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.

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.

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…