One question that came up during last week’s discussion was: do we idolize famous intellectuals because of their name or what experience they have? I thought this question was very thought provoking. It made me also think about famous brands. For instance if Gucci were to release a new bag people would pay thousands for it because of the name. However, if a small company were to release the same bag people would be less inclined to pay that much money for it or to even want it in the first place. We as a society give power to intellectuals through idolization. We look at them as sacred symbols in society and put them on a hierarchy above “ordinary” people. I think this can become problematic because then we are less likely to question the credibility of these intellectuals. Furthermore, their work could be a reflection of their own personal biases. Also intellectuals tend to be obsessive over the technical, which I think could limit their perspectives. I think there is a lot to be said about who we give power to in society. There is an element of expertise and experience to which we grant intellectual power. I think that another important factor in gaining power in society is charisma. For example before he was president, Trump was a celebrity and business man without a career in politics. A large part of Trump’s success in his campaign was his charismatic attitude and ability to invoke a sense of nationalism within the crowds. I think this is true for intellectuals as well. I think that if they are likable and able to entertain a crowd with their lectures, etc. then as a society we are more likely to sacralize them.
Categories
One reply on “Emily – Week 3 blog part 1”
Something that this blog post reminded me of is the art industry. The art industry is extremely interesting because of how subjective it can be. Certain intellectuals are valued for their “objective truths,” for example coming up with a cure for cancer or solving an advanced math problem. Other intellectuals are valued for their “subjective truths,” such as coming up with a brand such as Louis Vuitton or painting an amazing piece of art. I remember when a painting that was just colored entirely black sold for millions. This is such a subjective subject and group of intellectuals valued for something that someone else could view as nothing. It is interesting to think about, because for intellectuals to be valued or viewed as special, others need to validate them. Sometimes the people validating new intellectuals are the intellectuals who have come before them, but other times it is ordinary people validating them and putting them on a pedestal. I wonder if intellectuals are more valued when they are validated by ordinary people or other intellectuals. A lot of ordinary people also may not understand the intellectual or what they are accomplishing, simply because they do not have that level of knowledge. For example, I am not someone who can acknowledge the difference between a college student painting versus a painting that is worth millions. To me, they are both accomplishing similar goals of painting something beautiful. However, people who are still valued as intellectuals in the art community aren’t less valued because of my opinion.