Curious and Courageous: The Intellectual as an Activist

Edward Said provides compelling Representations of the Intellectual in his work of the same name. Within the text Said begins by presenting a goal, perhaps a criteria, for the intellectual: “The attempt to hold to a universal and single standard as a theme plays an important role in my account of the intellectual” (xiii). Said continues with his “characterizations of the intellectual” (xvi), providing a second criteria, “the intellectual tries to speak truth to power” (xvi). With this Said challenges the would-be intellectual with an underlying principle—universality—to ensure honesty and consistency in order to appeal to “as wide a public as possible” (xiii), and a simple, yet frightening, obligation—to confront authority—“to question patriotic nationalism, corporate thinking, and a sense of class, racial or gender privilege” (xiii). It is this duel responsibility, as both a thinker and as an activist, that defines the role of the intellectual, alone neither serves the individual or the community. Knowledge without action—to know but not act—and it’s opposite, action without knowledge—to act without understanding—not only hinders progress, but jeopardizes what has been achieved. The Intellectual must be both the curious investigator and the courageous instigator.

Subject for Essay: Exile or Truth?

I’ve been thinking a lot about my first writing assignment for Seminar, and was initially thinking about Edward Said’s role of the exile. I was wondering if the exile can still exist considering todays open communities. One of Said’s observations was that the exiled individual is removed from both the physical and metaphysical world. Most obvious is the physical exile, in that they can be physically removed, for example, from an organization and no longer able to attend functions, or from a country, unable to participate in government/society.

Intellectualism?

Last weekend our cohort attended a required Residency. It was a great opportunity to meet everyone (most of the work is online). Several folks have begun to post comments online about the discussions. I have to admit, I was pretty disappointed. It seems apparent that one of the course objectives for us in these introductory graduate courses is to learn to reason, investigate, question, etc. at a graduate level. However, throughout the Residency, emotional pleas, national pride, personal anecdotes, etc. made their way into the conversations.  I agree with Edward Said, “…the principle intellectual duty is the search for relative independence from such pressures” [personal, religion, nationality, race, etc.] and contrary to “a single universal standard.” I posted:

To be brutally honest, I was very disappointed with many of our discussions. Several times, personal stories and anecdotal evidence were cited to either preface comments (perhaps to avoid being judged), to add credence to an interpretation of an issue, or even make a point.

This, the inability to make an argument based on evidence, rather than evoking emotion or appealing to the group, was really much more interesting to me than the actual topics, and highlights our deficiencies in our ability to carry out an intellectual exorcise. I know I would very much like to reach a point where my outlook, decision-making and direction are free of emotional, national, personal, etc. influences.

It is important to admit that one may never reach this point, however we must acknowledge that this is the goal.

Hey, I am completely willing to admit that I may have this all wrong. With a solid four weeks of graduate work under my belt, I hardly think I am in position to comment intellegently on the role of, or even making of an intellectual. I wonder how this will be percieved by the class?

The Intellectual as an Exile

I am very interested in Said’s ideas around the exile. Looking at the quote, provided, “Insiders promote special interests, but intellectuals should be the ones to question patriotic nationalism, corporate thinking, and a sense of class, racial or gender privilege,” I am drawn to the result of this questioning: exile. Both Said and Du Bois provide accounts of those who have questioned accepted practices, resulting in exile–often from not only the groups they would hae expected, but those with whom they may have felt a closer relationship to. I am think of Du Bois account of the John.

In my paper I would like to explore if, considering todays gloabal connectivity, one can actually be an exile. That is, can a group shut out those that desent? And, can those who desent actaully affect a group who shuns them?

Seminar: First Essay, “What is an Intellectual?”

Well we have our first assignment: an essay of 2000 words (approximately eight double-spaced pages; please keep your paper as close to 2000 words as possible) that engages issues from DuBois, Said, and possibly Pratt.

