Category: Student Posts

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. 

This week we mainly talked about Progressivism and their relations with the intellectuals. Progressives believe that men are intrinsically honest and good, though they are also subject to corruption. And they have certain fixations on the Pregressive Utopia, where a world without conflict can be built and all men in it are good or complacent. However, in reality, no such Utopia is possible. One thing we talked about was that intellectuals would always produce ideas that would challenge things. So if intellectuals were to really live in Utopian societies, either the society is not really utopian, or intellectuals would cease to exist.

We also see that Progressivism has logical flaws in their reasoning. On the one hand, they are trying to build societies that are Utopian, that is without any conflicts. On the other hand, to maintain such societies, there have to be some people or some structure in place. I believe that they are believing too much in individual “goodness.” For example, Communism also tries to achieve societies that were perfectly equal and without proper classes or differences among people – everyone would get the same for their work. However, there was still a really powerful party and party officials were clearly getting a lot more in the society compared to regular peasants. There is also the problem regarding human nature. In this case, everyone ought to get the same for their work. But people are also intrinsically lazy, that is they would prefer to not do anything “extra” if they have what they need and what they want. Then, for those who want to get more, the communist system would prevent them from getting what they want by contributing more. The more severe problem is that the lazy ones will drag everyone down. 

We can also find certain links between Progressivism and Gnosticism. Mainly, they are both assuming something unreasonable about things. Progressivists were believing that an Utopia society could be built on Earth; Gnosticists also just had blind faith in their religion. 

Another issue with Progressivism is their focus on the collective rather than the individual. Progressives often prioritize the needs and wants of society as a whole over the needs and wants of individual members of that society. While this may sound noble, in practice it can lead to the suppression of individual rights and freedoms.

For example, in a Progressive Utopia, everyone would be expected to conform to certain societal norms and expectations. Those who did not conform would be seen as deviant or disruptive, and could potentially be punished or ostracized. This kind of pressure to conform can be stifling for individuals, and can prevent them from fully expressing themselves or pursuing their own goals and desires.

Furthermore, the idea of a Progressive Utopia ignores the fact that conflict and disagreement are natural and inevitable parts of human society. No matter how much we may try to create a society without conflict, there will always be differing opinions and competing interests. Attempting to suppress or eliminate these conflicts can lead to repression and authoritarianism, as those in power try to enforce their own vision of what a Utopian society should look like.

In conclusion, while the ideals of Progressivism may be well-intentioned, they are ultimately flawed and unrealistic. The pursuit of a perfect society without conflict ignores the complexities and realities of human nature, and can lead to the suppression of individual rights and freedoms. 

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.

In “Coalition in the mind”, Intellectuals are described as people who decontextualize ideas that are meant to be true or significant apart from any locality, and apart from anyone concretely putting them into practice. I am curious to learn more about what type of ideas they target and how the ideas they have targeted have changed over time. How they decontextualize these ideas was also brought up as they tend to get together with other intellectuals and break down the ideas in a conference like setting. This is something that I really thought was interesting because the easiest way to come up with ideas, theories and opinions is to surround yourself with people who are like-minded and intelligent. People do not just become intelligent. They become it by who and what they are surrounded by so the idea of intellectuals working together to come up with their ideas is something I really enjoyed reading about and hope to learn even more about. Another thing that I found interesting was the idea of intellectual products having sacred status in comparison to other sacred objects. I want to learn more about why that is as it did not go in depth about that. I would like to learn more about microsociology as this is a term that I just got introduced to for the first time while reading this. It says that it analyzes the structures and dynamics of situations however, I would like to know what type of situations it analyzes. I assume that it analyzes similar situations that intellectuals would since it was brought up in a reading talking about intellectuals but, this is definitely something I would like to learn more about. It was also stated that the micro situation is not the individual, but it penetrates the individual, and its consequences extend outward through social networks to as macro a scale as one might wish. Is that related to microsociology? Does it mean that intellectuals try and analyze the minds of certain individuals to gather intel on what goes through the minds of certain people to help them understand certain things about societies. In “Coalition in the mind” it was also stated that all of human history is made up of situations and that no one has ever been outside of a local situation. I wonder what they are trying to get at as it is pretty obvious that history is made of situations. To me it seems like intellectuals do not get the credit they deserve as they are responsible for many things that have helped societies all over the world evolve for the better. Maybe a reason why they do not get the credit they deserve is because of how they are perceived by others. It is common that the perception of intellectuals is that they think too much of themselves and have a hard time interacting with “regular people” because they don’t think on the same levels which makes it hard to carry conversations. This could be perceived as cockyness when in reality, it could just be a case of two types of people with two different perceptions/interests.

