Sei sulla pagina 1di 21


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation ​ Jump to search Often called 'the Prince of the

Often called 'the Prince of the Humanists', Erasmus of Rotterdamwas one of the foremost intellectual figures of his age.

The French-American intellectual ​ Jacques Barzun ​ was a teacher, a man of letters, and

The French-American intellectual Jacques Barzunwas a teacher, a man of letters, and a scholar.

An intellectualis a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflectionabout society and

proposes solutions for its normativeproblems. Some gain authorityas public intellectuals.[1][ 2] Coming from

the world of culture, either as a creator or as a mediator, the intellectual participates in politics either to defend a concrete proposition or to denounce an injustice, usually by rejecting, producing or extending an

ideology, and by defending a system of values.[3]




Socially, intellectuals constitute the intelligentsia, a status classorganised either by ideology(conservative, fascist, socialist, liberal, reactionary, revolutionary, democratic, communistintellectuals, et al.), or by nationality (American intellectuals, French intellectuals, Ibero–American intellectuals, et al.). The contemporary intellectual class originated from the intelligentsiyaof Tsarist Russia(c.1860s–1870s), the social stratumof those possessing intellectual formation (schooling, education, Enlightenment), and who were Russian society's counterpart to the German Bildungsbürgertumand to the French bourgeoisie

éclairée, the enlightened middle classesof those realms.[4][a]

In the late 19th century, amidst the Dreyfus affair(1894–1906), an identity crisis of anti-semiticnationalism for the French Third Republic(1870–1940), the reactionaryanti–Dreyfusards (Maurice Barrès, Ferdinand Brunetière, et al.) used the terms intellectualand the intellectualsto deride the liberal Dreyfusards (Émile Zola, Octave Mirbeau, Anatole France, et al.)as political dilettantes from the realms of French culture, art, and science, who had become involved in politics, by publicly advocating for the exoneration and liberation

of Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish French artillery captain falsely accused of betraying France to Germany.[5]

In the 20th century, the term Intellectualacquired positive connotations of social prestige, derived from possessing intellectand intelligence, especially when the intellectual's activities exerted positive consequences in the public sphereand so increased the intellectual understanding of the public, by means of moralresponsibility, altruism, and solidarity, without resorting to the manipulationsof populism,

paternalism, and incivility(condescension).[4][b] Hence, for the educated person of a society, participating

in the public sphere—the political affairs of the city-state—is a civic responsibility dating from the Græco–Latin Classical era:

I am a human; I reckon nothing human to be foreign to me. (Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto.)

The Self-Tormentor(163 BC), Terence[7][8]

The determining factor for a Thinker(historian, philosopher, scientist, writer, artist, et al.) to be considered a public intellectual is the degree to which he or she is implicatedand engagedwith the vital reality of the contemporary world; that is to say, participation in the public affairs of society. Consequently, being designated as a public intellectual is determined by the degree of influence of the designator's motivations,

opinions, and options of action (social, political, ideological), and by affinity with the given thinker;


The Intellectual is someone who meddles in what does not concern them. (L'intellectuel est quelqu'un qui se mêle de ce qui ne le regarde pas.)

Jean-Paul Sartre[10]

Analogously, the application and the conceptual value of the terms Intellectualand the Intellectualsare socially negative when the practice of intellectualityis exclusively in service to The Establishmentwho wield powerin a society, as such:

The Intellectuals are specialists in defamation, they are basically political commissars, they are the ideological administrators, the most threatened by dissidence.

Noam Chomsky[11]

Noam Chomsky's negative view of the Establishment Intellectual suggests the existence of another kind of intellectual one might call "the public intellectual," which is:

someone able to speak the truth, a

courageous and angry individual for whom no worldly power is too

big and imposing to be criticised and pointedly taken to task. The real or true intellectual is therefore always an outsider, living in self-imposed exile, and on the margins of society. He or she speaks to, as well as for, a public, necessarily in public, and is properly on the side of the dispossessed, the un-represented and the forgotten.

Edward Saïd[12]

Terms and endeavours[edit]

The intellectual is a type of intelligent person, who is associated with reasonand critical thinking. Many everyday roles require the application of intelligence to skills that may have a psychomotorcomponent, for example, in the fields of medicine or the arts, but these do not necessarily involve the practitioner in the "world of ideas". The distinctive quality of the intellectual person is that the mental skills, which one demonstrates, are not simply intelligent, but even more, they focus on thinking about the abstract,

philosophical and esotericaspects of human inquiry and the value of their thinking.[citation needed]

The intellectual and the scholarlyclasses are related; the intellectual usually is not a teacher involved in the production of scholarship, but has an academic background, and works in a profession, practices an art, or

a science. The intellectual person is one who applies critical thinkingand reason in either a professional or

a personal capacity, and so has authorityin the public sphere of their society; the term intellectualidentifies

three types of person, one who:

1. is erudite, and develops abstract ideas and theories

2. a professional who produces cultural capital, as in philosophy, literary criticism,sociology,

law, medicine, science,[13] and

3. an artistwho writes, composes, paints, etc.

