Month: September 2022

After our class discussion this week (9/14) one thing that kept coming up in my head was the definition of good and evil. How would progressives and utopians define the word’s “good” and “evil” if not in the eyes of God or through His teachings? The whole progressive, communist and socialist ideology is based upon the idea that mankind will one day reach the pinnacle point of “goodness” where utopia will arise. Yet in any of the readings there are no definitions for what “goodness” really is or what “evils” need to be corrected in order for humans to transcend normalcy.

This may be more theological than sociological but the terms “good”, “evil” and “love” were all coined in religious context first as in a believers love for God. How then do you secularize those terms? What makes a person “good” in the eyes of progressive’s? Perhaps it is someone that thinks totally internally to progress society to the ultimate organization it can be. He who is good is looking out for the progression of mankind and the God-like nature of mankind. We gave several examples during class of people lying, stealing from and starving others for the “progression” of society. Was this considered “good” in the eyes of progressives? If those populations had never experienced those tribulations they would not be able to reach transcendence? There is quite a fine line between “good” and “evil” or right and wrong. Furthermore, without God, everyone’s definition of “good” and “evil” would be different. How would they account for that? Considering each individual is like their own God they could coin their own definition for good and evil and it could be completely different from that of another person.

In all this is a critical aspect of their argument and it contains some clear holes from my understanding.

I thought our discussion about cultural critical discourse and the position of authority was interesting. The life of intellectuals is to find the truth. Intellectuals use the CCD as the rules are to justify claims that have truths, and you cannot say something is true because you have authority. I think oftentimes in society today we ignore discovering the actual truth if it is coming from someone in a position of power. Especially, in this age of technology and social media we are so quick to uphold a statement as truth if it is coming from an authority. With these technological updates there is so much information coming at us at once.  Therefore, if it is coming from authority, we do not feel the need to double check it for the truth. We need to follow more of the CCD from intellectuals sometimes. 

Another point of last class that stuck with me is the over saturation of the intellectual class. We are encouraging more people to get a higher education. However, there are not necessarily jobs available for them once they graduate. This can pose economic problems as well as success levels can be kept down. I think this problem of producing intellectuals is a problem that I am facing myself. I am choosing to go to graduate school immediately following graduation at Bucknell. However, I am having to network as I am applying because I want to ensure that getting this master’s degree will be marketable for a job and be worth it. I do not want to run into the problem of being over educated for a job that I could have done with just my undergraduate degree.

In this chapter Molnar opens with the discussion of a utopian society and mentality. He lays out the historical context of this idea and ties it into the groundwork that stems from religious aspects. To open this introduction it is important to understand what a utopia is. Molnar states that Aurel Kolnai thinks a utopian is “the utopian mentality is fascinated by that reality which consists of values, including the value of their complete realization”.(Utopia: The Perennial Heresy, Molnar 43) In the first paragraph that once this mentality is acknowledged we must make it a reality and if this is not put into practice immediately otherwise the idea and practice that goes against what he calls the “Non-perfect” is given the most extreme and sever punishments.

The idea of achieving perfection stems from the medieval age. It is not the utopian that we think of modernly but rather religious connotation because in this team the social framework stemmed from corruption. The reworking of their social construct involved a utopian sense, the idea of being absolved from evil to have “pure morality and pure spirit which sustain themselves by their mere spiritual superiority.” (44) The achievement of pure morality and spirit created a separation from those who were considered sinless and those who were deemed, sinners. This separation involved the abolishment of religious institutions such as Catholicism and its hierarchies. People who were considered puritans decided that people who were involved in catholicism were unable to be saved and were to be punished as a result. The idea of being sinless is tied to being self-righteous and self-divinizing as it is a goal to strive toward by ones own actions throughout their life. This is considered an easy project because obstacles are for the sinners since they do not truly believe in this utopian. If the sinless lead a “perfect life” in their own eyes then they are noble and achieve their divine goals. 

