Author: Emily Ahearn

Historically speaking, I found our discussion of fellow travelers and Soviet Russia to be very fascinating. We described fellow travelers as Americans that were interested in Soviet Russia. Soviet Russians enticed American intellectuals by having them visit the Soviet Union and in return the communists desired propaganda in the West. These state sponsored  tours were deceitful and extremely limited.  In their efforts to court them as allies they don’t let them see any of the unfortunate things associated with communism. The Western intellectuals were never left alone for a second and were always with a party official. They did not want the Americans to see any evidence of protest. We talked about one of the main reasons why intellectuals are dissatisfied and disgruntled is because they feel like they have been isolated. I think that Soviet Russians exploited fellow travelers and used their sense of isolation to their advantage. The Soviet Russians manipulated the Western intellectuals to feel a sense of inclusion as they wanted to recruit them as allies. It surprises me that these fellow travelers were taken advantage of and manipulated, as these are intellectual members of society. Therefore, I would have expected them to realize the true agenda of the Soviet Russians. It makes sense to me though that the Soviet Russians recruited these intellectuals during a vulnerable position when they felt underappreciated and alienated from society. I think there is also a part of these intellectuals that wanted to seek power through forming an alliance with the Russians. If they felt dissatisfied in the States, perhaps they thought they could seek power with Russia.

In our conversation from last time we talked a lot about the overlaps between philosophy and sociology when talking about the evolution of intellectuals. Through a progressive worldview we described human nature as inherently good, but it is subject to corruption. Various questions arose such as: Is there an implicit order in nature? Is their moral truth in the natural world? This discussion made us think more about Christian progressivism and the role that religion plays in progressivism overall. Before philosophy and science there was religion. Human beings have been practicing religion as long as we’ve been around. I think that throughout time progressivism has taken new forms in regard to philosophical and scientific perspectives. It is interesting to see how progressivism has taken form in modern society. For example, during class we talked about how progressivism is shown through art. Progressivists find various new forms of expression. Furthermore, progressivism in art is tied to politics. Many artists convey their political progressive views through the use of symbols. This relates back to our conversation about religion and how the cross is a symbol in Christianity that is sacralized. There is a connection between religion and politics that is important to look at. For instance within the catholic church Pope Francis has more modern and liberal views than some of the popes that they have had before. I think part of the reason they chose him was to encourage the younger generation to join the catholic church. Therefore, I think there is a strong correlation between religion and progressivism that should be further evaluated.

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.

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.

As a Biology major I have to admit that I do not possess much previous knowledge on this subject. As I mentioned in class, my schedule is packed with biology labs so it is refreshing to have a seminar based course in which I am able to write and discuss my thoughts with others. I am also looking forward to hearing other people’s perspectives and their takes on the readings that we will tackle this semester. I think that listening to opposing viewpoints will help me better develop my own.

After reading the course syllabus I am excited to learn more about what makes up an intellectual. Specifically, I want to know more about the evolutionary history of intellectuals and how their identity has changed over time. I am looking forward to understanding how class and society have shaped the intellectual’s thought process as well. What stood out to me the most in the introduction was that intellectuals engage in critical thinking. I think that this is an important and necessary skill to be able to understand the social environment around us. Intellectuals do not only enhance their own knowledge but they also communicate this to the rest of society. Therefore, in order to understand intellectuals, one must also understand their social and historical backgrounds.

What stood out to me the most from Collins’ “Coalitions of the Mind,” was his description of “Truth” as a sacred object for intellectuals. My understanding of this passage was that intellectuals deem certain objects or passages to be sacred. When a product is given sacred status this means that it could be used in ritualistic practices. Intellectuals utilize these sacred objects in order to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the world.

In Molnar’s “The Emergence of the Intellectual,” he claims that there are indeed a variety of factors that have cultivated the identity of the intellectual. For instance he brings up religion, law, politics, and economics as shapers of intellectuals. Studying the human condition to me is fascinating because there are so many factors and events throughout time that affect it. Another concept that I found particularly interesting was the relationship between peace, unity, and prosperity. These factors are what Molnar describes to be understood by the best thinkers of society which are the intellectuals. I agree with Molnar and think that these are fundamental principles of society which must be analyzed with critical thinking skills in order to be fully understood. Furthermore, I found it refreshing that Molnar claims that is not one universal definition of an intellectual. This definition has evolved throughout time and taken many forms. To me, that is what makes learning about intellectuals so interesting. There is still much more to learn and research in this arguably relatively new field of study. As Professor Riley mentioned, many universities are resistant to teaching such material because they worry this material is provocative. Yet, I think it is necessary to study such information because intellectuals occupy a critical place in society and throughout history.