Of course, this raises the question of what the difference is between the two. Hard to say, except that intellectuals generally wear sweater vests and corduroy pants and most other smart people don't. (Or at least, I don't.) But at bottom, I'd suggest that what makes this group stand out is its determination to make the world fit into whatever version of reality its members cherish. They seem to live by a wise man's motto, "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
Unfortunately, this leads to a lot of wacky and well-nigh malicious interpretations of innocuous things. Exhibit A: This recent gem from the Guardian, one of whose contributors, Mike Power, apparently felt the need to condemn, of all things, outdoor barbecues. Not because they deliver heart attacks--yummy, yummy heart attacks--but because it's a lingering symbol of patriarchy. "What really drains the joy from the summer breeze," Power harrumphs, "is the assumption, and the practice, that this is Man's Work. All over the UK, probably the world, the barbecue is now one of the last places where even normal blokes become sexist." Apparently it brings out some primal urge to hunt and kill in men, or it reinforces traditional gender roles (as if no woman ever barbecued in her life), or who knows. Anyway, this particular "bloke" thinks it's just terrible, continuing "How - and why - do men continue to claim this sacred fire-space as a male-owned sanctuary where women are not permitted?"
I'm not going to bother refuting this turd of an article, as its foolishness should be self-evident to all. But even if it were true--if this were indeed a conscious male domain--would it matter? There's still no law saying women can't barbecue. And also, it's barbecue. As important as it might be to folks down South, it's just not that big a deal. It's not a central enough facet of society to ever constitute oppression, and so for a guy like Power, who seems to want to tackle big social issues, it's just not something to get worked up about, ever.
And of course this is far from an isolated incident. Indeed, it seems to be a thing among academics, journalists, etc. to criticize anything, no matter how small, that doesn't match their standards of how people should behave and express themselves. For another example of this, a few years ago a columnist at Salon.com wrote a piece denouncing Taylor Swift's song "Mean" because of the representation of femininity it provided. For example, she claimed that Swift's lyrics "You made a rebel of a careless man's careful daughter" presume that "the female character defines herself through the men in her life and has to be shown by them how to live in a proper manner." And on and on. It's kind of amusing, really, because anyone would lay cash money that such a consideration never entered the musician's head, and that she wouldn't even understand it. God knows I barely do.
It's kind of sad, really--this inability by very accomplished, very smart (in a technical sense) people to take some joy in things that don't have to do with politics, like a cookout or a song. Maybe it's because they adopt ideologies that seek to explain literally everything as the product of someone being mean. Or maybe it's because they feel all they have is their smarts and that they need to show those off in whatever circumstances. Either way, it makes it hard to enjoy the little things.
Oh well. Just be glad you're not them. (Not that I'm saying you're stupid.)
53 comments:
Sweater vests are the uniform of evil.
Those sport coats with leather patches on the elbows are evil too.
And for the record, I'm thrilled to have women come over and BBQ. Yes, I prefer it if they do so naked. (even better if they look good naked) --- am I drifting off topic?
Agreed about the sports coats.
T-Rav, Let me put this on a different scale because I think it's a psychological issue.
I know several people who think they are smarter than everyone. They can't enjoy anything because they spend all their time pointing out the "mistakes" everyone else is making -- whether they know what they are talking about or not... usually they aren't.
What I've found is that these people are deeply unhappy people for any number of reasons and they are trying to make themselves feel better by convincing themselves that everyone else is a fool and that they are smarter than everyone... doctors, lawyers, politicians, generals, cops, judges, businessmen, store managers, directors, actors, etc. There is no one who isn't "doing it wrong."
I see this as the same thing you are talking about. These people don't know jack, but it makes them feel better to look down on everyone else and everything else. I think the intellectuals of which you speak are the same thing. They are miserable people who are looking to hide their own flaws behind the idea that they are better than everyone else. Their ideology is just an excuse to look down on people. That's how I see it.
These days I would define the term "intellectual" as idiot.
Writing/boasting about how superior they are, "village idiot".
It is typical of liberalism, wanting to get into people's business. Especially those having a good time.
Or perhaps someone did piss in their cheerios.
People who think for a living will sometimes advance ridiculous arguments. Sometimes they do so because they are insane or idiots, sometimes they do so because they are out of reasonable ideas but need to write something for their weekly column, but I suspect most of the time they do so because reasonable wins one less attention than nutty.