Discuss the following quotation from Said’s introduction:

One task of the intellectual is the effort to break down the stereotypes and reductive categories that are so limiting to human thought and communication… .Insiders promote special interests, but intellectuals should be the ones to question patriotic nationalism, corporate thinking, and a sense of class, racial or gender privilege. (xi-xiii)

Explore similarities and differences between the authors, and analyze each author in terms of his/her historical and cultural context.

A Reaction to Said

One post within the Seminars’ discussion stated, “To watch and comment is to remove oneself from the experience. To advocate for a cause or corporation is to conform to a policy, therefore no longer challenging or questioning reasons for actions. Once you conform, the motive for advocating becomes a profession or a mission for another’s cause, are you an intellectual or a lobbyist?”

I offered, “There is always room for reflection.“

Said’s Human Freedom and Knowledge

In another Seminar post, the role of the intellectual came up. Throughout the thread folks touched on a variety of issues revolving around how an individual intellectual lives in, reacts to, participates in, is informed by the group in which they are commenting.

There were some great questions that came up. “How does the intellectual stand both outside society and inside society? How does the intellectual find common ground between what is of deeply personal and private interest? What is of public interest? and how does the intellectual take on him or her self with the changing issues of society, and at the same time remain true to certain unchanging principles?

My comments, while brief, tried to emphasize the metaphysical (ideas, perception, adoption, agreement, etc.) rather than the physical (location, membership, etc.), “If one is not in a society (group) they could not comment about it? I believe Said is describing the consequences of speaking “truth to power.” That is, once the insider within society learns of an issue and raises it to the authorities, they become an outsider in exile.

Going Public with Language

In a recent post to the Seminars course and within the following thread, the language of the intellectual was discussed. Folks in class were discussing the specific language, vocabulary, vernacular and jargon of, not intellectuals as a whole, but even within specific disciplines or professions. I suggested that it might be appropriate to extend language to communications, and include the mode of communications.

I think language is just another part of society and, looking at [another student’s] post regarding the common theme of “social disconnect,” would extend language to communications, that is, not only what and how something is said and who says it, but the channel through which it is conveyed. Adding to Gouldner’s observations of the vernacular or jargon of specialized groups, I would offer groups each use specific channels to communicate, which add to or distract from the message. Examples might include: journals and lectures for academics; news papers, television and magazines for the government; the internet (blogs, wikis and email) for conspiracists.

Discussion of an Intellectual

Discussions within the Seminar are now going strong. I have posted, but nobody has responded. I guess it was either fantastic, so on-point and clear that no one can add or criticize a thing, or terrible, and no one can possibly answer all of my ridiculous claims.

As I read over the posts, I see that folks are struggling (like I did) to try and capture complex ideas and observations in small snippets of text appropriate for a discussion forum. Much of the conversation evolves personal anecdotes, of which I am not too interested, or questions. I also notice that there seems to be a hesitancy to get into it. That is asking a question seems safer, less offensive, or maybe less frightening for the unsure student.

However I don’t really think directness or ignorance should be an embarrassment, after all I am here to be educated and I want to know exactly when I am wrong or hopefully close to the truth. Therefore the incorrect statement, but out directly should trigger an immediate and direct correction (hopefully).

Open Ideologies

In response to the first assignment in Seminars’ module 1, to discuss our readings, I was drawn to two of the instructors questions; “What ideologies lie behind the notion that an intellectual must be ‘set apart’ or separate from the public he/she serves?” and; “Is it possible to be a universal intellectual?” These two questions, particularly the ideas of “ideology” and “universality,” started me thinking about the fundamental attributes, traits, or standards, that might exist within not only an intellectual, but intellectualism.

In addition, my own personal interests were in play. I have been, within my professional role, asking my colleagues to take on greater responsibilities, not specifically in day to day operations or tasks, but intellectually. I have asked, “do we do the things we do because we know them to be the best way to achieve our goals, or do we do them because this is the way that we have always done them?” That is, how truthful are we?

With these in mind, a universal standard and truth, I wrote…