"Man of letters"[edit]

The term "man of letters" derives from the French term belletristor homme de lettresbut is not synonymous

with "an academic".[14][15] A "man of letters" was a literate man ("able to read and write") as opposed to an

illiterateman, in a time when literacywas a rare form of cultural capital. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the

Belletristswere the literati, the French "citizens of the Republic of Letters", which evolved into the salon, a

social institution, usually run by a hostess, meant for the edification, education, and cultural refinement of

the participants.

Historical background[edit]

In English, the term intellectualidentifies a "literate thinker"; its earlier usage, as in the book title The

Evolution of an Intellectual(1920), by John Middleton Murry, denotes literary activity, rather than the

activities of the public intellectual.[16]


activity, rather than the activities of the public intellectual. ​ [ 1 6 ] 19th-century ​

The front page of L'Aurore(13 January 1898) featured Émile Zola's open letter, J'Accuse…!,asking the French President, Félix Faure, to resolve the Dreyfus affair.


In the late 19th century, when literacy was relatively common in European countries such as the United

Kingdom, the "Man of Letters" (littérateur)[17] denotation broadened to mean "specialized", a man who

earned his living writing intellectually (not creatively) about literature: the essayist, the journalist, the critic,

et al. In the 20th century, such an approach was gradually superseded by the academic method, and the

term "Man of Letters" became disused, replaced by the generic term "intellectual", describing the

intellectual person. In late 19th century, the term intellectualbecame common usage to denote the

defenders of the falsely accused artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus.[18]

Continental Europe[edit]

In early 19th century Britain, Samuel Taylor Coleridgecoined the term clerisy,the intellectual class

responsible for upholding and maintaining the national culture, the secular equivalent of the Anglican

clergy. Likewise, in TsaristRussia, there arose the intelligentsia(1860s–70s), who were the status classof

white-collarworkers. The theologian Alister McGrathsaid that "the emergence of a socially alienated,

theologicallyliterate, antiestablishment lay intelligentsia is one of the more significant phenomena of the

social history of Germanyin the 1830s", and that "three or four theological graduates in ten might hope to

find employment" in a church post.[19] As such, politically radical thinkers already had participated in the

French Revolution(1789–1799); Robert Darntonsaid that they were not societal outsiders, but

"respectable, domesticated, and assimilated".[20]

Thenceforth, in Europe, an intellectual class was socially important, especially to self-styled intellectuals,

whose participation in society's arts, politics, journalism, and education—of either nationalist,

internationalist, or ethnic sentiment—constitute "vocation of the intellectual". Moreover, some intellectuals

were anti-academic, despite universities (the Academy) being synonymous with intellectualism.

In France, the Dreyfus affairmarked the full emergence of the "intellectual in public life", especially Émile

Zola, Octave Mirbeau, and Anatole Francedirectly addressing the matter of French antisemitismto the

public; thenceforward, "intellectual" became common, yet occasionally derogatory, usage; its French noun

usage is attributed to Georges Clemenceauin 1898.


Habermas' Structural Transformation of Public Sphere(1963) made significant contribution to the notion of

public intellectual by historically and conceptually delineating the idea of private and public.

In the East[edit]

This section needs expansion. You can help by

adding to it.(October 2017)

In Imperial China, in the period from 206 BC until AD 1912, the intellectuals were the Scholar-officials ("Scholar-gentlemen"), who were civil servants appointed by the Emperor of Chinato perform the tasks of daily governance. Such civil servants earned academic degrees by means of imperial examination, and also were skilled calligraphers, and knew Confucianphilosophy. Historian Wing-Tsit Chan concludes that:

Generally speaking, the record of these scholar-gentlemen has been a worthy one. It was good enough to be praised and imitated in 18th century Europe. Nevertheless, it has given China a tremendous handicap in their transition from government by men to government by law, and personal considerations in Chinese

government have been a curse.[21]

In Joseon Korea(1392–1910), the intellectuals were the literati, who knew how to read and write, and had been designated, as the chungin(the "middle people"), in accordance with the Confucian system. Socially, they constituted the petite bourgeoisie, composed of scholar-bureaucrats (scholars, professionals, and

technicians) who administered the dynastic rule of the Joseon dynasty.[22]


See also: Manufacturing Consent

Addressing their role as a social class, Jean-Paul Sartresaid that intellectuals are the moral conscience of their age; that their moral and ethical responsibilities are to observe the socio-political moment, and to

freely speak to their society, in accordance with their consciences.[23] Like Sartre and Noam Chomsky,

public intellectuals usually are polymaths,knowledgeable of the international orderof the world, the political and economic organization of contemporary society, the institutions and laws that regulate the lives of the layman citizen, the educational systems, and the private networks of mass communication mediathat

controlthe broadcasting of information to the public.[24]

Whereas, intellectuals (political scientists and sociologists), liberals, and democratic socialists usually hold, advocate, and support the principles of democracy (liberty, equality, fraternity, human rights, social justice, social welfare, environmental conservation), and the improvement of socio-political relations in domestic and international politics, the conservativepublic-intellectuals usually defend the social, economic, and political status quoas the realisation of the "perfect ideals" of Platonism, and present a static dominant ideology, in which utopias are unattainable and politically destabilizing of society.