Also, I've got no problem with people that try to support their theories with real life examples. I have a problem with the abstract guys who just build these elaborate constructions which are based on nothing but their thoughts.
All that being said, I don't have too much use for purists who sit on the sidelines and talk about how they could do stuff better than the people who are actually doing it. Such people aren't limited to academia or the mainstream media. Talk radio and the internet is filled with such people. As I've noted before, even politics is filled with such people, which is why power is a poisoned chalice for modern political parties.
T-Rav......Define "intellectual." Is it somebody with an advanced degree? Someone who had success in their field?
I think our understanding of the term, comes mainly from academia, and especially, LAWYERS! Lawyers put a lot of time and effort into their studies. Are told often that THEY now are the experts in law. Generally go into politics. Pontificate about events 'from a lawyerly' perspective which makes them sound smart (they usually are). And generally, insinuate themselves into every subject matter because 'they are smart.'
Imagine a jurist (Ruth Bader Ginsburg comes to mind as the prototypical intellectual......brrrr) who sits on high and passes down judgement on your fate. We can't stand those people, so any pronouncement they make we look askance at and (usually) mock. Yet they have us in their control and it creates a tension between those that think because they are smarter and had more schooling than the rest of us, then they are wiser.
Imagine having a PhD in anything. You KNOW you are smarter than the average Joe, therefore, your mere thoughts and ideas MUST be better reasoned, better thought out, and generally, just BETTER than those that don't match your level of academic achievement.
Exhibit A: Think of her what you will, but when it was found out Sarah Palin attended a (quelle horror!) Midwest school, the intellectuals poo-poohed her ability to even speak coherently, much less make any sense at all. These "intellectuals" based her ability on where she matriculated, rather than the substance of her ideas. Imagine....Hoe could ANYONE from such a podunk school even begin to understand the nuances and fine points of our political debate.
I submit, this is what drives us proles crazy, and has led to our disdain for "intellectuals." That same attitude you so rightly identify in your article.
..........sorry Andrew.......... :(
Andrew......No...I do NOT think you fit into my, or T-Rav's definition of intellectual. You actually have some very creative, well thought out, rational ideas and perspectives.
Say....you didn't attend a MidWest law school by any chance did you?! :)
I remember yfears ago I was on a team putting a MK-12A Re-Entry Vehicle together; 600 KT total among the three bombs. We were having a very intellectual discussion about the use of nuclear weapons and our MSgt yelled at us, "Quit thinking so hard and build that GD bomb..". I'm fairly well educated but I don't consider myself an intellectual, they think too much..sometimes what appears to be simple,,really is.
T-Rav, I won't waste everyone's time by picking apart all the flaws in your article. Suffice it to say, it's brimming with psuedo-sexual stereotypes appealing to a strictly male fantasy--particularly white males--that reinforce the socio-economic hegemony blah blah oppression and blah blah ...*irk!* (rattle rattle) *POOF!*
Sorry about that. Not sure exactly what happened. Good article.
Personally, I am highly offended that you assume that I am "sad" just because I am smarter and more enlightened than anyone else in the room. I prefer the word "challenging". And for the record, I do NOT wear sweater vests except in winter when it is obviously appropriate. ;-)
Sweater vests in fact are the uniform of evil--and discomfort.
Andrew, on that same note, I almost brought up an article from Harper's that was printed during World War II, about which personalities were prone to Nazism and which weren't. The author said your hypothetical intellectual snob is very prone to it because he hates both his current social circle and his often lowly origins, and is dominated by a desire to have his genius recognized by all and be placed beyond ridicule.
It strikes me that if you really wanted to infuriate the people who wrote those articles I mentioned above, you should tell them, "I feel sorry for you." Just snarling at them wouldn't be enough, because then they'd feel validated by stupid people's anger; but if they know they're being pitied--oh man.
Additionally, as the owner of a sports coat, I resent that remark.
This reminds me of something I saw last night about how 70% of women no longer call themselves feminists. Self-proclaimed feminists are aghast but then you look at their attitude and they obsess over what you see above: Barbecues and Taylor Swift.
LL, I don't think you're really helping the case for the male population here. :P
Kit, it also proves something else that's been said about feminists: The only thing they hate more than a masculine man is a feminine woman.
Commander Max, or as Lenin would say, "useful idiots." Personally, I've always been partial to that term.
I don't know about their Cheerios, but I've met a lot of them, and they just seem like unhappy people on a basic level.
