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?

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.

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…