Category: Uncategorized

Categories
Uncategorized

Week 7 Blog

In this week’s class, the student movement in the 80s was discussed. This movement was an attempt to bring about a significant shift in American culture, and student activists held protests and experimented with different lifestyles. At the time, the movement had not yet recognized the strategic significance of aligning with the civil rights movement. The student movement was marked by its mission to bring about change, the conflicts between generations, and the elitism of the student activists. Several examples of student movements that addressed current global issues were provided, including the Mississippi Project, the Negro-Student Movement, and the Civil Rights Struggle. Feuer’s main argument about student movements is that they were always a source of intellectual stimulation on college campuses and had a sense of the importance of ideas. They exposed college students and professors to current issues and global realities, and served as a pipeline for young people’s highest idealistic aspirations. They also served as a pipeline for feelings of generational revolt. Between 1905 and 1940, student movements had little to show for their efforts. The student civil rights movement often clashed with the leadership of the older generation. Student movements are said to have served as an important incubator for political action, but they often exhausted their participants. Student movements have always been filled with sentiment and ideology that sees them as the creators of history.

The divide between the Old and New Left is another topic discussed in the reading. The New Left was a large political movement that existed primarily in the 1960s and 1970s. It was made up of activists from the West who fought for a variety of social causes, including changes in drug laws, environmental protection, feminism, LGBT rights, and civil and political rights. The Old Left, on the other hand, was less focused on social issues and more concerned with issues such as abortion, drug use, feminism, LGBT rights, gender norms, immigration, and the death penalty. Feuer notes the frequent conflicts between the student civil rights movement and the leadership of the older generation, with the students representing the New Left and the older generation representing the Old Left. The New Left differed from the Old in that it was more elitist, disenchanted with the working class, and willing to look to intellectuals for support. It also arose mainly in an “affluent society” and in a relatively stable system, so it tended to criticize things in moralistic rather than economic terms. The New Left also represented the pattern for future movements. And, regarding the Soviet Union and communism, the Old Left favored it; while the New Left is largely against it. I also remember one ironic thing about the Berkeley freedom movement was that they were trying to promote freedom of speech and expression. But what they actually did was to shut down other possible voices, especially those who hold different views.

In relation to a question brought up in class, I think there were definitely things that the young intelligentsia could have done to avoid or alleviate the clash with the older generation? One possible solution could be to establish better channels of communication and dialogue between the two groups. The intellectuals could have tried to understand the perspectives and concerns of the older generation, and the older generation could have been more open to hearing the ideas and concerns of the younger generation. By fostering a sense of mutual respect and understanding, the two groups could have worked together to find common ground and avoid conflicts.

Categories
Uncategorized

Blog Post week of 9/14 summary for Progressive chapter

The chapter starts out by defining what a progressive in its many forms. Molnar says that the term progress is an emotionally charged one because “The modern concept of progress is the most immediately available term when people want to speak of history as openness on infinite improvement, social emancipation, higher living standards. The adjective form “progressive is a label under which any blatant nonsense of sentimental trach may pass without inspection. He gives another definition of progressive as an ideal of everyone and makes up history itself because it is shared by everyone, “all of mankind.” A Progressive intellectual believes that in order to be a human being is to believe in progress and have no limitations of any kind.

Modern Progressivism comes out of nineteenth-century radicalism. Molnar says that there is a double origin of progressivism. The philosophical origin: in which is grew out of a particular image of god, the universe, man and human nature, so more of a secular image. The other one is the Historical origin which has been an attempt to reconstruct the social and poplical unity of mankind after the Renaissance. Progressivism, therefore, becomes a secular concept and is no other order in the universe except the human order
Then Molnar goes into what I would describe as what it means to be a good citizen in a way. The “social man” who lives up to the standards of his environment is also a good man and in order for him to prove himself he must show this attachment to society with its goal and methods. The society itself that man lives in represents goodness and Molnar says that leaders much show that they and the people are attached to it and it fulfules their aspirations.

He talks about how Rousseau and his 19th century followers maintain that because of man’s essential goodness, any society or group, it left alone without outside pressure, finds a way of getting along
His mind is guided by general Will – which is the basic assumption of democracy, as it it interpreseted by the progressives which then becomes the elimination of power from human affairs.
Progressive assumes that freedom, being the absence of power, is a moral good in itself, used only for noble goals and in self-restraint

Americans have their own democratic system → the assumption is that free men are good and honest but will always be tempted to transgress morality

On the other hand, the progressive intellectual is willing to the use the coercive political power of the state when he wants to carry out his plans or when they are threatened
This type of person follows ideas of Robespierre – he does not pass up any opportunity for seizing power and settling a the command post
“ to speak in the name of a progressive” they voices the right of self-expression and of individual search for inner treah the free flowering of personality”