With technology and society, advanced Pantheists believed that a utopia could be achieved by their social classes because they are superior to others. A concept of the social class of Pantheism would leave their notions of religion as they knew it and the concept of “God” because modern technology has been a great achiever and traditional religion would hold them back from becoming the “Superior Mankind”. Another facet of purity that differs from traditional religion is the idea that one can not measure their acts and pass judgment until their acts show how much love was put into them. Molnar poses a few questions after presenting this statement, he states “how this amount is to be measured. And why should he? Presumably we are all “adult men,” able to judge our own· actions according to our own lights”. Molnar’s questions are ones that I had on my own while reading, is there truly an all-encompassing way to judge our actions? 

Another point of the chapter that I wanted to highlight is the section titled Dissolution of the Self. This section dives into other religions’ ideas of the sinner and sinless, more specifically Buddhistic views on what will happen if one gets rid of their traditional views of god. The idea of being self divine the way presented earlier is challenged here as in the Buddhistic view if one abandons God they abandon oneself and all of the things that make them human. The obstacles that puritans would view as sinners mindset is also challenged is what Buddhist view as instrumental to their foundation. Suffering and obstacles are how one can achieve nirvana and when there is no suffering there is no actual self left in the person. 

In conclusion, this chapter looks at the theological approach of a utopian society and the mentality different religions have toward this aspect. Molnar lays out the historical and more modern sense of this concept and poses questions and pushback along the way. This chapter is an overview of the groundwork of secular religion and man’s self-divinization that later he will go more in-depth on in the next chapter “Man-God”. 

After reading the Molnar pieces assigned for this week, I really resonated with the Secularized Religion and Man-God chapters. I found these chapters especially eye opening as it refers to the religiosity of our society and how we view the world today. Molnar talks a lot about the idea of pantheism in that everything and everyone becomes raised to the highest standard of existence. In more simpler terms it is that God is replaced and made into a secular idea that suits the goal of the individual. God in the original religious sense was held to the highest existence because of His all-knowing, perfect essence that encompasses Him. He forced man to acknowledge his inferiority in the universe and that his time on Earth is limited with the hope of achieving salvation and to allow his soul to prosper and live on for eternity in heaven. However, the progressive and utopian seek to take God out of the picture and replace him with man. When one replaces themselves with God there is no higher being; man is the highest being and he becomes the center of the universe with all-knowing and perfect power.

This is where society has been led astray. There is no differentiation between good and evil without God. Molnar cited Bishop Robinson in this chapter as saying “nothing can be intrinsically bad”. This also explains much of our current turn of events in the world in that people like to play God or genuinely think they are above the laws of God and nature. The utopian and the progressive believe science will fill the void of God in our society and that science has all the answers. Some food for thought, how could science fulfill the same role as God when science is a man-made entity?

In the Ersatz reading from this week, someone I wanted to note and discuss more is his statement that we can not give definitions to things such as mass movements we can only give them allusions to historical instances. I want to further understand why this is. He states that this is because definitions come at the end of an analytical process, but I would argue that in order to complete a process you need to be able to have a rough definition of what you are looking at. After the process is over this definition may change and shift. He later states in this discussion why definitions aren’t important because they only provide a summary of the analysis, I understand that concept but since a definition gives sense and the object that describes the concept why is it no longer important?  A part of the reading that I found the most interesting was the six characteristics of the gnostic attitude. I found myself agreeing with the majority of the characteristics but the only thing I had trouble accepting was more of the religious-based attitudes toward salvation. Salvation has a very theological connotation, and as I am not the most religious person I find it troubling when it is brought into academia. Not because one can’t be religious and an intellectual but rather I find it hard to verify or make a concrete statement when someone’s reasoning is rooted in something that in my mind can not be proven. I am trying not to be overly critical of these characteristics because they are rooted in religion and it isn’t my place to say that it is not true or a correct way of thinking. 

