Another important perspective stemming from our discussion this week was the idea that intellectuals as a group are not immune to corruption. If anything they are even more prone to the idea of “groupthink”, meaning they are more likely to seek out other people who have the same ideas as them and are easily influenced by those people. Many times people put an unrealistic spin on intellectuals in that they are supernatural humans that are exempt from all aspects of human nature which is not the case. If anything they are even more susceptible to influence by those with their mindset because of their egotism. As a result of their need to feel validated in their ideas and feelings they combine efforts and organize into institutions where they spread their own ideas.
This organization of intellectuals into institutions may be helpful but in the case of modern universities and the spread of “wokeism” as Professor Riley described it, it did the opposite. Intellectuals recognize their implicit power over others because of their extensive knowledge of all things in the world. That knowledge has the power to influence others who are not especially well-read on certain issues and take what they write or verbalize at face value because of their expertise. Why is it that they are not challenged? Or if they are challenged by other intellectuals who have an alternate view, why are those who oppose silenced? This is especially evident in modern society among those in health sciences regarding COVID-19 and politically regarding the disorder that our country has recently faced with BLM or the trans-gender crisis. If intellectuals hold the truth so sacred and value the “culture of critical discourse” as Gouldner describes in his book, why is there such little discourse even occurring?
2 replies on “Blog 3”
One thing that I found interesting on page 31 of the chapter on “The New Class as a Speech Community” is when it said, “in addition to having friendly, informal, or intimate ties with one another, they are also more likely to reside and vacation in the same neighborhoods and ecological areas, as well as intermarrying frequently with one another”(Gouldner 31).
Here he is talking about intellectuals. This really resonated with me because I remember a discussion we had in class about why intellectuals are not in charge of our country if they are so intelligent. One thing we talked about is maybe one of the reasons is because of their lack of charisma and that personality also matters when we elect people to run our countries because they are the face and representatives of millions of people. Here it says that intellectuals mostly spend time with each other which is why it seems like the reason they are not in these types of positions is because no one who is not considered an intellectual really gets to interact with them because they do not step out of their imagined community. Another quote from the same chapter that supports this is “the deepest structure in the culture and ideology of intellectuals is their pride in their own autonomy, which they understand as based on their own reflection, and their ability to decide their course in the light of this reflection”(Gouldner 33). This suggests that maybe intellectuals do not want to get involved in their nation’s politics which is why they much prefer to exclusively mingle with each other. People looking at this from an outside point of view may deem this as them thinking they are above others but we do not know what their true intentions are. Another thing we talked about in class that I found interesting was the fact that the intellectual class is growing in the western world and if you live in western society you have to trust intellectuals. This is something that I never thought about before I heard it in class and it made me realize how under the radar intellectuals are because you would think that we would know the people who create the things that rely on everyday, however it is safe to say that most people don’t even pay any mind to that. It is crazy to think that most people are putting their lives in the hands of people who they don’t know. I also found it interesting that intellectuals originated from the church. I found it interesting because the ideas that people in the church were studying are very different from the ideas that intellectuals probably study today. Although, it does make sense at the same time because back then when monks and priests were trying to find religious answers, they had to really think deeply and think about things that others did not just like how intellectuals decontextualize ideas. All in all they are practicing the same thing just in different contexts.
I agree I think the fact that intellectuals are not immune to corruption is an important point. Even though there are intellectuals in society that possess power and have influence over how to govern society, this power can still be manipulated.. We have seen throughout history that oftentimes power gets manipulated and intellectuals are no exception to this. Furthermore, I think that intellectuals, especially those that are involved in the technical world, have to work hard to keep their power. With technology changing and the digital revolution, there will always be better and faster products coming into the market. They have to race against time to stay up to date with the latest and greatest tech in order to be able to compete. Therefore, I think there is an element of fragility in their power and status in society.
In regards to the question you raise about why there is little discourse among intellectuals I think there are a couple of factors that contribute to this. In society we tend to sacralize intellectuals and put them on a hierarchical pedestal rather than “ordinary people.” We view them as elevated from the mundane. Due to the fact that we idolize them, we are much less likely to criticize their work. We are also more likely to trust them and not look for biases within their work. I think a lot of the criticism that intellectuals do face is within their own community. They are more likely to face criticism from someone in the same field of expertise, rather than someone who is not knowledgeable on the topic.