Marxist perspective[edit]

In Marxist philosophy, the social classfunction of the intellectuals (the intelligentsia) is to be the source of

progressive ideas for the transformation of society; to provide advice and counsel to the political leaders; to interpret the country's politics to the mass of the population (urban workers and peasants); and, as required, to provide leaders from within their own ranks.

The Italian Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci(1891–1937) developed Karl Marx's conception of the intelligentsia to include political leadership in the public sphere. That, because "all knowledge is existentially-based", the intellectuals, who create and preserve knowledge, are "spokesmen for different social groups, and articulate particular social interests". That intellectuals occur in each social class and throughout the right wing, the centre, and the left wing of the political spectrum. That, as a social class, the "intellectuals view themselves as autonomous from the ruling class" of their society. That, in the course of class strugglemeant to achieve political power, every social class requires a native intelligentsia who shape the ideology(world view) particular to the social class from which they originated. Therefore, the leadership of intellectuals is required for effecting and realizing social change, because:

A human mass does not "distinguish" itself, does not become independent, in its own right, without, in the

widest sense, organising itself; and there is no organisation without intellectuals, that is, without organisers

and leaders, in other words, without

a group of people "specialised" in [the] conceptual and philosophical

elaboration of ideas.[25]

In the pamphlet What Is to Be Done?(1902), Lenin(1870–1924) said that vanguard-party revolution

required the participation of the intellectuals to explain the complexities of socialistideology to the uneducated proletariatand the urban industrial workers, in order to integrate them to the revolution;

because "the history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade-unionconsciousness", and will settle for the limited, socio-economic gains so achieved.

In Russia, as in Continental Europe, Socialist theory was the product of the "educated representatives of

the propertied classes", of "revolutionary socialist intellectuals", such as were Karl Marx and Friedrich


In the formal codification of Leninism, the Hungarian Marxist philosopher, György Lukács(1885–1971)

identified the intelligentsia as the privileged social class who provide revolutionary leadership. By means of intelligible and accessible interpretation, the intellectuals explain to the workers and peasants the "Who?", the "How?", and the "Why?" of the social, economic, and political status quothe ideological totality of society—and its practical, revolutionary application to the transformation of their society.

Public intellectual[edit]

The term public intellectualdescribes the intellectual participating in the public-affairs discourseof

society, in addition to an academic career.[27] Regardless of the academicfield or the professional

expertise, the public intellectual addresses and responds to the normativeproblems of society, and, as such, is expected to be an impartial critic who can "rise above the partial preoccupation of one's own

profession—and engage with the global issues of truth, judgment, and tasteof the time."[28][29] In

Representations of the Intellectual(1994), In summarizing a quote by Edward Saïd, Jennings and Kemp-Welch state that the "… true intellectual is, therefore, always an outsider, living in self-imposed exile,

and on the margins of society".[30]

An intellectual usually is associated with an ideologyor with a philosophy; e.g., the Third Waycentrism of

Anthony Giddensin the Labour Governmentof Tony Blair.[31] The Czech intellectual Václav Havelsaid that

politics and intellectuals can be linked, but that moral responsibility for the intellectual's ideas, even when advocated by a politician, remains with the intellectual. Therefore, it is best to avoid utopianintellectuals who offer 'universal insights' to resolve the problems of political economywith public policiesthat might harm and that have harmed civil society; that intellectuals be mindful of the social and cultural ties created

with their words, insights, and ideas; and should be heard as social critics of politicsand power.[32][33]

Social background[edit]

The American academic Peter H. Smithdescribes the intellectuals of Latin America as people from an identifiable social class, who have been conditioned by that common experience, and thus are inclined to share a set of common assumptions(values and ethics); that ninety-four per cent of intellectuals come either from the middle classor from the upper class, and that only six per cent come from the working class. In The Intellectual(2005), philosopher Steven Fullersaid that, because cultural capitalconfers power and social status, as a status group, they must be autonomous in order to be credible as intellectuals:

It is relatively easy to demonstrate autonomy, if you come from a wealthy or [an] aristocraticbackground.

You simply need to disown your statusand champion the poor and [the] downtrodden

harder to demonstrate if you come from a poor or proletarianbackground in common cause appear to betray one's class origins.

autonomy is much

[thus] calls to join the wealthy


The political importance and effective consequence of Émile Zolain the Dreyfus affair(1894–1906) derived from his being a leading French thinker; thus, J'accuse(I Accuse), his open letter to the French government and the nation proved critical to achieving the exoneration of Captain Alfred Dreyfus of the false charges of treason, which were facilitated by institutional anti-Semitism, among other ideological defects of the French Establishment.