Talks about schools briefly and teachers

Molnar says my task is to analyze the philosophy, mentality, and attitudes of progressive ideologues to show their debt to a certain kind of world-view they have in common.
Identify the progressive intellectual in some of his protean (frequently changing) forms
Gives us a definition of progressivism – which is the ideological formulation of the philosophical belief in Progress as the Enlightenment presented it
Progressives share Marxist veneration for history as a mechanism guiding the ages and guiding mankind on the road to betterment
History then is one of the evolutionary forms. (123)

The progressive believes in the progress of history, man, society, of God Himself who is not a person but a product
Everything is in motion and has direction
Involvement of the progressive intellectual with the contemporary world
Molnar defines three categories according to background, aim and method
Discussion of the progressive intellectual as

  1. A liberal-humanist who secularizes the values men hold dear and seeks for the conditions of their realization in individual and social existence
    At the basis of the progressive world view there is a misunderstanding of human nature
    Where Humanitas comes from – Greco-roman idea, used by renaissance scholars to stress the rationaloty of man against the supposed irrationality of the Middle Ages (125)
    This who section is on humanism and Molnar gives a bunch of examples
    Molnar says that with the eclipse of humanism two things happened
  2. Why that sense further reduced and diminished the image of man that humanism has deprived of its sacral character and left in a mutilated state
    By the 18th century, the humanist became the scientist and the organizer of the scientific society (126)
    “Man, regarded by the consistently reasoning progress as a remarkably good mechanism, but far from possessing the excellence of his descendants a million years from now, or the perfection of the mechanism that engineers are now about to construct. (127)
    How does a humanist escape the dilemma of justifying good as well as evil
    Using existentialist humanism and scientific humanism
    Recognize that everyone shares this experience of being a stranger with him
    Revolt (129)
  3. The emphasis on values (128)
  4. A fellow-traveler of socialism and communism, for whom these values have coalesced into the primary one of the “perfect society” from which, in turn, these values will obtain a new life
    The progressive as a liberal humanist is still distinguishable by the vague and vacillating tribute he pays to the individual and to the concept of equilibrium between the individual and the community. (138)
    The progressive is confronted with a system and he becomes fascinated with its brutal affirmations, particularly when the system displays a logical approach and consistency
    The progressive is bound to be seduced by the doctrine that preaches the necessity
    Lots are written about the flux of the liberal intellectuals to the camp of Marxism; the fellow travelers and their lives
    Two main reasons for the option of progressive intellectuals for socialism in its Marxist forms, for Communism and for support of Soviet Russia
  5. That communism is a short cut to Utopia
  6. It brings the progressive intellectual closer to the history-making part of society → the masses→ the proletariat
    For the communist society of a nonalientated man – the short cut is not a shortcut but a freely chosen route
    For the progressive has a dual allegiance to western humanistic values and the Perfect Society
    The progressive only chooses the communist shortcut temporarily (will either get rid of the communist alliance or that the communism itself will become more amenable to the values of liberalism and humanism) Molnar said this is unclear (page 140)
    The force of the true Marxist’s conviction acts as a temporary stimulant on the progressive fellow-traveler (144)
    Molner talks about Merleauponty (who was himself a traveler) = who wrote that “marxism is not just a hypothesis, for which tomorrow, another may be substituted. It is the simple statement of the conditions without which there will be no mankind in the sense of the reciprocal relationship between human beings, nor will there be rationality in history… Beyond Marxism, there are only daydreams or adventures.. (144)
    In the revealed marxists truth, the fellow-traveler develops the same double standards as the Communist intellectual himself..
    Other groups hold that Marisms is a short cut to the ideal community such as the Christian intellectuals
    Tillich’s – “Belief-ful realism” – contains the negation of every kind of romanticism and utopianism, but it includes the hopes of a social and economic life in which the spirit of capitalism,- the symbol of self-sufficient finitide- has been overcome
    Socialism = selflessness – work for the common good
    Dual nature of the progressives’s attraction to Marxism
    One element follows from his extreme rationalism and the dreams of rationally organized society and the other from his equally extreme sentimentalism
    The people, the masses, the proletariat
  7. An esthete who finds no rational order in the universe and therefore no relationship between values and who, as a result, cultivates those – in preference beauty- which, although precarious, may be torn away from the general meaninglessness to become the exquisite flower of the day
    The progressive intellectual’s natural habit is Utopia → antipolics
    He is essentials an optimist who believes in the uninterrupted progress of mankind, leading the individuals to more freedom and society to a state of definitive ideological cohesion
    There are some progressives who not not have the same nation of progress and they find themselves in mechanization in teh way of life imposed by the industry
    They connact generate in themselves the progressives undivided enthusiasm for such transformation of natural beauty and character into th flatlands of “improved conditions”
    Life and death
    Under different costumes and set agaisnt different backgrounds the protrait is of the same man
Categories
Course Readings Uncategorized

Reading week of 8/31

Alvin Gouldner, “The New Class as a Speech Community” (chapter six in the Gouldner book I put up with last week’s reading)

Ed Shils, “The Intellectuals and the Powers”

Categories
Professor's Questions and Prompts Uncategorized

Summaries of readings for 8/24, combined with class notes and some prompts for blog writing

We started class a few minutes late as my air conditioner started leaking about 30 minutes before the start of class, and we had to adjourn slightly earlier than originally intended b/c I had to meet the technician for an emergency repair. We will make up for the time lost next week by an extra-scintillating discussion!

