In class, we described intellectuals as individuals who produce decontextualized ideas as described in the Coalition of the Mind Reading. They are decontextualized since they are related to what you are thinking about as they provide more information on the idea.
In the Shils reading, using symbols created a sacred object that is connected to the past. I thought it was interesting that in order for the intellectuals to remain connected to the remote symbols they needed a way of communicating with the past, which is where religion comes into play. With religion also comes educational systems because the leaders need to understand their own history and regimes. A stable society needs symbols that therefore link the societal members together. Also out of this comes hierarchies, where there is a possibility that those under leadership could reject it.
Intellectuals work together to solve everyday problems and hurdles. Out of this comes a cultural value system that becomes apparent in every generation that follows.
The Shils reading actually reminded me a lot on the concept that I learned about in Riley’s theory class starting all the way back to hunter-gathers. Individuals in a society learn to overcome complex problems by working together, and later on if that problem comes up again they automatically know how to solve it. The stories of ancestors are passed down through generations and in turn those stories become the sacred objects/symbols that help society to function as a concrete whole and even teach lessons in life.
I thought it was helpful that we went over the intellectual traditions in class, since I honestly had not heard of them until I did the reading. Out of those five traditions, the apocalyptic traditions stood out the most to me. The basic concept is that evil will be replaced by good to create a better world. This felt very religious to me, as mentioned in the chapter. I also believe that this tradition shows how ideas from the past are still relevant today or found to be integrated into the ideas of today in some way shape or form.
The Gouldner reading on The New class as a Speech Community, had a critique on Shils discussion of alienative disposition of intellectuals. In hindsight, I probably should have read Shils first and then Gouldner in order to get a better understanding of what Shils was referring to.
Gouldner’s critique ultimately is on how Shils’ view is on the old class and their traditions (pages 33 and 34) Gouldner also believes that Shil’s intellectual traditions are more for western intellectuals. I like how he picks apart Shil’s work and then adds the idea of “voluntarism” or self-groundedness regarding one internal aspect (chosen, indigenous, and natural) I guess what he is trying to say is that people have the ability to make decisions for themselves and do not need outside influences imposing ideas on them. This idea of self-groundedness, how intellectuals take pride in their own autonomy as Gouldner puts it, therefore becomes a central principle in modern intellectuals’ way of thinking.