Academic background[edit]

In journalism, the term intellectualusually connotes "a university academic" of the humanities—especially a

philosopher—who addresses important social and political matters of the day. Hence, such an academic functions as a public intellectual who explains the theoretic bases of said problems and communicates possible answers to the policy makers and executive leaders of society. The sociologist Frank Furedisaid that "Intellectuals are not defined according to the jobs they do, but [by] the manner in which they act, the

way they see themselves, and the [social and political] values that they uphold.[35] Public intellectuals

usually arise from the educated élite of a society; although the North American usage of the term

"intellectual" includes the university academics.[36] The difference between "intellectual" and "academic" is

participation in the realm of public affairs.[37]

Public policy role[edit]

In the matters of public policy, the public intellectual connects scholarly research to the practical matters of solving societal problems. The British sociologist Michael Burawoy, an exponent of public sociology, said that professional sociology has failed, by giving insufficient attention to resolving social problems, and that

a dialogue between the academic and the layman would bridge the gap.[38] An example is how Chilean

intellectuals worked to reestablish democracywithin the right-wing, neoliberalgovernments of the Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–90), the Pinochet régime allowed professional opportunities for some liberal and left-wing social scientists to work as politicians and as consultants in effort to realize the theoretical economics of the Chicago Boys, but their access to powerwas contingent upon political pragmatism,

abandoning the political neutrality of the academic intellectual.[39]

In The Sociological Imagination(1959), C. Wright Millssaid that academics had become ill-equipped for participating in public discourse, and that journalists usually are "more politically alert and knowledgeable

than sociologists, economists, and especially

political scientists".[40] That, because the universities of the

U.S. are bureaucratic, private businesses, they "do not teach critical reasoningto the student", who then

does not "how to gauge what is going on in the general struggle for power in modern society".[40] Likewise,

Richard Rortycriticized the participation of intellectuals in public discourse as an example of the "civic

irresponsibility of intellect, especially academic intellect".[41]

​ , especially academic intellect". ​ [ 4 1 ] ​ Booknotes ​ interview with Posner

The American legal scholar Richard Posnersaid that the participation of academic public intellectuals in the

public life of society is characterized by logically untidy and politically biased statements of the kind that

would be unacceptable to academia. That there are few ideologically and politically independent public

intellectuals, and disapproves that public intellectuals limit themselves to practical matters of public policy,

and not with valuesor public philosophy, or public ethics, or public theology, not with matters of moral and

spiritual outrage.


moral and spiritual outrage. Criticism ​ [ ​ edit ​ ] The economist ​ Milton Friedman

The economist Milton Friedmanidentified the intelligentsia and the business class as interfering with the economic functions of a society.

Socrates ​ proposed for philosophers a private monopoly of knowledge separate from the public sphere.

Socratesproposed for philosophers a private monopoly of knowledge separate from the public sphere. (the Louvre)

of knowledge separate from the public sphere. (the Louvre) The Congregational theologian ​ Edwards Amasa Park

The Congregational theologian Edwards Amasa Parkproposed segregating the intellectuals from the public sphere of society in the U.S.

As an intellectual, ​ Bertrand Russell ​ was a pacifist who advised Britain against re-arming

As an intellectual, Bertrand Russellwas a pacifist who advised Britain against re-arming for World War I.

In "An Interview with Milton Friedman" (1974), the American libertarianeconomist Milton Friedmansaid that businessmen and the intellectuals are enemies of capitalism; the intellectuals, because most believed in socialism, while the businessman expected economic privileges:

The two, chief enemies of the free society or free enterpriseare intellectuals, on the one hand, and businessmen, on the other, for opposite reasons. Every intellectual believes in freedom for himself, but he's

opposed to freedom for establish social

freedom for everybody else, but, when it comes to himself that's a different question. He's always "the special case". He ought to get special privileges from the government, a tariff, this, that, and the other thing.

He thinks

[that] there ought to be a central planning board that will

The businessmen are just the opposite—every businessman is in favor of

In "The Intellectuals and Socialism" (1949), the British libertarian economist Friedrich Hayek, said that "journalists, teachers, ministers, lecturers, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists", are the intellectual social class whose function is to communicate the complex and specialized knowledge of the scientistto the general public. That, in the twentieth century, the intellectuals were attracted to socialism and to social democracy, because the socialists offered "broad visions; the spacious comprehension of the social order, as a whole, which a planned systempromises" and that such broad-vision philosophies "succeeded in inspiring the imagination of the intellectuals" to change and

improve their societies.[43]

According to Hayek, intellectuals disproportionately support socialism for idealisticand utopianreasons that

cannot be realized in practical terms.[44] Nonetheless, in the article "Why Socialism?" (1949), Albert

Einsteinsaid that the economyof the world is not private property because it is a "planetary community of

production and consumption".[45] In U.S. society, the intellectual status class are demographically

characterized as people who hold liberal-to-leftistpolitical perspectives about guns-or-butterfiscal


In "The Heartless Lovers of Humankind" (1987), the journalist and popular historianPaul Johnsonsaid:

It is not the formulation of ideas, however misguided, but the desire to impose them on others that is the

deadly sin of the intellectuals. That is why they so incline, by temperament, to the Left. For capitalism merely occurs; if no-one does anything to stop it. It is socialismthat has to be constructed, and, as a rule, forcibly imposed, thus providing a far bigger role for intellectuals in its genesis. The progressiveintellectual

habitually entertains Walter Mittyvisions of exercising power.[47]