I gave a brief introduction to the course topic, which can be summarily expressed as “An Analysis of Wokeism in the Intellectual Class in Contemporary America.” I didn’t fully define Wokeism, as we’ll be getting into that topic properly only later in the term. It’s sufficient at this point to define it as the latest version of an intellectual form of utopian belief that has become highly influential in American institutions.

Molnar, “The Emergence of the Intellectual”

This gives a brief account of the birth of the modern Western intellectual. Lots of historical detail, but here are a few key points to retain:

Human societies have long pursued Peace, Unity, and Prosperity, but in the pre-modern world it was recognized that perfectly achieving any of them was an impossibility. Technological advance and social changes (especially in the political order) made it seem beginning with the Renaissance that they might be perfectly achievable, and intellectuals began to devote themselves to the task of how to achieve them.

In the medieval world, a unity of belief and understanding of politics was achieved through Christianity. The Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Voyages of Discovery (especially that of the Americas) pushed Western societies away from this unity as the bourgeois class emerged as the leading social group. It quickly demonstrated antagonism to the old classes, which desired to preserve Christian unity and the balance of power between King and Church. The bourgeoisie had one sole interest: material acquisition. This increasingly became the dominant value in the West.

Intellectuals quickly established a symbiotic relationship with the bourgeois class, becoming their advocates and their source of technical innovations that drove production ever higher. Figures such as Rousseau expounded philosophies that preached that human nature was pristine and only corrupted by bad social arrangements. The search was thus on for the perfect political and social order in which humankind could flourish. But in addition to producing liberal democracy, these new intellectual worldviews also led to totalitarianisms, including what Molnar calls “totalitarian democracy.”

As modernity advanced, the intellectual class came to understand its own mission as superior to that of its bourgeois allies. Increasingly, intellectuals began to yearn to rule themselves instead of subordinating themselves to others.

Collins, “Coalitions of the Mind”

The main theme you should take from Collins is that intellectuals can be defined as those individuals who dedicate themselves to the “sacred object” of “Truth.” This sacred object operates for them according to the same basic symbolic principles as holy objects operate for the religious community.

Collins also argues that intellectuals pursue positions of status in their intellectual ranks in their behaviors with respect to the sacred objects. They participate in constant “interaction rituals” in which they can display their prowess with ideas in lectures and intellectual meetings, show their positions on debates and disputes in writings and public talks, and thereby rank themselves among others in the intellectual group.

He means the concept of interaction rituals to be generalizable, that is, all humans participate in these, and for the same basic sociological reason: to rank themselves in status hierarchies. In this way, Collins gives us a useful sociological theory for understanding the activity and beliefs of intellectuals.

Gouldner, “Introduction”

As I mentioned in class, we’ll be reading a few more chapters of Gouldner’s book The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class as the semester continues.

In this introduction, he sets the stage for his discussion of what he calls the New Class (the modern intellectual class, which has two subparts: humanistic intellectuals and the technical intelligentsia) by briefly looking at some historical elements of the intellectual class’s emergence. Some of the ground covered overlaps with Molnar, e.g., both emphasize the importance of secularization in the rise of the intellectual class. Gouldner however is more a sociologist than a philosopher, and so he talks a good deal about the major institutional setting of intellectual life: the school. Schools become a space in which a whole new culture is produced and foisted upon students, centering on a new form of discourse that he will describe more later, the Culture of Critical Discourse (CCD).

The two types of intellectuals split in their functions and their attitudes to the social world. Humanistic intellectuals become more alienated from the societies in which they live, as they are marginalized from social and political power and feel as though they should be higher on the status hierarchy. They are driven to challenge and attack their own social orders, pointing toward utopian alternatives in which the realm of ideas will play a more central role.

Some questions to help prompt your blog writing:

How can we put these three perspectives on the modern intellectual class into conversation with one another? Are they compatible? If not, why not?

Why should we consider intellectuals in an analytical lens that is not their own? That is, what is the benefit of studying intellectuals the same way that they study other objects (e.g., microbes, or political states, or religious communities)?

Gouldner and Molnar share the view that intellectuals are a power-seeking social group, just as all other groups are. What do you think the intellectuals themselves would say about this? Which of the various scenarios Gouldner presents as possible future roles for the New Class (pp. 6-7) do you think has most been realized since he wrote his book (published 1979)?

Categories
Uncategorized

Hello world!

Welcome to Bucknell Courses. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!