One thing that I found interesting on page 31 of the chapter on “The New Class as a Speech Community” is when it said, “in addition to having friendly, informal, or intimate ties with one another, they are also more likely to reside and vacation in the same neighborhoods and ecological areas, as well as intermarrying frequently with one another”(Gouldner 31).
Here he is talking about intellectuals. This really resonated with me because I remember a discussion we had in class about why intellectuals are not in charge of our country if they are so intelligent. One thing we talked about is maybe one of the reasons is because of their lack of charisma and that personality also matters when we elect people to run our countries because they are the face and representatives of millions of people. Here it says that intellectuals mostly spend time with each other which is why it seems like the reason they are not in these types of positions is because no one who is not considered an intellectual really gets to interact with them because they do not step out of their imagined community. Another quote from the same chapter that supports this is “the deepest structure in the culture and ideology of intellectuals is their pride in their own autonomy, which they understand as based on their own reflection, and their ability to decide their course in the light of this reflection”(Gouldner 33). This suggests that maybe intellectuals do not want to get involved in their nation’s politics which is why they much prefer to exclusively mingle with each other. People looking at this from an outside point of view may deem this as them thinking they are above others but we do not know what their true intentions are. Another thing we talked about in class that I found interesting was the fact that the intellectual class is growing in the western world and if you live in western society you have to trust intellectuals. This is something that I never thought about before I heard it in class and it made me realize how under the radar intellectuals are because you would think that we would know the people who create the things that rely on everyday, however it is safe to say that most people don’t even pay any mind to that. It is crazy to think that most people are putting their lives in the hands of people who they don’t know. I also found it interesting that intellectuals originated from the church. I found it interesting because the ideas that people in the church were studying are very different from the ideas that intellectuals probably study today. Although, it does make sense at the same time because back then when monks and priests were trying to find religious answers, they had to really think deeply and think about things that others did not just like how intellectuals decontextualize ideas. All in all they are practicing the same thing just in different contexts.

One thing that caught my attention while reading “Thesis Eleven: The Alienation of Intellectuals and Intelligentsia” was when Goulder said, “According to Marx and Engels, then, some intellectuals are radicalized by their “contemplation” and theoretical comprehension of history”(Gouldner 58). I am curious to know what he means when he says theoretical comprehension of history. Does this mean that they form their political opinions based on how they perceive history? One thing that I am questioning is the statement, “to participate in the culture of critical discourse, then, is a political act”(Gouldner 59). Is it a political act because someone using culture of critical discourse means that they are considering themselves as part of the intellectuals who use culture of critical discourse as their language. I am confused on how a use of grammar would be tied to politics but the only thing I can think of is what I stated above. It makes sense that the essence of critical discourse is in its insistence on reflexivity because there is constantly changes in grammar and you have to adjust on the fly to how the language is being used in certain contexts and also to keep it exclusive because they want to make sure that people on the outside are not in the loop of the language. There is a good chance that information can be leaked every once in a while so they have to be ready for that and act accordingly.

A concept that I really did not fully understand until we touched on it in class was how CCD is not necessarily applicable to all types of intellectuals. It is applicable to the types of intellectuals who are in fields like the technical intelligentsia because technical intelligentsia are types of intellectuals involved with science and in science there is no gray area. You are either right or wrong and you have to prove it. Since CCD says if you want to make claims you have to have proof this suits these types of intellectuals very well. On the other hand, the more artistic types of intellectuals do not necessarily involve themselves in the CCD because it does not make much sense for their line of work. Something I found interesting was how we talked about how the Idea of CCD goes against how the sociology community treats Bordeau because whatever he said people would believe because of his sacredness. No one would dare question anything he said even if he had no proof for some one the claims he made. This just shows that there are exceptions just like anything else in life. The last thing we talked about that got me thinking was the relationship between the power that intellectuals desire and the power they dont feel they have. Since they do not get the social recognition for the work they do, especially in western society they do not feel like they have much power and they want more respect. This is understandable but the problem is that a common trait of intellectuals is that they alienate themselves from the non-intellectuals because they feel like they are above others. Their high regard is probably one of the reasons they do not get the respect they want because they don’t really give others the chance to learn about them and interact with them.