The public- and private-knowledge dichotomy originated in Ancient Greece, from Socrates's rejection of the Sophistconcept that the pursuit of knowledge (truth) is a "public market of ideas", open to all men of the city, not only to philosophers. In contradiction to the Sophist's public market of knowledge, Socrates proposed a knowledge monopoly for and by the philosophers; thus, "those who sought a more penetrating and rigorous intellectual life rejected, and withdrew from, the general culture of the city, in order to embrace

a new model of professionalism"; the private market of ideas.[48]

In the 19th century, addressing the societal place, roles, and functions of intellectuals in American society, the Congregationaltheologian Edwards Amasa Parksaid, "We do wrong to our own minds, when we carry

out scientific difficulties down to the arena of popular dissension".[48] That for the stability of society (social,

economic, political) it is necessary "to separate the serious, technical roleof professionals from their responsibility [for] supplying usable philosophiesfor the general public"; thus operated Socrate's cultural dichotomy of public-knowledge and private-knowledge, of "civic culture" and "professional culture", the social constructs that describe and establish the intellectual sphere of lifeas separate and apart from the

civic sphere of life.[48][49]


The American historian Norman Stonesaid that the intellectual social classmisunderstand the reality of society and so are doomed to the errors of logical fallacy, ideological stupidity, and poor planning

hampered by ideology.[50] In her memoirs, the Conservativepolitician Margaret Thatchersaid that the

anti-monarchical French Revolution(1789–1799) was "a utopianattempt to overthrow a traditional order

in the name of abstract ideas, formulated by vain intellectuals".[51] Yet, as Prime Minister, Thatcher asked

Britain's academics to help her government resolve the social problems of British society—whilst she

retained the populistopinion of "The Intellectual" as being a man of un-British character, a thinker, not a

doer; Thatcher's anti-intellectualist perspective was shared by the mass media, especially The Spectator

and The Sunday Telegraphnewspapers, whose reportage documented a "lack of intellectuals" in


In his essay "Why do intellectuals oppose capitalism?" (1998), libertarianphilosopher Robert Nozickof the

Cato Instituteargued that intellectuals become embittered leftistsbecause their academic skills, much

rewarded at school and at university, are under-valued and under-paid in the capitalist market economy;

so, the intellectuals turned against capitalism—despite enjoying a more economically and financially

comfortable life in a capitalist society than they might enjoy in either a socialistor a communist society.[53]

In post-CommunistEurope, the social attitude perception of the intelligentsia became anti-intellectual; in the

Netherlands, the word "intellectual" negatively connotes an overeducated person of "unrealistic visions of

the World". In Hungary, the intellectual is perceived as an "egghead", a person who is "too-clever" for the

good of society. In the Czech Republic, the intellectual is a cerebral person, aloof from reality. Such

derogatory connotations of "intellectual" are not definitive, because, in the "case of English usage, positive,

neutral, and pejorative uses can easily coexist"; the example is Václav Havelwho, "to many outside

observers, [became] a favoured instance of The Intellectual as National Icon" in the early history of the

post-Communist Czech Republic.[54]

In the book, Intellectuals and Society(2010), the economist Thomas Sowellsaid that, lacking disincentives

in professional life, the intellectual (producer of knowledge, not material goods) tends to speak outside his

or her area of expertise, and expects social and professional benefits from the halo effect, derived from

possessing professional expertise. That, in relation to other professions, the public intellectual is socially

detached from the negative and unintended consequencesof public policyderived from his or her ideas. As

such, the philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell(1872–1970) advised the British government

against national rearmament in the years before World War I(1914–1918), while the German

Empireprepared for war. Yet, the post-war intellectual reputation of Bertrand Russell remained almost

immaculate and his opinions respected by the general public because of the halo effect.[55]

See also[edit]




Jump up^In The Twilight of Atheism(2004, p. 53), the theologian Alister McGrathsaid that "the emergence of a socially alienated, theologically literate, anti-establishment lay intelligentsia is one of the more significant phenomena of the social history of Germany in

the 1830s

three or four theological graduates in ten might hope to find employment in a

Church post". In the essay, "The High Enlightenment and the Low-Life of Literature", the cultural historian Robert Darntonsaid that the politically radical thinkers who had participated in the French Revolution (1789–1799), were not social outsiders, rather they were respectable, domesticated, and assimilated men. (pp. 1–40.) The Literary Underground of the Old Régime, 1982.

