Something that I found extremely interesting in Paul Hollander’s Political Pilgrims was towards the end when he was discussing the idea of “self-discovery.” I thought this was extremely interesting because he called it “an ego-enhancing activity.” This is an extremely harsh take, especially when considering the fact that most people do have to go on the journey of self-discovery. I was confused by what Hollander was trying to claim. Is he saying that people who are not intellectuals, those who have trouble finding their interests or talents, will be on an endless journey for self-discovery? He states, “Travel is especially irresistible to those – and their numbers may be increasing – who seek instant solutions to personal or social problems.” This is confusing to me, because I believe that intellectuals can also be on this conquest for self-discovery. It seems to me that even though intellectuals have one calling, one line of knowledge that they devote their life to, they may still not have total self-discovery. Intellectuals may be constantly searching for self-discovery, if they have not found the truth that they are looking for. Similarly, if an intellectual cannot find the right company to work for, they will not be able to express their knowledge in a way that is important enough for them. If intellectuals’ knowledge is not verified by others or valid, they may be searching constantly for power or a means of approval. This seems very similar to me to the “self-discovery” that Hollander is discussing here.
I also found it interesting when Hollander was talking about how intellectuals had changes in their attitudes. The growth of individualistic expectations and their unwillingness to, “accept scarcity or deprivations,” led to a lot of criticism. Hollander talks about how because of the greater accessibility of higher education, it led to a large influx of intellectuals or people believing they could become an intellectual easier. It makes me wonder about how intellectuals took this criticism, and if they even cared. With my experience with intellectuals, I feel that usually they do not care about criticism at all, due to the fact that they believe they are so much better than everyone else. Most intellects feel that their field of study is also the best, and it is typical to see there be slight conflict between certain fields of study.
Something that reminded me of something we have talked about in previous classes in the video is how the author of the book was criticized because other people thought he was criticizing/complaining about intellectuals attacking the authorities. I remember in class we talked about how many intellectuals believe that they should be in positions of authority and that the people who are in those positions are not worthy of it because they feel like they know a lot more and could handle problems better than they can. It just made me wonder how much of a correlation our conversation had in comparison to what he was being criticized about. Also, when the author said that he expected his book to rub a lot of people the wrong way and that the media would not like the book, it made me wonder why? It made me wonder because he wrote the book which somewhat criticizes intellectuals and the intellectual class is much smaller than the non-intellectual class. We have learned that the non-intellectuals tend to look at intellectuals as unapproachable and cocky so why would it rub them the wrong way. This means that the vast majority of the audience up to that point were most likely intellectuals which is where the criticism was coming from. The author also touched on the fact that one of his biggest criticisms of intellectuals is their alienation from society which is another aspect we talked about in class pretty thoroughly as it is a big problem for them since they want to receive more recognition for the work they do however, the problem is that no one really knows who they are because of how distant they are from the rest of society.
The reading this week that I found the most interesting was “America Has Gone Mad”. It was interesting to read something about America from a different perspective and especially from a critical gaze. Something that shocked me at the beginning of the reading was on page 192 “German nazism, Soviet communism, and ( especially) American capitalism were in this respect utterly alike for him, as for many others; Mounier’s mysterious “personalism” operated from similar premises.” I have never looked at our capitalistic view in relation to nazis and communists, mainly because of the negative historical connotation around these groups, it was shocking to have American capitalism grouped in with that. Maybe because when one is so ingrained in that specific society they do not realize the harmfulness of it or the perceptive of it to other societies. Something that makes me uncomfortable in this reading was the description of Jewish people and Americans. Saying that both of these groups have polluted Western society and culture because of their access to wealth and power while being rootless. I found this statement to be classist and harmful to not just these groups of people but to anyone who has built themselves from nothing. I am not condoning the way that Americans built their empire but to say that they are polluting western society implies that they are seen as lesser and toxic. These parts of the reading made it more difficult to look at this reading objectively and without further biases.
After this point, I found the rest of the reading hypocritical. Especially the part about how being Anti-Semitic is now not respectable. Jewish people were just called toxins to the western culture but then now being Anti-Semitic is not ok? I understand that this peace is not placing all blame on America and it even calls out the French overreaction to capitalism but I don’t think bringing up the pollution of western society was necessary to get the point across.
