof. Riley also mentioned at class how excited he and his friends were to see Pierre Bourdieu. To them, Bourdieu is like both a sacred object and a saint in their field.

In Collin’s Coalitions in the Mind, we see how the interactions between intellectuals fall under Goffman’s Interaction Rituals, since intellectuals often interact with each other in such a way that they are seriously discussing topics of interest and engaged with each other deeply. Thus, for each “group” of intellectuals, they would also have their own sacred object.    In Gouldner’s The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class, we learned about how the intellectuals started to rise as a new class in the 20th century. First, intellectuals started to become secularized, so they are more involved in the general populations’ lives, instead of what historically had been a church-centered society. Inside this new class, it is split between humanitarian intellectuals and technocrat intelligentsia.

After reading the introductory readings to this course and learning how the intellectual class came into existence it is clear that they do occupy a certain niche in our society different from any other. This in itself is important for close consideration and research into what makes them tick. As Collins, indicates “truth” is the sacred object to the intellectual class as “art” is for artistic communities. “Truth” is a commonly used word thrown around in our society as of recently and can be analogous to other words often used in the media, such as “facts” or “legitimacy”. Today with new viruses, scientific discoveries and political uncertainty/corruption constantly in the media is difficult to decipher what is true and what is false; what in information is being skewed to deceive the public and which is not. It is especially important to put intellectuals under a critical lens to learn the inner workings of their society. What in particular drives them and what do they hold valuable. This is no different than studying different religions or different political parties, they all have certain characteristics, rituals and customs that define them and differentiate them from other classes.

I hope that in this course we delve deep into the meaning of truth and what kind of truth the intellectuals hold so captive. Truth can be relative and can be clouded when influenced by peers or society as a whole. As Professor Riley brought up in class the French writer/philosopher that denied that Gulags existed is a prime example of the relativity of truth, although this individual knew he was telling a lie he convinced himself that this was right and true. Mattias Desmet, a psychologist that wrote a book called The Psychology of Totalitarianism, incorporated a study in his book that showed four lines of varying length labeled 1, A, B and C. The participants were asked to identify which of the lettered lines were the same length as the line labeled 1 but some of the participants were the researchers conducting this study who purposely chose the wrong lettered line to throw off the other participants. Some of the participants did conform with what the others were saying while some did not. I bring this up as another example of the effect peer pressure can have on your idea of truth no matter what the case be, whether it be something trivial like the line study or something more serious like one’s health.

In all, the intellectual class has the greatest potential to contribute greatly to the world and provide “truth” to the world with their research and scholastic endeavors. Yet, they also have the ability to deter the public and lead people by their own idea and interpretation of the “truth”. Coming from a university where intellectuals are bred it is important to think critically of ourselves and the environment that we are set in and create. It is all too easy to get caught up in power aspect of class hierarchy.