In this week’s discussion, one of the topics was on the potential cause of the “problems” that we saw. We went into a lot of historic backgrounds, and analyzed that potentially, the overproduction of intellectuals is one of the main motives 

Maybe it is because current and past societies were structured in a way that limits social mobility. There are few ways for people to ascend the socio-economic ladder. For example, it is probably easier for a poor family’s child to go to college and then get a good paying job with their degree than to start one’s own business or through some other way to get a good paying job or just magically join the higher class.

The fact that people all want to become intellectuals (go to colleges) even when the results might not be worth it (not high enough payment as expected), might indicate that they had no other easier way to move upward along the social hierarchy. Rereading the chapter assigned for this week, I also noticed that Gouldner commented the same on this fact. Social blockade for upward mobility contributed to the alienation of intellectuals. Moreover, I think there is an interesting process going on. So, because of blocked ascendence, people choose to become intellectuals, hoping to have a better chance for ascendence. Yet, the reality is that they are still being blocked. Being an intellectual may have helped in some ways for ascendence, but if there are then too many intellectuals, there will be the same problem of blocked ascendence. Blocked ascendence not only contributed to the alienation of intellectuals, but it also led to “an increase in the political activity by the New Class and in open acts of confrontation with authority” (Gouldner 63). 

We then talked about how having too many intellectuals could potentially be a huge problem for society, especially when these intellectuals are unhappy. Since these intellectuals are well-educated, it won’t be hard for them to come up with plans to attempt to destroy the current society and have a “new society” that places intellectuals at better positions, like having more social influence or actually being “in charge” of the society. This is in line with what we have learned earlier about the intellectuals, that they are also actively seeking for power.

Another interesting thing I found in the reading is about intellectuals’ reliance on using words or ideas as their weapons. This stems from their tradition of CCD, and also explains why they view censorship as so much of a bad thing. This also creates another incentive for the intellectuals to seek more power, as media and publications were largely, and still are, controlled by the ruling class that has money and political power, instead of intellectuals.

I have some questions about Ersatz Religion: why does God appear so much in this text? I understand that religion played a hugely important role in the history of western societies. But is it possible to analyze the intellectuals and their traditions and thinking by controlling for the possible effects of religions?

When thinking about the culture of critical discourse (CCD), I thought that the whole concept would be good for any society since its not based on class or social status its simply based on whatever piece of information that one is presenting on and how they are able to prove it to their audience. We spent a decent amount of time talking about this in class and I thought it was easier to understand when Professor Riley gave examples of it. 

I liked the question that someone brought up in class on whether intellectuals actually follow the culture of critical discourse because I feel like in reality, a lot of people try to cut corners based on whatever status they hold. That also makes me think about the concept of truth which was brought up in the Gouldner chapter.  Specifically, Gouldner says that trust is democratized and all those claims are now considered equal within the CCD. (p59) Hypothetically, if someone were to present something that was not the truth and actually just fabricated information, does that mean that under CCD that falsified information would speak for itself? 

Particularly the section on education and how institutions are producing too many people who want to work in specific types of jobs. When Riley brought up how if any student came up to him and asked about getting a PhD in Sociology, he would have them think hard on that and see what the job market would be like. 

That applies to how i chose my career path. My majors do not have anything to do with my career path since at the time, I know that the job market was not looking too good for anthro and classics, especially in the archeological fields. Im on a pre-vet track and i keep getting told over and over again that we need more vets. Now especially after the height of covid, there is an oversupply of pets and not enough vets to treat them. 

In the Erastz religion reading, i did not have a full understanding of what gnostic religions were or what the movement was so googling it helped me get a general idea on the subject. In the reading, it says that the gnostic mass movement was the religious movent of antiquity. In the characteristics of gnostic movements, the 5th one stood out because it reminded me of the traditions that Stils was talking about in one of the previous readings we did. Specifically, the revolutionary tradition, where basically the world is evil and then gets replaced by something good. 

The part in the religion reading on symbols continued what was talked about in the Shils reading as well but in a slightly different light. In this reading, I felt that symbolism was more towards what it holds in Christianity. The Christian idea of perfection was broken down into two components which were teleological and axiological. The first meaning moving towards a goal and the second is of the highest value.