Something I would like to delve further into is the idea that American intellectuals and European ones can not coexist. It does not make sense to me that to oppose one is to strengthen the other. If intellectuals are supposed to be a part of a community then why is there such disparity between different countries? The alienation of this group of people makes it seem like they would want more of a community base rather than to be in constant competition with other intellectuals. Is the disparity between European intellectuals and American ones the difference between the new class (aka the modern way of thinking) and the romantic era? If so is there no evolution and diversity of thought that would drive them together? Just brings up what could be an answer to this question I posed by saying it’s anti-American rhetoric but also a lack of trust in their own judgment, but is there any other explanation to this that might be more deeply rooted in something else, rather than that they think differently?
We started class by discussing Hagel’s view on his ghostly spiritual logic. Ghostly spiritual logic was not fully realized at the time that Hagel was writing, and wasn’t realized in the early time of history. This Rationality (with a capital R) or spirit is the force that organizes itself into the state of Logic (with a capital L). Human beings, through our own rational process, can bring order to a world. The world is not so hostile to rational organization. As a class, we discussed what this would look like, and shifted to the discussion of progressivism.
We shifted and started discussing progressivism and asked the question, “On what grounds does anyone want to criticize progressivism?” As a political movement, progressivism purports to advance the human condition through social reform based on advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization. The motor of history is driving in a certain direction. Progressivism is key to the survival of intellectuals. One of the large foes of progressivism is religion. We discussed how the biggest part about progressivism is advancement, and religion follows the logic of believing in past tradition and ideas that do not line up with advancement. Religion focuses on staying with old tradition.
We discussed for a while the question, “How do intellectuals fit into the utopian society?” We started the discussion by discussing what a utopian society would even look like, and if it was possible. Through coming to the conclusion that a utopian society is very hard to even imagine because of how impossible it is, we decided to shift back to how intellectuals fit into the utopian society. We talked about how since intellectuals are often focused on power, if intellectuals were in a utopian society, they wouldn’t be able to be corrupt anymore. This was a confusing topic, so we decided to break it down. We talked about how bad social institutions which lead to corruption are not the actual human beings doing, but the institutions themselves. If a utopian society existed, there would be no corrupt institutions and therefore intellectuals wouldn’t have the sway to gain power. This was definitely a controversial topic because it is hard to picture a world in which no human being is corrupt or evil. Even if there are no corrupt institutions, it is hard to believe a world where human beings are completely good. We talked about how wanting power could result in being corrupt, but wanting power isn’t necessarily an evil thing. It becomes evil when people want to use that power to do more harm than good.
We went back to the original idea of who an intellectual is. We talked about religious figures, especially those in power, and how they are considered to be intellectuals in their own respective field. We defined intellectuals as all pursing the realm of ideas as a profession or calling. Even though groups of intellectuals might be different, they all spend time in the abstract world of ideas. They focus on these ideas more than the typical human. This is interesting to think about because it connects the utopian society with religion. Religious institutions inherently can become corrupt, based on their traditionalist ideals. Conflict between religions is something that I do not see as completely disappearing, even if there is a utopian society. We talked about how as human beings, is there a way to judge our own actions? How would this work in a utopian society? It raises the question, in a utopian society how would there be a judge? Would everyone be on the same playing field?
In this chapter by Raymond Aron, from his book The Opium of the Intellectuals, he seeks to answer an age-old question of whether a Godless doctrine deserves to be called a religion? He states it is based upon one’s definition of the words involved but the doctrine of the Communists provides a global interpretation of the universe, while fixing the hierarchy of values and creating norms of good behavior. It fulfills almost all things that a traditional religion would satisfy. However, he asks “what is the meaning of a secular religion in the West, in an environment impregnated with Christianity?”
In the first section, Aron seeks to differentiate between the economic and religious attraction of Communism. He begins by stating that Communism arose as a result of a decline in the spirituality of people as well as the authority of the Church. Therefore, people twisted their passion for religion into passion for political action. The proletariat must see the Party as their vanguard and their dedication to the Party must be “total and unreserved”. This in turn forces society to deny known facts in order to take the place of real conflicts of human nature and their premise for existence in society. They hope to rewrite history and create their own philosophy in which the Party is never wrong and knows everything. They are then able to solve any aspect of human difference of opinion with a doctrine that can be twisted in every and any direction. Overall, the only way to achieve this is through total domination and violence in order to keep people in check.
He then goes into speak about the militants and the sympathizers. There are distinctions between the socialists that follow along the Communist trajectory militantly and those who sympathize for the cause but do not agree with the extent of violence and destruction it creates in society. Aron goes further to defend the socialist ideology in being open to the idea of communism and shifting between trust and despair caused by the ambiguous nature of secular religion and the hardening of opinions. He then defines the three stages of Communism in transforming from an ideology to a religion. It begins with the proletariat understanding their role and their symbol within the Communist Party. The second stage is the interpretation of facts and history to satisfy the dogma of Communism. Lastly, the third stage is one that true Christians could never fully ascribe to which is the idea that humanity will become perfect and organized under Communism. This essentially means that humanity is not defined by Christ’s crucifixion but is now a creature of Marx’s prophecies.
