Author: Alexandra Strapko

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.

After reading the introductory readings to this course and learning how the intellectual class came into existence it is clear that they do occupy a certain niche in our society different from any other. This in itself is important for close consideration and research into what makes them tick. As Collins, indicates “truth” is the sacred object to the intellectual class as “art” is for artistic communities. “Truth” is a commonly used word thrown around in our society as of recently and can be analogous to other words often used in the media, such as “facts” or “legitimacy”. Today with new viruses, scientific discoveries and political uncertainty/corruption constantly in the media is difficult to decipher what is true and what is false; what in information is being skewed to deceive the public and which is not. It is especially important to put intellectuals under a critical lens to learn the inner workings of their society. What in particular drives them and what do they hold valuable. This is no different than studying different religions or different political parties, they all have certain characteristics, rituals and customs that define them and differentiate them from other classes.

I hope that in this course we delve deep into the meaning of truth and what kind of truth the intellectuals hold so captive. Truth can be relative and can be clouded when influenced by peers or society as a whole. As Professor Riley brought up in class the French writer/philosopher that denied that Gulags existed is a prime example of the relativity of truth, although this individual knew he was telling a lie he convinced himself that this was right and true. Mattias Desmet, a psychologist that wrote a book called The Psychology of Totalitarianism, incorporated a study in his book that showed four lines of varying length labeled 1, A, B and C. The participants were asked to identify which of the lettered lines were the same length as the line labeled 1 but some of the participants were the researchers conducting this study who purposely chose the wrong lettered line to throw off the other participants. Some of the participants did conform with what the others were saying while some did not. I bring this up as another example of the effect peer pressure can have on your idea of truth no matter what the case be, whether it be something trivial like the line study or something more serious like one’s health.

In all, the intellectual class has the greatest potential to contribute greatly to the world and provide “truth” to the world with their research and scholastic endeavors. Yet, they also have the ability to deter the public and lead people by their own idea and interpretation of the “truth”. Coming from a university where intellectuals are bred it is important to think critically of ourselves and the environment that we are set in and create. It is all too easy to get caught up in power aspect of class hierarchy.