Month: September 2022

One thing that I found interesting on page 31 of the chapter on “The New Class as a Speech Community” is when it said, “in addition to having friendly, informal, or intimate ties with one another, they are also more likely to reside and vacation in the same neighborhoods and ecological areas, as well as intermarrying frequently with one another”(Gouldner 31).
Here he is talking about intellectuals. This really resonated with me because I remember a discussion we had in class about why intellectuals are not in charge of our country if they are so intelligent. One thing we talked about is maybe one of the reasons is because of their lack of charisma and that personality also matters when we elect people to run our countries because they are the face and representatives of millions of people. Here it says that intellectuals mostly spend time with each other which is why it seems like the reason they are not in these types of positions is because no one who is not considered an intellectual really gets to interact with them because they do not step out of their imagined community. Another quote from the same chapter that supports this is “the deepest structure in the culture and ideology of intellectuals is their pride in their own autonomy, which they understand as based on their own reflection, and their ability to decide their course in the light of this reflection”(Gouldner 33). This suggests that maybe intellectuals do not want to get involved in their nation’s politics which is why they much prefer to exclusively mingle with each other. People looking at this from an outside point of view may deem this as them thinking they are above others but we do not know what their true intentions are. Another thing we talked about in class that I found interesting was the fact that the intellectual class is growing in the western world and if you live in western society you have to trust intellectuals. This is something that I never thought about before I heard it in class and it made me realize how under the radar intellectuals are because you would think that we would know the people who create the things that rely on everyday, however it is safe to say that most people don’t even pay any mind to that. It is crazy to think that most people are putting their lives in the hands of people who they don’t know. I also found it interesting that intellectuals originated from the church. I found it interesting because the ideas that people in the church were studying are very different from the ideas that intellectuals probably study today. Although, it does make sense at the same time because back then when monks and priests were trying to find religious answers, they had to really think deeply and think about things that others did not just like how intellectuals decontextualize ideas. All in all they are practicing the same thing just in different contexts.

One thing that caught my attention while reading “Thesis Eleven: The Alienation of Intellectuals and Intelligentsia” was when Goulder said, “According to Marx and Engels, then, some intellectuals are radicalized by their “contemplation” and theoretical comprehension of history”(Gouldner 58). I am curious to know what he means when he says theoretical comprehension of history. Does this mean that they form their political opinions based on how they perceive history? One thing that I am questioning is the statement, “to participate in the culture of critical discourse, then, is a political act”(Gouldner 59). Is it a political act because someone using culture of critical discourse means that they are considering themselves as part of the intellectuals who use culture of critical discourse as their language. I am confused on how a use of grammar would be tied to politics but the only thing I can think of is what I stated above. It makes sense that the essence of critical discourse is in its insistence on reflexivity because there is constantly changes in grammar and you have to adjust on the fly to how the language is being used in certain contexts and also to keep it exclusive because they want to make sure that people on the outside are not in the loop of the language. There is a good chance that information can be leaked every once in a while so they have to be ready for that and act accordingly.

A concept that I really did not fully understand until we touched on it in class was how CCD is not necessarily applicable to all types of intellectuals. It is applicable to the types of intellectuals who are in fields like the technical intelligentsia because technical intelligentsia are types of intellectuals involved with science and in science there is no gray area. You are either right or wrong and you have to prove it. Since CCD says if you want to make claims you have to have proof this suits these types of intellectuals very well. On the other hand, the more artistic types of intellectuals do not necessarily involve themselves in the CCD because it does not make much sense for their line of work. Something I found interesting was how we talked about how the Idea of CCD goes against how the sociology community treats Bordeau because whatever he said people would believe because of his sacredness. No one would dare question anything he said even if he had no proof for some one the claims he made. This just shows that there are exceptions just like anything else in life. The last thing we talked about that got me thinking was the relationship between the power that intellectuals desire and the power they dont feel they have. Since they do not get the social recognition for the work they do, especially in western society they do not feel like they have much power and they want more respect. This is understandable but the problem is that a common trait of intellectuals is that they alienate themselves from the non-intellectuals because they feel like they are above others. Their high regard is probably one of the reasons they do not get the respect they want because they don’t really give others the chance to learn about them and interact with them.

In this week’s discussion, one of the topics was on the potential cause of the “problems” that we saw. We went into a lot of historic backgrounds, and analyzed that potentially, the overproduction of intellectuals is one of the main motives 

Maybe it is because current and past societies were structured in a way that limits social mobility. There are few ways for people to ascend the socio-economic ladder. For example, it is probably easier for a poor family’s child to go to college and then get a good paying job with their degree than to start one’s own business or through some other way to get a good paying job or just magically join the higher class.

The fact that people all want to become intellectuals (go to colleges) even when the results might not be worth it (not high enough payment as expected), might indicate that they had no other easier way to move upward along the social hierarchy. Rereading the chapter assigned for this week, I also noticed that Gouldner commented the same on this fact. Social blockade for upward mobility contributed to the alienation of intellectuals. Moreover, I think there is an interesting process going on. So, because of blocked ascendence, people choose to become intellectuals, hoping to have a better chance for ascendence. Yet, the reality is that they are still being blocked. Being an intellectual may have helped in some ways for ascendence, but if there are then too many intellectuals, there will be the same problem of blocked ascendence. Blocked ascendence not only contributed to the alienation of intellectuals, but it also led to “an increase in the political activity by the New Class and in open acts of confrontation with authority” (Gouldner 63). 