In the next section, Aron seeks to define the evolution of Civil Religion into Stalinism. He defines Bolshevism as being inspired by the idea of godlessness and it established its own path of truth through science. He then describes much of the progression of Communism and how it became such a prominent ideology. Mankind craves fulfillment in their hearts and without God they require something to fill that void. Aron states that intellectuals are the only ones that are capable of inventing such a an idea and is one of the main reasons intellectuals are especially vulnerable to the teachings of Communism. It is their own work that created such an ideology of truth, how could they deny that.
To finish, Aron writes that the final step in evolving an ideology to a religion is when the curators no long submit to history but write it and are all-knowing of the future and are in charge of it as if they are God. In essence it ruins relationship building and seeks to end hope and truth as they were traditionally intended to be in a God-fearing society because their entire life is based on their earthly existence.
Discussion Questions:
Why is it that Christianity itself is targeted as needing to be eradicated in the eyes of the Communists and not other such religions?
How can intellectuals justify Communism when their premise is based on subjective interpretation of truth?
Why does Christianity or faith in God persist even when intellectuals, who are held to such a high esteem, say it is falsehood? Or vice versa, why is Communism not all over the world if such a teaching is considered the new dogma?
In our conversation from last time we talked a lot about the overlaps between philosophy and sociology when talking about the evolution of intellectuals. Through a progressive worldview we described human nature as inherently good, but it is subject to corruption. Various questions arose such as: Is there an implicit order in nature? Is their moral truth in the natural world? This discussion made us think more about Christian progressivism and the role that religion plays in progressivism overall. Before philosophy and science there was religion. Human beings have been practicing religion as long as we’ve been around. I think that throughout time progressivism has taken new forms in regard to philosophical and scientific perspectives. It is interesting to see how progressivism has taken form in modern society. For example, during class we talked about how progressivism is shown through art. Progressivists find various new forms of expression. Furthermore, progressivism in art is tied to politics. Many artists convey their political progressive views through the use of symbols. This relates back to our conversation about religion and how the cross is a symbol in Christianity that is sacralized. There is a connection between religion and politics that is important to look at. For instance within the catholic church Pope Francis has more modern and liberal views than some of the popes that they have had before. I think part of the reason they chose him was to encourage the younger generation to join the catholic church. Therefore, I think there is a strong correlation between religion and progressivism that should be further evaluated.
What are some of the major reasons given by Aron, Hollander, and Judt why so many intellectuals aligned themselves with the Soviet Union, despite all the evidence that this was a totalitarian state that had made good on almost none of the promises made by the Bolshevik Revolution?
In what ways might we talk about Marxism as a quasi-religion? Why is this ironic?
How can we bring in some of the analysis from e.g., Voegelin on Gnostic thinking, and Molnar on secularized religion to help us understand the intellectual appeal of communism/Marxism?
Even though this question was raised in class about where individuality is in a utopian society, I cannot completely agree with the answer. In a utopia, individuality would almost cease to exist as conflict and difference over important questions such as values would boil away. The example was politics would no longer be needed, as there would be no difference of power in society.
I think I have a hard time understanding this as I lean more towards having the traditional religious view on human nature rather than the progressive intellectuals. I believe “humans are naturally capable of evil” rather than human nature is inherently good and its social institutions that corrupt them. I am not sure that by eliminating the bad social institutions within a utopia, that conflict will not arise. Looking historically, it will be difficult to remove conflict. Within this utopia, I believe that someone will question how this society is able to function. An individual who seeks out the truth could potentially spark a conflict in the utopia.
This relationship of good individuals within a utopia and then evil individuals that are corrupted is also connected to religion. Based on historic records, religion has been around almost as long as humans have. The Christian view of human nature is to construct institutions that will mold human nature in order to escape the propensity of evil. Furthermore,religion is why I do not see a utopia being able to succeed. Human beings generally want something to believe in that is a higher power than themselves. There are so many different religions and belief systems that exist, it seems unrealistic to boil away conflict.
The subtitle is “The Gnostic Mass Movements of Our Time,” which nicely summarizes what he’s up to here. Voegelin’s thesis is that there are numerous modern political movements that in the structure of their belief systems resemble Gnosticism.
