There is a rising debate about the role of intellectuals in modern society. Some decry the attack against intellectualism as arising in populism. It’s an odd idea, which presumes that intellectuals are solely possessed of rational enlightenment, and that the rest of us are merely the ignorant, drooling mob vulnerable to manipulation by any passing unenlightened, anti-intellectual demagogue.
But the truth is that populism isn’t a state of intellectual development; it’s a social and political phenomenon – a sort of mood that sweeps across a community, that is fanned into specific sorts of overt action by people with their own typically covert agendas.
And the thing is that those people are themselves often self-styled intellectuals. Except that when they are the ones fanning popular feeling, they call it leadership, rather than demagoguery. On the one hand, it is all-too-often both. On the other, the cure usually arises, ultimately, in the inherent common sense of the community – rather than from the “leadership” of its more prominent members, of whatever political or ideological bent they may be.
But yesterday’s post, discussing this general topic, was challenged in a comment by Peter Gluck. He asked, quite rightly, what, precisely, I was trying to say, and why I was trying to say it. Those are excellent questions, which I clearly failed to answer. Here is another attempt:
While yesterday’s post was filed as a personal observation, it does apply both to growing trends in American society, and, for our purposes here, to the way we view, develop ourselves as, and interact with, senior managers, or with members of the cult of superlative individual leadership. That is, the real issue is the suggestion that there is an elite possessed of characteristics and abilities that place them above the rest of society, and that offer them the opportunity – the obligation – to lead it.
This elitism is natural enough and, like the poor, will be always with us. But the reason why I discuss it here is that we must always always resist it, just as we must always seek to relieve poverty.
The idea that there are people with inherent or specially groomed abilities to lead the rest of us is not just, at the least, overstated – it is dangerous. So is the conceptual foundation upon which it rests: the notion that we are unable to look after our own affairs.
But there are people – “leaders” of various sorts – who are dedicated to both concepts. Tomorrow, I’ll relate the observations of one self-styled intellectual which make the case in as chillingly frank a manner as I’ve seen in public discourse.
On the other hand, there are skeptics, like Peter, about what some fear is an unthinking, reactionary rejection of the idea of intellectualism of any kind. However notionally wise current popular thinking posits the group as being, these skeptics argue, someone must lead. I prefer the idea that someone must be in charge – a distinctly different proposition.
So, let’s talk some more about it. Please do stop in.
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of enlightenment and leadership in the context of today’s seemingly endless economic scandals, and often hopelessly idiotic crises, perhaps we need an ethics czar to join all the others being appointed to solve our problems for us. Consultant and BusinessWeek columnist Bruce Weinstein thinks so. But according to Bruce, the summit from which this czar peruses the realm is wherever you happen to be standing. If you are a manager at any level, you will want to see why he makes that argument, what he means by it, and consider carefully the powerful advice he offers for his nominee.
—
Did you know you can click on the green “Share This” icon below and uplink this post to any of the major social content sites, or email it to your friends and colleagues – give it a try right now!
And, while you’re at it, don’t forget to subscribe, and encourage your friends and colleagues to do so, as well!
Technorati Tags: intellectual, society, intellectualism, populism, enlightenment, demagogue, community, leadership, demagoguery, American society, manager, elitism, poverty, ethics, BusinessWeek, Bruce Weinstein
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments
Dear Jim,
First of all, I perfectly agree with your last sentence in the paper above. The world has problems and problem solving needs responsible leaders.
The issue of intellectuals is not an easy one and many ideas have to be confronted. However I think that the first rule of intellectual honesty is that differences in opinion attract smart people and repel only the other ones.
There are two intellectual problems with your Jugglers paper:
a) what is your definition of an intellectual? Take a look please to the Wikipedia- there are many alternatives…
b) the “we” vs “they” thinking needs care and definitions otherwise you can arrive to a Pongo-like statement. Plus other dangers.
To tell you and to your readers
a few words about my status, I am a retired scientific researcher, I was fascinated by the possibilities of the Internet and in 2002 I have started to write a weekly newsletter aiming to demonstrate that the Internet can be used to problem solving
and to mental processing on the data-information-knowledge-
wisdom-prediction line.
I am writing a book about real-life problemology; that will be in English- if I find an editor.
The newsletter is at http://info.kappa.ro and it is in romanian; it belongs to the UPC Romania company (in the US -Liberty Global). The main part is about web-search and therefore Managing Leadership is very much used and appreciated but I am writing editorials (now No. 344), the subject “Intellectuals” was in Nos 213 and 214 and these are exactly along our present discussion. “Wisdom of crowds” also essential for these problems is in No. 267.
I think it would be useful if the discussion start with what, in your opinion, intellectuals are, and what they are NOT?
Who, in your opinion, are intellectuals from the following ad-hoc list: Edward de Bono, Jim Rohn, Umberto Eco,Alan Sokal, Richard Dawkins, Vaclav Havel, Noam Chomsky, Nicholas Nassim Taleb…?
What about the fight of the people with many books vs the people with One Book?Actually vice-versa!
What about the elite of the super-rich, compared with the elite of the super-smart?
What about the disastruous results of the dominance of the old gods- Ares, Hermes and Koalemos (i.e. violence, greed and stupidity?)All crises are first crises of thinking.
What about the oppression of reason and about the modes of thinking?
How to cope with ignorance and superstions as astrology, numerology, psychics, snake oil merchants?
As long as our societies are lead by moneytheistic thinking-all these cannot be defeated but can be constrained a bit- and that’s one of the missions of the genuine thinkers, call them intellectuals or otherwise.
Peter
P.S You will decide if our dialogue will continue, I am happy to do it but in a festine lento style- I have the newsletter to work for.
In a separate posting I will send you some of my ideas in form of “septoes” an invention of Edward de Bono, who in my opinion is an intellectual, a great one.
Dear Jim,
If you want, you can keep these just for you; they are ideas extracted from my editorials.
Truth is very fragmented, so they are diversified.
Wisdom of crowds lies in their diversity
The Good and Evil are siamese twins
The Universe feeds our insatiable curiosity forever
Human rights are threatened by Human Privileges
Bad septoism is seven words not wise
All great crises are crises of thinking
The Universe is obsessed to be interesting.
Brainair- four parts realism, one part imagination.
My favorite metasport is swimming counter-stream.
Future is bright but not for Humanity.
Astrology offends Human Intelligence but is Business.
We live in memecracies, ideas dominate us.
Means are swallowing aims and replacing them.
People lie because most truths are bad.
In need solidarity becomes liquidarity even gasidarity.
Greek Gods ruling today: Ares, Hermes, Koalemos.
Initiative is the greatest differentiator of humans.
Perfectionism is dangerous, we need sustained perfectibilism.
Good could take creativity lessons from Evil.
Evolution is the inherent perfectibility of Nature.
Save the world with the Seriousyne vaccine!
Human nature plus idealistic theories equal disaster.
Unlimited greed and ignorance lead to disaster.
Life is hungry matter and edible too.
Victories over your former Self are triumphs.
The Future Shock was amortized by irrationality.
Lies are shortcuts from problems to solutions.
The essence of human nature is discontent.
First remove Evil then start building good.
Post a Comment