We then talked about how having too many intellectuals could potentially be a huge problem for society, especially when these intellectuals are unhappy. Since these intellectuals are well-educated, it won’t be hard for them to come up with plans to attempt to destroy the current society and have a “new society” that places intellectuals at better positions, like having more social influence or actually being “in charge” of the society. This is in line with what we have learned earlier about the intellectuals, that they are also actively seeking for power.

Another interesting thing I found in the reading is about intellectuals’ reliance on using words or ideas as their weapons. This stems from their tradition of CCD, and also explains why they view censorship as so much of a bad thing. This also creates another incentive for the intellectuals to seek more power, as media and publications were largely, and still are, controlled by the ruling class that has money and political power, instead of intellectuals.

I have some questions about Ersatz Religion: why does God appear so much in this text? I understand that religion played a hugely important role in the history of western societies. But is it possible to analyze the intellectuals and their traditions and thinking by controlling for the possible effects of religions?

When thinking about the culture of critical discourse (CCD), I thought that the whole concept would be good for any society since its not based on class or social status its simply based on whatever piece of information that one is presenting on and how they are able to prove it to their audience. We spent a decent amount of time talking about this in class and I thought it was easier to understand when Professor Riley gave examples of it. 

I liked the question that someone brought up in class on whether intellectuals actually follow the culture of critical discourse because I feel like in reality, a lot of people try to cut corners based on whatever status they hold. That also makes me think about the concept of truth which was brought up in the Gouldner chapter.  Specifically, Gouldner says that trust is democratized and all those claims are now considered equal within the CCD. (p59) Hypothetically, if someone were to present something that was not the truth and actually just fabricated information, does that mean that under CCD that falsified information would speak for itself? 

Particularly the section on education and how institutions are producing too many people who want to work in specific types of jobs. When Riley brought up how if any student came up to him and asked about getting a PhD in Sociology, he would have them think hard on that and see what the job market would be like. 

That applies to how i chose my career path. My majors do not have anything to do with my career path since at the time, I know that the job market was not looking too good for anthro and classics, especially in the archeological fields. Im on a pre-vet track and i keep getting told over and over again that we need more vets. Now especially after the height of covid, there is an oversupply of pets and not enough vets to treat them. 

In the Erastz religion reading, i did not have a full understanding of what gnostic religions were or what the movement was so googling it helped me get a general idea on the subject. In the reading, it says that the gnostic mass movement was the religious movent of antiquity. In the characteristics of gnostic movements, the 5th one stood out because it reminded me of the traditions that Stils was talking about in one of the previous readings we did. Specifically, the revolutionary tradition, where basically the world is evil and then gets replaced by something good. 

The part in the religion reading on symbols continued what was talked about in the Shils reading as well but in a slightly different light. In this reading, I felt that symbolism was more towards what it holds in Christianity. The Christian idea of perfection was broken down into two components which were teleological and axiological. The first meaning moving towards a goal and the second is of the highest value.

I thought last week’s class discussion was quite thought provoking. We brought up many interesting questions surrounding how to define an intellectual and their position in society. A great deal of attention was given to “decontextualized ideas.” When I originally read this I kind of glossed over it. After our discussion I realized that it is an important role that intellectuals devote their livelihood to. The decontextualized ideas that intellectuals are primarily focused on are true regardless of context and the situation. In my political theory class we discussed the difference between “we hold these truths to be self-evident” vs “these truths are self-evident.” This got me thinking about the decontextualized ideas from our class. I was thinking that even though the ideas are true regardless of context, could truths differ between societies. Thomas Jefferson specifically used the word “we”, which makes me wonder if intellectuals from different cultures discover the same truths. Can people from different cultures agree upon the same ideas? 

This leads me to our discussion on truth being a sacred object. I think that intellectuals of different cultures, but the same religion, would hold the sacred object to hold the same truth. These sacred objects are separate from and elevated the mundane. They are of singular importance and power. I thought that it was fascinating to think about truth in this way. Prior I thought that truth can be discovered and redefined. Although this is how intellectuals work, they give the truth more power than I have regarded the truth to have. 

I am interested to see how the Truth can be connected to the institutions that intellectuals designed, which is part of the focus of this week’s readings. Looking forward to the class discussion this week, as I found it interesting that the two readings conflicted with how intellectuals should rule. In the Ersatz Religion reading it is believed that an intellectual would not make for a good ruler as when creating their idealistic society they suppress an essential element of reality to construct this image. However, in thesis 11, intellectuals should make for good rulers. This is because Gouldner believes that in the New World those who govern should be those who possess superior competence, wisdom and science. Those who have these three characteristics are intellectuals themselves, thus making the argument that they should be the rulers.

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?

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.