In the second reading a part I wanted to further explore the section titled 11.3. The points that are laid in understanding the new classes’ alienation. Something in this section that I want to challenge comes from parts b and c. It is being argued that there is a blockage of upward mobility, implying that intellectuals can only move laterally. I would say that after a certain point that is a true statement because once an intellectual is at their prime in their endeavors the question can be posed: what more can they do? But the point that I had trouble accepting is the disparity between their power and cultural capital in relation to their upward mobility. The only way this could have resulted in a disparity is if their power in society did not match their cultural capital. From my understanding of who intellectuals are in a new class, they have a balance between power and cultural capital relative to the social groups that they are a part of. Cultural capital and power are both relative concepts because there is no such thing that exists in society as a whole. So when looking at these two concepts in relation to upward mobility, I would argue that is possible for intellectuals to continue upward mobility in their respective cultural settings as long as they do not reach the peak. My argument might be a reach or a lack of complete understanding but if not I would like to further understand Gouldners thought process behind these statements and what he would say in response to what I have said. 

This week we mainly talked about Progressivism and their relations with the intellectuals. Progressives believe that men are intrinsically honest and good, though they are also subject to corruption. And they have certain fixations on the Pregressive Utopia, where a world without conflict can be built and all men in it are good or complacent. However, in reality, no such Utopia is possible. One thing we talked about was that intellectuals would always produce ideas that would challenge things. So if intellectuals were to really live in Utopian societies, either the society is not really utopian, or intellectuals would cease to exist.

We also see that Progressivism has logical flaws in their reasoning. On the one hand, they are trying to build societies that are Utopian, that is without any conflicts. On the other hand, to maintain such societies, there have to be some people or some structure in place. I believe that they are believing too much in individual “goodness.” For example, Communism also tries to achieve societies that were perfectly equal and without proper classes or differences among people – everyone would get the same for their work. However, there was still a really powerful party and party officials were clearly getting a lot more in the society compared to regular peasants. There is also the problem regarding human nature. In this case, everyone ought to get the same for their work. But people are also intrinsically lazy, that is they would prefer to not do anything “extra” if they have what they need and what they want. Then, for those who want to get more, the communist system would prevent them from getting what they want by contributing more. The more severe problem is that the lazy ones will drag everyone down. 

We can also find certain links between Progressivism and Gnosticism. Mainly, they are both assuming something unreasonable about things. Progressivists were believing that an Utopia society could be built on Earth; Gnosticists also just had blind faith in their religion. 

Another issue with Progressivism is their focus on the collective rather than the individual. Progressives often prioritize the needs and wants of society as a whole over the needs and wants of individual members of that society. While this may sound noble, in practice it can lead to the suppression of individual rights and freedoms.

For example, in a Progressive Utopia, everyone would be expected to conform to certain societal norms and expectations. Those who did not conform would be seen as deviant or disruptive, and could potentially be punished or ostracized. This kind of pressure to conform can be stifling for individuals, and can prevent them from fully expressing themselves or pursuing their own goals and desires.

Furthermore, the idea of a Progressive Utopia ignores the fact that conflict and disagreement are natural and inevitable parts of human society. No matter how much we may try to create a society without conflict, there will always be differing opinions and competing interests. Attempting to suppress or eliminate these conflicts can lead to repression and authoritarianism, as those in power try to enforce their own vision of what a Utopian society should look like.

In conclusion, while the ideals of Progressivism may be well-intentioned, they are ultimately flawed and unrealistic. The pursuit of a perfect society without conflict ignores the complexities and realities of human nature, and can lead to the suppression of individual rights and freedoms. 

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.

In this chapter/thesis, Gouldner seeks to answer the question: What are the origins of alienation of the New Class? To begin with, isolation of the New Class is not a recent event. Isolation of intellectuals and radicalization of classes has been happening throughout history. Gouldner goes on to describe a “communist consciousness” described by Marx. Marx and Engel claim that some intellectuals are radicalized by their historical consciousness. Gouldner claims that this statement is a contradiction because “How could the consciousness of a revolutionary proletariat emerge among those whose social being was that of the “ruling class”? “(58). Therefore, Gouldner argues that Marx and Engel’s views of the radicalization of intellectuals are too idealized. 

