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.