Author: Symone Ryans

In this chapter Molnar opens with the discussion of a utopian society and mentality. He lays out the historical context of this idea and ties it into the groundwork that stems from religious aspects. To open this introduction it is important to understand what a utopia is. Molnar states that Aurel Kolnai thinks a utopian is “the utopian mentality is fascinated by that reality which consists of values, including the value of their complete realization”.(Utopia: The Perennial Heresy, Molnar 43) In the first paragraph that once this mentality is acknowledged we must make it a reality and if this is not put into practice immediately otherwise the idea and practice that goes against what he calls the “Non-perfect” is given the most extreme and sever punishments.

The idea of achieving perfection stems from the medieval age. It is not the utopian that we think of modernly but rather religious connotation because in this team the social framework stemmed from corruption. The reworking of their social construct involved a utopian sense, the idea of being absolved from evil to have “pure morality and pure spirit which sustain themselves by their mere spiritual superiority.” (44) The achievement of pure morality and spirit created a separation from those who were considered sinless and those who were deemed, sinners. This separation involved the abolishment of religious institutions such as Catholicism and its hierarchies. People who were considered puritans decided that people who were involved in catholicism were unable to be saved and were to be punished as a result. The idea of being sinless is tied to being self-righteous and self-divinizing as it is a goal to strive toward by ones own actions throughout their life. This is considered an easy project because obstacles are for the sinners since they do not truly believe in this utopian. If the sinless lead a “perfect life” in their own eyes then they are noble and achieve their divine goals. 

With technology and society, advanced Pantheists believed that a utopia could be achieved by their social classes because they are superior to others. A concept of the social class of Pantheism would leave their notions of religion as they knew it and the concept of “God” because modern technology has been a great achiever and traditional religion would hold them back from becoming the “Superior Mankind”. Another facet of purity that differs from traditional religion is the idea that one can not measure their acts and pass judgment until their acts show how much love was put into them. Molnar poses a few questions after presenting this statement, he states “how this amount is to be measured. And why should he? Presumably we are all “adult men,” able to judge our own· actions according to our own lights”. Molnar’s questions are ones that I had on my own while reading, is there truly an all-encompassing way to judge our actions? 

Another point of the chapter that I wanted to highlight is the section titled Dissolution of the Self. This section dives into other religions’ ideas of the sinner and sinless, more specifically Buddhistic views on what will happen if one gets rid of their traditional views of god. The idea of being self divine the way presented earlier is challenged here as in the Buddhistic view if one abandons God they abandon oneself and all of the things that make them human. The obstacles that puritans would view as sinners mindset is also challenged is what Buddhist view as instrumental to their foundation. Suffering and obstacles are how one can achieve nirvana and when there is no suffering there is no actual self left in the person. 

In conclusion, this chapter looks at the theological approach of a utopian society and the mentality different religions have toward this aspect. Molnar lays out the historical and more modern sense of this concept and poses questions and pushback along the way. This chapter is an overview of the groundwork of secular religion and man’s self-divinization that later he will go more in-depth on in the next chapter “Man-God”. 

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. 

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 thinking about the intellectuals as mentioned in class, I have never before thought of them as their social class. These three readings have helped me shift my mindset to see intellectuals as their class. But I think of them as a part of the bourgeois in a way. Not that all people of this high class have the same knowledge or drive for learning as the intellectuals or that all intellectuals are of the same monetary level as the bourgeoisie but rather that they both see themselves as higher up and more advanced than others. 

Their relationship as Molnar laid out advanced each other. The intellectuals power seeking mindset is blinded. By this, I mean that intellectuals would not see themselves as power-seeking or greedy but rather they would see themselves as motivated to learn and advance. In the time period in which Molnar wrote this, they would see more of a positive lens on what they do rather than a negative connotation. 

When looking at intellectuals’ work we do need to look at them through a slightly different lens through which they view themselves. It is essential to see the world as they do to truly understand their work and how they fit into the social world, not just the intellectual realm. But in order to be critical of their work and of them, one can not look at everything the way that they do because then one too will become blinded and only see through one lens. To answer the second part of the question posed on the blog, yes this is the same for other objects of study. There will be no advancement in the world or righting wrongs if everyone thinks the same. In order to be challenged people need to know why you think the way you do and then push back and ask questions. In this instance diversity of thought becomes the most important. If the group of intellectuals is fading out of existence then that means there is no evolution to them and they have not adapted to the ever-changing world. 

Something that I would like to discuss further in this course is why Humanistic intellectuals have become more alienated. Many groups feel as if they should be of a higher status than others and should have more power, and society feeds into that and allows them to do so. So my question is what makes these Humanistic intellectuals so different from the rest of the power-hungry? Is there a difference, or do we no longer value knowledge and look for charisma as a society? With these questions, I want to further understand the difference in which we weigh social groups and the reasoning behind it, especially if it is not due to social identifiers such as race/ ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Or are these reasons why this group of people has dwindled from our social world? Do they have anything in common besides their knowledge? Feel free to comment below or we can discuss it in class.