(Gnosticism was a religious movement in antiquity, existing at the same time as early Christianity, probably preceding it, and which exercised some influence early in the history of Christianity as a heresy.)
Voegelin gives six central characteristics of Gnostic belief structure:
The Gnostic is “dissatisfied with his situation.”
The cause of this dissatisfaction is attributed to the “intrinsically poor…organiz[ation]” of the world.
It is believed that salvation for/from the corrupt, poorly organized world is possible.
The method of transformation of the corrupt world for a perfect one will be historical and this-worldly.
Human action can produce this beneficial transformation of the world.
The Gnostic sees his task as acquiring the knowledge to transform the wicked world and then acting as a prophet of the need for this transformation.
Among the political movements Voegelin classifies as Gnostic in structure are progressivism, positivism, Marxism, psychoanalysis, communism, fascism, and national socialism. As I indicated in our discussion, I want to suggest that wokeism—a mutated and much more virulent form of progressivism that negates virtually every founding institution of Western civilization—should be included as the latest such movement.
The Gnostic perspective on the direction of the change desired is modeled on the Christian idea of perfection, though it necessarily distorts it in moving it from the supernatural realm to this world.
For the Christian, perfection is achieved by the justified believer only in the afterlife, though this life is sanctified as the training ground for efforts to reach that pure state.
For the Gnostic, it is envisioned that the perfect state can be reached in this world, whether that perfect state is only hinted at and the emphasis is on the progressive movement toward it or it is carefully defined, as in Marxism’s vision of a classless communist utopia to follow the fall of the bourgeoisie.
Voegelin then launches on an analysis of the symbolic structures at work in the thought of a 12th century Christian theologian Joachim of Fiore (below), in order to show how many of these modern political Gnosticisms borrow from that structure.
Joachim imposed the trinitarian nature of God on history, claiming that world history would consist of three great ages, that of the Father (from the beginning until Christ), that of the Son (from Christ until the mid-13th century), and that of the Holy Spirit (what came after that). Modern Gnostic movements borrow this tripartite symbolism: Marxism sees human history as divided into the era of primitive communism, the era of capitalism, and the era of classless utopia, whereas wokeism thinks in terms of a similar trinity of primitive freedom and equality (sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans), slavery, and finally liberation in the perfect and hierarchy-free multicultural society.
Joachim also emphasized the importance of great leaders and prophetic figures that would be needed to move from one epoch to the next. The communist and fascist fascination with all-powerful leader figures (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Mussolini, Hitler) and prophets (Marx, Trotsky, Gramsci), who are typically intellectuals, is structurally very similar.
Finally, Joachim believed “the community of spiritually autonomous persons…a community of monks” was the engine of movement through the stages. Their autonomy is centrally about freedom from institutions. In Joachim’s case, this meant mostly independence vis-à-vis the sacraments of the Church. For the neo-Gnostics, it often is seen as escape from the bonds of the state, the family, and all other social institutions.
The Gnostic program for perfecting the world must, in Voegelin’s argument, omit elements of the nature of the world and being that disprove the program. He demonstrates this by looking briefly at such omissions in the work of Thomas More, Hobbes, and Hegel.
The Gnostic project is a corruption of Christianity also in the ease by which it is believed. Christian faith, by contrast, requires great personal strength, given the paucity of “tangible” certainty to undergird it. The leap of faith is difficult and it is constantly challenged by empirical affairs.
Gnostic movements are thus tempting especially to those who lack “spiritual stamina”: “[G]reat masses of Christianized men who were not strong enough for the heroic adventure of faith became susceptible to ideas that could give them a greater degree of certainty about the meaning of their existence than faith.”
Something that came up in class this week was that the people who criticize progressivism are being more rational because they are realizing that human nature is more complicated than what progressives are making it seem. I am not going to take a side on this as I believe there are good arguments for both sides however, I do understand what is being said in this claim. What is being said here is that you can rely on the man to a certain extent because you never know the intentions of humans and what their ulterior motives are which makes this a fair critique in my eyes. I am not saying that God is the answer but, I think you are putting too much at stake by relying on the individual too heavily. I believe that there should be a balance however, it seems like each point of view is very extreme. The supporters of religion and the supporters of progressiveness treat this dynamic like it is all or nothing. You are either one hundred percent bought in to God or one hundred percent bought in to the man. There needs to be a balance as too much of anything does not end up well. I also think that progressives are so bought in on the end goal of utopia but that is just not realistic in my opinion. This world has never been perfect and it most likely never will be because the world is too complex for that to become a reality.