Jump up^In the newspaper column, "Pilot Fish Among Sharks" (El País,14 June 2014), the Spanish philosopher of ethics Fernando Fernández-Savater Martínexplained the social

function of the public intellectual with an anecdote about the Transcendentalistphilosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson, at whose public conferences, in different cities, there always was present the same uneducated woman, who answered his query about her presence, by saying: "It's just that I like to listen to you, because you speak to us as if we were all


Effectively so, that is precisely the specific function of the intellectual: To treat everyone else as if they, too, were intellectuals. That is to say, to not attempt to hypnotise them, to intimidate them, or to seduce them, but to awaken in them the mechanism of intelligence that weighs, evaluates, and comprehends. One must start from the Socratic premise that

everyone in the world reveals himself, herself intelligent when treated as if intelligent. Is that social function compatible with the offices of politicians? Because, more often than not, they tend to govern themselves by the cynical principle that: "One must not treat the public as if they were imbeciles, nor forget that they are imbeciles", which was established by the novelist Frédéric Beigbeder(who, not in vain, began his career as an advertising man); it is plainly obvious that those are opposite approaches. What is bad, is that the first approach demands effort from the interlocutors—attention, reflection, and dubious sizings-up, while the second approach flatters the primitive emotions of enthusiasm or revenge, and converts critical thinking to satire or to swearing curses, and social problems into notorious scandal


Of course, the advocates of atavisticformulas periodically return to the charge, because those emotional formulas are easily assumed out of ignorance (populism, as you already know, is democracy for the mentally lazy), and, as such, are more necessary than ever; thus, if there be no intellectuals in politics, at the least, there should be intellectual ethos in public and in social discourse. Nonetheless, the lesson of personal experience often is

negative, and the honest intellectuals whom I know always have returned crestfallen [from

politics], like the pioneer Plato returned from Syracuse


Jump up^In the essay "Existentialism is a Humanism" (1946), Jean-Paul Sartre explains the philosophical concepts of implicationand engagement.In Notas para una lectura

(Notes for a Lecture), the Catalanphilosopher Ramón Alcoberro i Pericayexplains Sartre's

opinion of not being engaged with one's times, and the consequent implications:

one comprehends his [Sartre's] idea of "Man as Situation", it is easier to understand the concepts of "responsibility" and "engagement". To become engaged in a concrete situation—"to become embarked", said Pascal—is the consequence of presuming that one cannot live in pure, conceptual abstraction; everyone always is in a given "situation", and it corresponds to us to be responsible (to respond) to that situation; simply put, neutrality is not possible. In an editorial opinion in Les Temps modernes, in 1945, Sartre wrote, "I consider Flaubertand the Brothers Goncourtresponsible for the repressionthat followed

the Commune, because they never wrote, even a line, to impede it."[9] See: What is Literature?(1947)




Jump up^The New Fontana dictionary of Modern Thought. Third Ed. A. Bullock & S. Trombley, Eds. (1999) p. 433.

Jump up^Jennings, Jeremy and Kemp-Welch, Tony. "The Century of the Intellectual:

From Dreyfus to Salman Rushdie", Intellectuals in Politics, Routledge: New York (1997) p.


Jump up^Pascal Oryand Jean-François Sirinelli, Les Intellectuels en France. De l'affaire Dreyfus à nos jours(The Intellectuals in France: From the Dreyfus Affair to Our Days), Paris: Armand Colin, 2002, p. 10.

● ^ Jump up to:a b Williams, Raymond. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society (1983), pp. 169–71.

Jump up^Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism, Second Edition. (1958) pp.


Jump up^Peces piloto entre tiburones, el País, 15 June 2014

Jump up^Howatson, M.C. (Ed.) The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature,Second Edition. Oxford University Press. 1993. "Heau'ton timōrū'menos", 77, pp. 260–61.

Jump up^"LINGUIST List 4.1053: Jakobson quotation".

Jump up^"Sartre. El existencialismo es un humanismo".

Jump up^Annie Cohen-Solal, Sartre, Gallimard, 1989, pp. 588–89.

Jump up^Mitchell, Peter R. and Schoeffel, Michael John. Chomsky, Crítica, 2002, ISBN 8484323781, pg. 250.

Jump up^Jennings, Jeremy and Kemp–Welch, Anthony. (Eds.) Intellectuals in Politics:

From the Dreyfus Affair to Salman Rushdie, 1997. pp. 1–2.

Jump up^Sowell, Thomas(1980). Knowledge and Decisions.Basic Books.

Jump up^The Oxford English Reference DictionarySecond Edition, (1996) p. 130.

Jump up^The New Cassel's French–English, English–French Dictionary(1962) p. 88.

Jump up^Collini p. 31.

Jump up^"Littérateur, n.". Discover the Story of English(Second (1989) ed.). Oxford English Dictionary. June 2012 [First published in New English Dictionary, 1903].

Jump up^Gross (1969); see also Pierson (2006).

Jump up^The Twilight of Atheism(2004), p. 53.

Jump up^From "The High Enlightenment and the Low-Life of Literature", in The Literary Underground of the Old Regime(1982).

Jump up^Charles Alexander Moore, ed. (1967). The Chinese Mind: Essentials of Chinese Philosophy and Culture.U of Hawaii Press. p. 22. ISBN9780824800758.

Jump up^The Korea Foundation (February 12, 2016). Koreana - Winter 2015.pp. 73–74.


