In this week’s reading Intellectuals and the Powers, I was particularly interested in the functions and formations of intellectuals. It wasn’t necessarily surprising to me that most intellectuals have their formative years at prestigious universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, and the London School of Economics. Still, I was wondering if there would be any shift in the schools that produce “intellectuals”? I put that in quotation marks not because I do not think that they exist but rather because I am still trying to differentiate between them and scholars and academics. Shils talks about how intellectuals lay the groundwork for the rest of the academic world, but I have a question: Can anyone lay out what the world should base on, or is this solely reserved for intellectuals? Another part of the reading I was confused about was the integration of intellectuals in the corporate world. This might be due to my misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about Intellectuals as a whole. I was under the impression that intellectuals solely stayed in the world of knowledge and learning, is this not actually the case?
Another part of the reading that I found interesting was the tie to religion. Mainly because of the deep history behind the two. This chapter has been looking deep into tradition and religious tradition is so ingrained into our society that it only makes sense that the intellectuals were formed and rooted in their religions. Not only did they look at it in the sense of advancement but they also critically looked at it and pushed back against religion which at the time formed a sense of isolation.
In the other reading for the week, in looking at the new class and the question posed, is the class unified by its common rules of discourse? The part of this reading that I found the most interesting was the answer to that question, which is the fact that this new class can go against the old class. Another part of this reading I found interesting and want to discuss more is the correlation that Gouldner makes between the new class and other groups such as women and Black people. This idea that people thought that these groups could not form a coherent political movement baffled me in a way, but at the same time wasn’t surprising. The denial of the new classes’ competence is in line with any new or minority group in a social-political sense. It is the sense of othering that hindered the progression of this group. Since the new class is not something as rooted in history as the original intellectual group they formed group solidarity or they did not speak to each other and that is interesting to me. I would assume that the group thinks mentality would be something more prominent in their mentality. Is this due to the competitive nature of the intellectual class? Or is it due to the egotistic human nature that is engrained into society as a whole?
One reply on “Week 2”
I think that the question you posed about the motive of the intellectual class is very important. I think that there is a fine line between ambition and being power hungry. As we discussed in class, a possible concern of the intellectual class is that the intellectual mindset will lead to totalitarianism. Molnar makes this claim on the basis that intellectuals would want to gain the support of their bourgeois counterparts in order to advance in a modern society. Through pursuing decontextualized ideas (this is addressed in “Coalitions of the Mind”) in a way intellectuals are challenging the traditional thinking of “ordinary people.” Yet, I do not think that this means they are necessarily seeking to employ a totalitarian democracy. I think making this assumption would be too broad- of course, there will always be exceptions of intellectuals who are in pursuit of totalitarianism, but to stereotype the whole group of this is too harsh I think. Therefore, to answer your question, in my opinion, I think that it is a combination of both the egoistic human nature and the competitiveness of intellectuals that drives them to do the things they do.
Another point that I liked that you brought up was the correlation between the intellectual class and its relation with women and Black people. I think that these minority groups have had a disproportionately more difficult time entering the intellectual class than others. Throughout history, as you mentioned, there has been a denial of their socio-political competence. With additional discriminatory hinders that society has in place, these groups are less likely to have the privilege and resources that other members of society do, which could make it harder for them to become members of this class.