Month: September 2022

Upon reading “The Intellectual and the Powers,” I was fascinated by Ed Shils’ description of ordinary life. He claims that ordinary people are not concerned with the sacred and it occurs in the present. To my understanding Shils claims that it is the task of intellectuals to look at the past and to be involved in the sacred. He goes on to describe a “spiritual wealth” in which intellectuals gain from. To do this they evaluate symbols and give meaning to past events. He further goes on to to say that members of society  “need to have at least intermittently some sense of the stability, coherence, and orderliness of their society; they need therefore a body of symbols, such as songs, histories, poems, biographies, constitutions, etc., which diffuses a sense of affinity among the members of the society” (Shils, 181). The meanings of these symbols are reinforced with ritual practices as we discussed during class. Intellectuals deem some aspects of life to be sacred. In class we defined sacredness as any  idea, thing, or symbol separated from mundane everyday life and elevated above those things. 

What I found interesting was how we apply sacredness to modern society. One example that we discussed was music and how we view The Beatles and The Rolling Stones as sacred. Furthermore, in sports we view certain players and athletes as sacred. For instance, Serena Williams recently played in the 2022 US Open and many celebrities attended because of their respect and admiration for her skill and athletic ability. We also talked about how sacredness originated in a religious context and how transcendental thinking gave new meaning to the term. Overall, I think it is important to understand how our understanding of the sacred has evolved throughout history and what it looks like in today’s society as well.

First, we talked about the idea of Culture of Critical Discourse (CCD) — using reason and rationality to get people to agree with one’s idea because it is sound, instead of using one’s authority or power to force people into believing. But, it is also weird to me, as I feel that there are some intellectuals, like the example Prof. Riley gave on Sartre, that are not really following the culture of critical discourse. For natural scientists, as claims must be backed with empirical evidence, there is little room for debate if the empirical evidence directly contradicts one’s claim. Prof. Riley then made it clear that people like poets, social activists, or professors can also be classified as intellectuals. Although it is defined that intellectuals are people that practice culture of critical discourse, I feel that in practice, sometimes it is not true. Often times, people are not using reason and rationality.

We then analyzed intellectuals in relation to power. While often perceived only interested in seeking the truth, intellectuals — as a social group — are just like any other social groups; they would seek to gain power and rise in the social hierarchy. I proposed the claim that there are many intellectuals, especially natural scientists, I would say are not trying to gain power. They are not trying to become the more powerful class and rule others. For example, I know many math professors that do research in their field because they simply love the beauty in whatever subject they are researching. Prof. Riley’s response to this was that: although these intellectuals are not trying to overpower other people in the society, they almost all hope to gain power in their own field – like through publishing papers or making groundbreaking discoveries.

In the reading, we also saw that intellectuals believe that they should “run” the society as they know best about things. It sounds sound, but in reality is flawed. Intellectuals are still human beings that could make mistakes just like everyone else. The fact that they actively try to practice the CCD does not mean that they are constantly doing that all the time. They might have different social roles and do different things for those responsibilities. They could also make mistakes at times. So we have a paradox or a dichotomy. Intellectuals claim to, or at least hope to, practice CCD, yet I feel that it is against our human nature. We are not purely rational beings.

Sacredness in the intellectuals. Just like religions, intellectuals have sacred practices and sacred artifacts as well. To them, the pursuit of the truth is their sacred practice; famous intellectuals are seen as sacred figures and have certain reverence and power among the intellectuals or even the general public.

I feel that religion is more like a general structure that could be applied to many other aspects of the social world. Though, typically, religion refers to Christianity, Catholicism, Muslim, and etc, but there are also just so many things in life that people just claim that they “believe it” yet are unable to back it up with any real world evidence.

Another important perspective stemming from our discussion this week was the idea that intellectuals as a group are not immune to corruption. If anything they are even more prone to the idea of “groupthink”, meaning they are more likely to seek out other people who have the same ideas as them and are easily influenced by those people. Many times people put an unrealistic spin on intellectuals in that they are supernatural humans that are exempt from all aspects of human nature which is not the case. If anything they are even more susceptible to influence by those with their mindset because of their egotism. As a result of their need to feel validated in their ideas and feelings they combine efforts and organize into institutions where they spread their own ideas.

This organization of intellectuals into institutions may be helpful but in the case of modern universities and the spread of “wokeism” as Professor Riley described it, it did the opposite. Intellectuals recognize their implicit power over others because of their extensive knowledge of all things in the world. That knowledge has the power to influence others who are not especially well-read on certain issues and take what they write or verbalize at face value because of their expertise. Why is it that they are not challenged? Or if they are challenged by other intellectuals who have an alternate view, why are those who oppose silenced? This is especially evident in modern society among those in health sciences regarding COVID-19 and politically regarding the disorder that our country has recently faced with BLM or the trans-gender crisis. If intellectuals hold the truth so sacred and value the “culture of critical discourse” as Gouldner describes in his book, why is there such little discourse even occurring?

After yesterday’s discussion of the origin of intellectuals, the idea of how they as a collective class are exceptionally susceptible to seek power really stuck with me. One important question that was brought up was is it reasonable to allow those that are within the intellectual class, supposedly the most intelligent individuals in a society, to rule or make up the political governing system of our society? I would like to address that question in this blog. In short, being intelligent is not the only indicator of a strong leader and one that should be making laws or rules. Often times the greatest leaders are not necessarily those that create “decontextualized” ideas or think of ideas without solicitation in seek of the truth. Great leaders are able to learn from past leaders and past experiences using compassion, confidence while having the best interest of the public in mind. Intellectuals do not necessarily always fit into that criteria.

As we discussed in class individual intellectuals seek power in some aspect, whether that be through their educated discipline or some other aspect of their lives but in general intellectuals aim to rise up in the ladder of status. This tendency to continuously gain a higher status by producing more sacred ideas or products is particularly unique to intellectuals and takes a certain type of individual, one with charisma and confidence. As a result, this may be a reason why the public tends to gravitate toward those individuals and believe what they have to say and how they gain power, whether that be political, informational or educational. Therefore, intellectuals individual or group are not always necessarily the greatest choice to lead but it is understandable as to why the public views them as credible and trustworthy.