Jump up^Scriven 1993:119

Jump up^Scriven 1999:xii

Jump up^Jennings and Kemp-Welch, 1997:210.

Jump up^Le Blanc, Paul. Revolution, Democracy, Socialism: Selected Writings of Lenin (Pluto Press, London: 2008) pp. 31, 137–138.

Jump up^Etzioni, Amitai. Ed., Public Intellectuals, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.

Jump up^Bauman, 1987: 2.

Jump up^Furedi, 2004: 32.

Jump up^Jennings and Kemp Welch, 1997: 1–2.

Jump up^McLennan, 2004.

● ^ Jump up to:a b Jennings and Kemp-Welch, 1997.

Jump up^Jennings and Kemp-Welch, 1997: 13.

Jump up^Fuller, 2005: pp. 113–114.

Jump up^Furedi (2004)

Jump up^McKee (2001).

Jump up^Bourdieu 1989.

Jump up^Gattone 2007

Jump up^Sorkin (2007)

● ^ Jump up to:a b Mills, 1959: 99.

Jump up^Bender, T, 1993: 142.

Jump up^Reason Magazine, "An Interview with Milton Friedman". December 1974

Jump up^"The Intellectuals and Socialism", The University of Chicago Law Review (Spring 1949),

Jump up^"Papers of Interest"(PDF). Mises Institute.

Jump up^Albert Einstein (May 2009) [May 1949]. "Why Socialism? [1949]". Monthly Review. 61(1). Retrieved 14 April 2010.

9 July 2009. Retrieved 14 April 2010.

Jump up^Johnson, Paul. "The Heartless Lovers of Humankind", The Wall Street Journal,

5 January 1987.

● ^ Jump up to:a b c Bender, T, 1993: 12.

Jump up^Bender, T, 1993: 3.

Jump up^Jennings and Kemp Welch, 1997.

Jump up^Thatcher, 1993:753.

Jump up^Collini, 2006: 127.

Jump up^Nozick, Robert (January–February 1998). "Why do intellectuals oppose capitalism?". Cato Policy Report. 20(1): 1, 9–11.

Jump up^Collini, 2006: 205.

Jump up^Sowell, Thomas (2010). Intellectuals and Society, Basic Books ISBN 0-465-01948-X, pp. 218–276 passim.


Aron, Raymond(1962) The Opium of the Intellectuals.New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.

● Basov, Nikita et al.(2010). The Intellectual: A Phenomenon in Multidimensional Perspectives, Inter-Disciplinary Press.

● Bates, David, ed., (2007). Marxism, Intellectuals and Politics.London: Palgrave.

● Benchimol, Alex. (2016) Intellectual Politics and Cultural Conflict in the Romantic Period:

Scottish Whigs, English Radicals and the Making of the British Public Sphere(London:


Benda, Julien(2003). The Treason of the Intellectuals.New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.

● Bender, Thomas (1993). Intellect and Public Life. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

● Camp, Roderic (1985). Intellectuals and the State in Twentieth-Century Mexico.Austin:

University of Texas Press

Collini, Stefan(2006). Absent Minds: Intellectuals In Britain.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Coleman, Peter(2010) The Last Intellectuals.Sydney: Quadrant Books.

● Di Leo, Jeffrey R., and Peter Hitchcock, eds. (2016) The New Public Intellectual: Politics, Theory, and the Public Sphere. (Springer)

Finkielkraut, Alain(1995). The Defeat of the Mind.Columbia University Press.

Furedi, Frank(2004). Where Have All The Intellectuals Gone?London and New York:

Continuum Press.

Fuller, Steve(2005). The Intellectual: The Positive Power of Negative Thinking.Cambridge:


● Gattone, Charles. F. (2006). The Social Scientist As Public Intellectual: Critical Reflections In A Changing World. USA: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

● Gella, Aleksander, Ed., (1976). The Intelligentsia and the Intellectuals.California: Sage Publication.

Gross, John(1969). The Rise and Fall of the Man of Letters. New York: Macmillan.

● Huszar, George B. de, ed., (1960). The Intellectuals: A Controversial Portrait. Glencoe, Illinois:

The Free Press. Anthology with many contributors.

● Jennings, Jeremy and Kemp-Welch, Anthony, eds. (1997). Intellectuals in Politics: From the Dreyfus Affair to Salman Rushdie. London: Routledge.

Johnson, Paul(1990). Intellectuals.New York: Harper Perennial ISBN0-06-091657-5. Highly ideological criticisms of Rousseau,Shelley, Marx, Ibsen, Tolstoy, Hemingway,Bertrand Russell, Brecht, Sartre, Edmund Wilson, Victor Gollancz, Lillian Hellman, Cyril Connolly, Norman Mailer, James Baldwin, Kenneth Tynan, Noam Chomsky, and others

● Kennedy, Michael D. (2015). Globalizing knowledge: Intellectuals, universities and publics in transformation(Stanford University Press). 424pp online review

● Konrad, George et al. (1979). The Intellectuals On The Road To Class Power.Sussex:

Harvester Press.

Kramer, Hilton(1999) The Twilight of the Intellectuals.Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.

