The Opium of the Intellectuals

First, we talked about the idea of Culture of Critical Discourse (CCD) — using reason and rationality to get people to agree with one’s idea because it is sound, instead of using one’s authority or power to force people into believing. But, it is also weird to me, as I feel that there are some intellectuals, like the example Prof. Riley gave on Sartre, that are not really following the culture of critical discourse. For natural scientists, as claims must be backed with empirical evidence, there is little room for debate if the empirical evidence directly contradicts one’s claim. Prof. Riley then made it clear that people like poets, social activists, or professors can also be classified as intellectuals. Although it is defined that intellectuals are people that practice culture of critical discourse, I feel that in practice, sometimes it is not true. Often times, people are not using reason and rationality.

We then analyzed intellectuals in relation to power. While often perceived only interested in seeking the truth, intellectuals — as a social group — are just like any other social groups; they would seek to gain power and rise in the social hierarchy. I proposed the claim that there are many intellectuals, especially natural scientists, I would say are not trying to gain power. They are not trying to become the more powerful class and rule others. For example, I know many math professors that do research in their field because they simply love the beauty in whatever subject they are researching. Prof. Riley’s response to this was that: although these intellectuals are not trying to overpower other people in the society, they almost all hope to gain power in their own field – like through publishing papers or making groundbreaking discoveries.

In the reading, we also saw that intellectuals believe that they should “run” the society as they know best about things. It sounds sound, but in reality is flawed. Intellectuals are still human beings that could make mistakes just like everyone else. The fact that they actively try to practice the CCD does not mean that they are constantly doing that all the time. They might have different social roles and do different things for those responsibilities. They could also make mistakes at times. So we have a paradox or a dichotomy. Intellectuals claim to, or at least hope to, practice CCD, yet I feel that it is against our human nature. We are not purely rational beings.

Sacredness in the intellectuals. Just like religions, intellectuals have sacred practices and sacred artifacts as well. To them, the pursuit of the truth is their sacred practice; famous intellectuals are seen as sacred figures and have certain reverence and power among the intellectuals or even the general public.

I feel that religion is more like a general structure that could be applied to many other aspects of the social world. Though, typically, religion refers to Christianity, Catholicism, Muslim, and etc, but there are also just so many things in life that people just claim that they “believe it” yet are unable to back it up with any real world evidence.

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.

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.

I feel that we didn’t talk much about this in class, but I think it is worth bringing up since it is closely related to both sociology and anthropology (which is one of my majors). In the reading religious institutions are said to be important in the understanding of the sociology of individuals such as the way humans think and feel emotions. Those interactions that those individuals have with one another in the religious institution are what shape their wholeness as group. There is a sit of so-called “ingredients” as presented in the Coalitions of the Mind chapter, which was that there need to be at least two people for the interaction ritual to be considered an interaction ritual. For some reason that made me think about what happens if there is only one person and would that make it more like “witchcraft” or sorcery? Since those individuals would be by themselves, instead of interacting with people who share a connection its more based on objects.  Symbols were also mentioned as a way to keep that connection when the group is not together. I just thought that whole section was interesting.

In the Emergence of the Intellectual, humans have goals spurred by ambitions and social systems and groups also start to form. New inventions would then help humans achieve those goals, but at the same time, classes are formed and we start to see groups that have power over other groups of individuals. In one of my other classes that I am also taking this semester, Marxism was brought up because its one of the causes of humans continuing to destroy the natural world and its resources for their own benefit, such as to make a profit. The chapter talks about Marxism and it seems that that way of thinking bro0ught abo0ut bad things for humanity like famine, war and poverty in the eighteenth century. On the other hand, it seems once religion came along and Christianity became popular, the so-called “ideal world” concepts of peace, prosperity and unity were lifted to a higher level than they ever were before. After even more time has gone by in history, it seems that individuals have a much stronger concept of what it means to be an intellectual and their function and purpose. Even so, going forward other important concepts come into play that continue to change group dynamics as a whole. Redistribution of power and applying scientific thinking to coming up with ways to solve problems. 

Overall both of these readings brought to light things that I had learned previously or had not had the opportunity to think about at all. I also think that this class (which will probably be my last sociology class at Bucknell) will be a good rounding out of all the sociology classes and anthro classes that I’ve taken at Bucknell. On the first day ive already made so many other connections between my classes and i can’t wait to see what other connections can be made throughout the semester.