Intellectual Ascension

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.” Is this laughable to anyone else besides me? I mean, from a theoretical perspective I could see why this would be a wonderful statement to put in our Declaration of Independence but let’s break some basic things down first.

Besides the obvious contradiction in this statement upon its creation (blacks were slaves – doesn’t seem too equal to me) there are some integral problems with people truly believing in this ideal. From a biological standpoint this in not true, therefore, why would it manifest itself in one’s intellectual capabilities? It really bothers me when I hear people attempt to give credence to broad and objective uplifting statements such as, “you can be anything you want to be if you work hard enough.” It’s time for everyone to stop being an idealist and let’s hop on the realist train.

Granted, everyone should be provided the same rights, but let’s be real, we’re in the most individualistic culture in the world, there is no such thing as unanimous equality. Therefore, I feel that my stance on the idea of the intellectual is one of “Gramsci-esque” thought in that the public indefinitely needs its own intelligentsia to form and shape ideologies for the masses. Thus sparking the inception of the “public intellectual.” But then the question arises, “what makes someone part of this social class of intellectuals?” Well fret not public, the intellectual Mr. Minor is offering up his four quarters (as opposed to “two cents”) on the idea.

It was easier to determine who was an intellectual in the nineteenth century with a clear distinction between the proletariat and the scholarly. But in America, due to that little excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, you know, the whole “equal” thing, the problem arises that the very public you are trying to inform is the arbiter of whether or not you are indeed an “intellectual.” In racking my brain for the definition of what is truly a public intellectual I found that this term is essentially a way for those who positively identify themselves with various ideologies to perpetuate the idea that they should be listened to and that their ideas are better than others who do not share this same means of identification. In other words, it is a way for academics to engage upon the act of intellectual ascension, setting a glass ceiling for those who do not readily define themselves with the ideals that these “intellectuals” value.

This is a necessity for those who spend so much time researching and giving their opinions on various topics because people like to believe that they are living their lives in a progressive manner. It is an innate tendency that human’s must exercise until their death. For instance, various religious fanatics have come up with ideals such as those who do not believe in their faith are going to be condemned to an eternity of suffering. So it is not that much of a stretch to see how someone who regards themselves as an intellectual could condemn others to a label of “less-informed” as a way to fulfill their path of self-righteousness.

Instead of attempting to put labels on anything and everything we can, Americans should be more concerned with the product of the public intellectual. As Stephen Mack eloquently put it,

So, is there any way of conceptualizing something called the public intellectual that is consistent with democratic values? Of course there is, but it needs to begin with a shift from “categories and class” to “function.” That is, our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is—and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.

I feel that Mack’s analysis of the situation cuts to the heart of the problem. We are needlessly wasting our resources and academic class by arguing over who is qualified and who is not qualified to offer their opinion to the public. But by doing this, the intelligentsia is glossing over and avoiding their original purpose, to inform the public on his/her area of expertise. The dissemination of knowledge is essential to the progression of a culture and society. With all of the mediums that are prepped and ready for the “intellectual” to provide information on, why are we polluting it with petty bickering?

Well I guess by that previous statement, you could say that this whole piece that I just wrote is pointless, another form of petty bickering, but I feel that this was necessary in order for me to continue on my path of writing works on this blog. But this would not be necessary if other works had not been published that put me in this defensive stance causing me to readily defend my stance as a public intellectual. Hey, if you want to call yourself a public intellectual, and you have something worthy to say, let society deem whether or not what you have to say is meaningful. All you can do is hope for the best and pray that your work has reached your target audience. If you have something to say of any worth, it will be picked up at some point in time, it could be posthumously, but that should not concern you. Some of the greatest minds were not seen as such until their death or many years later (Galileo, Copernicus etc). If your sole intention as a public intellectual is to gain recognition as one, then your priorities are all out of whack and a serious reevaluation of your goals needs to ensue.