Lasch, Christopher(1997). The New Radicalism in America, 1889–1963: The Intellectual as a Social Type.New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

● Lemert, Charles (1991). Intellectuals and Politics.Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.

● McCaughan, Michael (2000). True Crime: Rodolfo Walsh and the Role of the Intellectual in Latin American Politics.Latin America Bureau ISBN1-899365-43-5

● McLennan, Gregor (2004). "Traveling With Vehicular Ideas: The Case of the Third Way", Economy and Society. Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 484–499.

● Michael, John (2000). Anxious Intellects: Academic Professionals, Public Intellectuals, and Enlightenment Values.Duke University Press.

Mills, C.W.(1959). The Sociological Imagination.Oxford University Press.

● Misztal, Barbara A. (2007). Intellectuals and the Public Good.Cambridge University Press.

Molnar, Thomas(1961). The Decline of the Intellectual.Cleveland: The World Publishing Company.

● Piereson, James (2006). "The Rise & Fall of the Intellectual,"The New Criterion, Vol. XXV, p.


Posner, Richard A.(2002). Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press ISBN0-674-01246-1

Rieff, Philip, Ed., (1969). On Intellectuals.New York: Doubleday & Co.

● Sawyer, S., and Iain Stewart, eds. (2016) In Search of the Liberal Moment: Democracy, Anti-totalitarianism, and Intellectual Politics in France since 1950(Springer).

● Showalter, Elaine (2001). Inventing Herself: Claiming A Feminist Intellectual Heritage.London:


Sowell, Thomas(2009). Intellectuals and Society.New York: Perseus ISBN978-0-465-01948-9

Thatcher, Margaret(1993). The Downing Street Years.London: HarperCollins ISBN

Viereck, Peter(1953). Shame and Glory of the Intellectuals.Boston: Beacon Press.

Further reading[edit]

● Aczél, Tamás & Méray, Tibor. (1959) The Revolt of the Mind.New York: Frederick A. Praeger.

Barzun, Jacques(1959). The House of Intellect. New York: Harper.

Berman, Paul(2010). The Flight of the Intellectuals.New York: Melville House.

● Carey, John (2005). The Intellectuals And The Masses: Pride and Prejudice Among the Literary Intelligensia, 1880–1939.Chicago Review Press.

Chomsky, Noam(1968). "The Responsibility of Intellectuals." In: The Dissenting Academy, ed. Theolord Roszak. New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 254–298.

Grayling, A.C.(2013). "Do Public Intellectuals Matter?,"Prospect Magazine,No. 206.

● Hamburger, Joseph (1966). Intellectuals in Politics.New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hayek, F.A.(1949). "The Intellectuals and Socialism," The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. XVI, No. 3, pp. 417–433.

Huizinga, Johan(1936). In the Shadows of Tomorrow.New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

● Kidder, David S., Oppenheim, Noah D., (2006). The Intellectual Devotional.Emmaus, Pennsylvania: Rodale Books ISBN1-59486-513-2

Laruelle, François(2014). Intellectuals and Power.Cambridge: Polity Press.

● Lilla, Mark (2003). The Reckless Mind – Intellectuals in Politics.New York: New York Review


Lukacs, John A.(1958). "Intellectuals, Catholics, and the Intellectual Life,"Modern Age,Vol. II, No. 1, pp. 40–53.

MacDonald, Heather(2001). The Burden of Bad Ideas.New York: Ivan R. Dee.

Milosz, Czeslaw(1990). The Captive Mind.New York: Vintage Books.

Molnar, Thomas(1958). "Intellectuals, Experts, and the Classless Society,"Modern Age,Vol. II, No. 1, pp. 33–39.

● Moses, A. Dirk (2009) German Intellectuals and the Nazi Past.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rothbard, Murray N.(1989). "World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals," The Journal of Libertarian Studies,Vol. IX, No. 1, pp. 81–125.

● Sapiro, Gisèle. (2014). The French Writers' War 1940–1953(1999; English edition 2014); highly influential study of intellectuals in the French Resistance online review

Shapiro, J. Salwyn(1920). "The Revolutionary Intellectual,"The Atlantic Monthly,Vol. CXXV, pp. 320–330.

● Shenfield, Arthur A. (1970). "The Ugly Intellectual,"The Modern Age, Vol. XVI, No. 1, pp. 9–14.

Shlapentokh, Vladimir(1990) Soviet Intellectuals and Political Power.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Shore, Marci(2009). Caviar and Ashes.New Haven: Yale University Press.

● Small, Helen (2002). The Public Intellectual.Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Strunsky, Simeon(1921). "Intellectuals and Highbrows,"Part II, Vanity Fair, Vol. XV, pp. 52,


● Whittington-Egan, Richard (2003-08-01). "The Vanishing Man of Letters: Part One". Contemporary Review.

● Whittington-Egan, Richard (2003-10-01). "The Vanishing Man of Letters: Part Two". Contemporary Review.

Wolin, Richard(2010). The Wind from the East: French Intellectuals, the Culture Revolution and the Legacy of the 1960s.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.