Forget the Hiatus.
I just found an interesting quote. It's referencing the Progressive Era (1880-1920) but I think it's even more relevant now.
"... (Intellectuals) had no direct responsibility for practical affairs, no first-hand knowledge of the world's workings, and hence were free to demand that reality be something other than what it was or could be.
... Intellectuals may be intellectually negligible, but they are an important cultural force nonetheless. Because they wield the power of language and symbols, their values and ideas are broadcast by the press, movies, television, universities... Thus, intellectuals are the influential out of all proportion to their numbers. Worse, it may well be that their leftist political and cultural attitudes are permanent, beyond the reach of rational argument.
... The inner need for pervasive meaning was satisfied through most of history in Western civilization by religion. But as religious faith began a retreat, beginning in the 18th century and proceeding apace in the nineteenth and twentieth, the intellectuals' need for meaning did not decline but remained urgent. Now, however, meaning must be found in a secular belief system. It is difficult to think of anything that would fit this specification for most intellectuals other than politics. ...To be a civil religion, however, this politics cannot be the politics of mundane clashes of material interests and compromises; it must be a politics of ideology."
From Robert H. Bork. Slouching Towards Gomorrah. (New York: Harper Collins, 1996)
Do you agree? Talk amongst yourselves.
"... (Intellectuals) had no direct responsibility for practical affairs, no first-hand knowledge of the world's workings, and hence were free to demand that reality be something other than what it was or could be.
... Intellectuals may be intellectually negligible, but they are an important cultural force nonetheless. Because they wield the power of language and symbols, their values and ideas are broadcast by the press, movies, television, universities... Thus, intellectuals are the influential out of all proportion to their numbers. Worse, it may well be that their leftist political and cultural attitudes are permanent, beyond the reach of rational argument.
... The inner need for pervasive meaning was satisfied through most of history in Western civilization by religion. But as religious faith began a retreat, beginning in the 18th century and proceeding apace in the nineteenth and twentieth, the intellectuals' need for meaning did not decline but remained urgent. Now, however, meaning must be found in a secular belief system. It is difficult to think of anything that would fit this specification for most intellectuals other than politics. ...To be a civil religion, however, this politics cannot be the politics of mundane clashes of material interests and compromises; it must be a politics of ideology."
From Robert H. Bork. Slouching Towards Gomorrah. (New York: Harper Collins, 1996)
Do you agree? Talk amongst yourselves.
posted by Lauren | 12:21 PM
7 Comments:
I definitely agree. Sounds like the author is channelling Emile Durkheim here. Since the 18th/19th century, politics have increasingly become the religion of choice in the so-called secular spheres. People treat their own political philosophies as though they were absolute truths and view all who disagree as either ignorant or evil.
I'm sure I've posted this before, but I really like it and I think it fits here:
"There is something eternal in religion, then, that is destined to survive all the particular symbols in which religious thought has successively cloaked itself...What essential difference is there between an assembly of Christians commemorating the principal moments in the life of Christ, or Jews celebrating either the exodus from Egypt or the giving of the ten commandments, and a meeting of citizens commemorating the institution of a new moral character or some great event in national life?"
Durkheim wrote that in 1912, and it seems to get truer with every passing day.
Here's another question:
Why is "open-mindedness" usually equated with liberal or "leftist" politics? Is this because the intellectuals are labeling themselves that?
I guess what I'm trying to ask is:
Why, if intellectuals are "beyond the reach of rational argument," are they often labeled the more open-minded members of society?
And here's a better question: Do you label yourself an intellectual? (I'm referring to everybody here.)
And another thing...
I find it interesting that liberals = intellectuals in this quote in the first place. Do you agree with that?
Okay. First let me just say that I really like publications from Harper Collins . . . C'mon, I'm in the editing/publishing industry!
And yeah, I really like those quotes -- I knew your hiatus wouldn't last long, MACDUFF. You're a writer!!!
I think in the context of these quotes, an "intellectual" does equal "liberal." No one doesn't have to be a "liberal" in order to be an intellectual, but I think there is a definite liberal connotation to that label now. Mostly, I think it refers to people whose religion is politics, which, in my experience, are usually liberal-minded people. In that sense, I don't label myself an intellectual.
In the sense that an intellectual is an open-minded member of society, I'd say that I am one. And I think that open-mindedness can sometimes be the same as being beyond the reach of rational argument. If you look at it the way the author of your quotation does, it makes sense. Open-mindedness is looking at the world in an idealistic sense, maybe -- nothing has borders because you're often looking at things as they could be, without always taking into account what they actually are. The day-to-day workers and doers see what is actually possible, so they are close-minded, meaning they take into account the boundaries and limitations of life.
I dunno. Those are just some thoughts. I'm not setting them down in stone just yet.
Can you all please ignore my double negative? And that awkward parenthetical phrase somewhere in the 3rd paragraph? (I don't even know if parenthetical phrase is the right term! My brain is really shot right now -- it's after 5:00!)
I agree with Sara about "liberal" and "intellectual" being synonymous in the context of the article, and in common parlance. I don't think they should be, but it makes a certain amount of rhetorical sense within the larger conservative vs. liberal/right vs. left argument (which usually attempts to cast liberals as a minority out of touch with the average citizen).
And I think open-mindedness is usally equated with liberal/left-wing politics because conservative politics are usually just that--conservative. By definition they seek to preserve and champion traditional values, and oppose change.
I wouldn't say that I'm an intellectual in the senses described here; I am a pragmatist more often than not, and I am not a liberal. However I would say that I am an intellectual in the sense that I rely heavily on my intellect and enjoy pursuits that engage my brain.
Post a Comment
<< Home