The main question that Gouldner seeks to answer is: How do we account for the alienation of intellectuals and intelligentsia? Intelligentsia originated in Russia during the 1860’s and in this context refers to a very educated class of people. To consider how they have been isolated over time Gouldner analyzes a variety of factors. First he looks at the culture of critical discourse (CCD) which focuses on the thought process of intellectuals. Next, Gouldner looks at the blockage of upward mobility for intellectuals. An example of this is training more native intellectuals than needed to fill certain jobs which makes it a more selective and rigorous process. He also looks at their relationship between income and power, as well as the relationship with their cultural capital and self-regard. Another condition that Gouldner analyzes is the intellectuals’ relationship with social totality (in regards to how they view social phenomena with a historical context). Finally, he evaluates their blockage of technical interests. Overall, these factors help us determine how well the New Class adheres to the culture of critical discourse. Through doing this Gouldner can determine how intellectuals have been isolated. He goes on to describe the “isolation of intellectuals as “distances persons from local cultures, so that they feel an alienation from all particularistic, history-bound places and from ordinary, everyday life”’ (Gouldner, 59). These factors are what isolate intellectuals from ordinary people and from the rest of society. 

Another important part of this chapter discussed the importance of human capital in the New Class. Gouldner claims that investing in intellectuals of the New Class determines their success in the future. He goes on to discuss the overproduction of education and manpower. He states that investing in cultural capital, “promises to intensify sharply the alienation of the New Class in the near future and to heighten its internal unity against the old class” (66). The investment in education, in a sense, can cause tensions between classes as to who should be in power. 

Overall, Gouldner’s analysis of the New Class in this chapter mostly concerned their isolation and alienation from society. During class we will discuss more about the factors that have caused this and how the New Class’ investment in cultural capital gives them the ability to dominate production and careers in society.

In “Coalition in the mind”, Intellectuals are described as people who decontextualize ideas that are meant to be true or significant apart from any locality, and apart from anyone concretely putting them into practice. I am curious to learn more about what type of ideas they target and how the ideas they have targeted have changed over time. How they decontextualize these ideas was also brought up as they tend to get together with other intellectuals and break down the ideas in a conference like setting. This is something that I really thought was interesting because the easiest way to come up with ideas, theories and opinions is to surround yourself with people who are like-minded and intelligent. People do not just become intelligent. They become it by who and what they are surrounded by so the idea of intellectuals working together to come up with their ideas is something I really enjoyed reading about and hope to learn even more about. Another thing that I found interesting was the idea of intellectual products having sacred status in comparison to other sacred objects. I want to learn more about why that is as it did not go in depth about that. I would like to learn more about microsociology as this is a term that I just got introduced to for the first time while reading this. It says that it analyzes the structures and dynamics of situations however, I would like to know what type of situations it analyzes. I assume that it analyzes similar situations that intellectuals would since it was brought up in a reading talking about intellectuals but, this is definitely something I would like to learn more about. It was also stated that the micro situation is not the individual, but it penetrates the individual, and its consequences extend outward through social networks to as macro a scale as one might wish. Is that related to microsociology? Does it mean that intellectuals try and analyze the minds of certain individuals to gather intel on what goes through the minds of certain people to help them understand certain things about societies. In “Coalition in the mind” it was also stated that all of human history is made up of situations and that no one has ever been outside of a local situation. I wonder what they are trying to get at as it is pretty obvious that history is made of situations. To me it seems like intellectuals do not get the credit they deserve as they are responsible for many things that have helped societies all over the world evolve for the better. Maybe a reason why they do not get the credit they deserve is because of how they are perceived by others. It is common that the perception of intellectuals is that they think too much of themselves and have a hard time interacting with “regular people” because they don’t think on the same levels which makes it hard to carry conversations. This could be perceived as cockyness when in reality, it could just be a case of two types of people with two different perceptions/interests.