T-Rav, "I feel sorry for you" would drive them insane. Their whole thing is to feel intellectually superior to others. So they are fully prepared for a debate because they dismiss whatever you say as "you're too stupid to know the truth." But to dismiss them with pity puts them in a different category because you are absolutely denying them the one things they need -- legitimacy.
That is an interesting point about the Nazis because the Nazis were selling the idea of superiority. That would fit in perfectly with people who feel ignored or inadequately recognized. Essentially, you make people treat you as a superior by rhetoric and force.
Sorry about the sports coat. have you sought treatment? :P
Patriot, You are talking about a small group of people. Most well-educated people don't look down on others. That said, they don't humor the uneducated when they say stupid things, but they aren't out there trying to make themselves look better.
Let me also add that, in my experience, the people most likely to mock others for "not knowing" things are morons who are trying to look down on other people who actually know a good deal more than themselves.
As for Palin, she was mocked because he was a moron. Attacking somebody for going to a crappy school and studying "broadcast journalism"... something conservatives would mock if a liberal did it... is just piling on. It only works when the person has already exposed themselves as an idiot, and she did that in spades.
Anthony, that's true, but I write once a week and so far I haven't said anything real nutty. (I think.) Ultimately, you make comments based on what you're thinking, and I have no doubt that these people really believe barbecue and particular songs are proof of big, bad sexism. Because I have conversations with people like this, and without even being pushed to it, they suggest this sort of thing on a regular basis in cold reason. Sometimes, people just really are that crazy.
Oh, Bev. I don't think you're sad because you think you're smarter than everyone else. I think you're sad because you take up the cause of evil kittens and worry about black helicopters all the time. As for the sweater vests--well, I'll just let that comment speak for itself. ;-)
Patriot, I don't have a pre-formed, hard definition of an intellectual. Certainly it's not just someone who went to school and did very well at their job. Mark Zuckerberg did both those things, and while he may be very smart personally, I wouldn't call him an intellectual.
Broadly speaking, I'd say the term denotes one who traffics in abstract ideas for a living. That's not really helpful but I can't put it any simpler than that. Maybe you could say it's someone who lives in the "world" of ideas and doesn't spend much time observing reality; also someone who becomes so enamored of their own intellect and knowledge they think they can tell others what to do and how to live as a result.
A classic example of this would be FDR's "Brain Trust," which I'll talk about some in a few weeks. There you had men who were very smart and could explain legal principles, Keynesian economics, and social statistics at length without using notes. Smart dudes. And because they were so smart, they believed they could manage the national economy from behind their desks, just by thinking things through and arriving at a rational solution. That would be the epitome of an intellectual.
Thanks for the compliments, tryanmax. But I have to give you a sub-par grade on your attempt at satire. To make it convincing, you should have expanded "white male" to "White {always capitalized nowadays} Anglo-Saxon Protestant male." I would have also accepted "heterosexual."
Can someone (T-Rav; Andrew) give short list of "intellectuals" that fit the article's premise? Anyone want to give it a try?
Paul Krugman. He's the perfect example. He believes in theories that make no sense in the real world. He's smug about them. He likes to tell everyone how smart he is. And his theories are all about shitting on average people.
T-Rav, I think this article is just yet another example of the persistence of critical theory, kept alive through the mis-education of journalists and their insular existence.
The goal is always to tear down capitalism and democracy and institute a communist dictatorship where the intellectuals will be paid (and loved) for their "goodthink". To do so, they target every cherished institution representative of freedom for removal, then reverse engineer a grievance to justify its removal.
The grievance can be anything as long as it involves an approved victim group, whether it be the "patriarchy", "racism", "sexism", "reproductive rights", "homophobia", "islamophobia", "climate change"; whatever excuse that can be twisted to fit the bill. There's a reason critical theory never offers solutions to the "problems" it identifies; the whole point is to create the need for an government-sponsored intellectual class that lords over a technocracy without accountability.
They'll think for us so we won't have to. And we'll love them for it.
T-Rav, I think that it is well understood that while WASPs certainly receive the lion's share of advantages from white privilege, it is by no means limited to that particular subset. Even as it has become increasingly fashionable to assert White Guilt, that too has become a part of the tapestry of privilege. Basically, the inequities of influence something something anti-diversity blah blah...*zoink* (clunk ka-chunk) *WHEEZE!*
Dammit, T-Rav, you made it happen again!
wahsatchmo, Very true. And that's because the solution is always... "It's impossible to give you a solution, it's better if you just put us in charge and let us solve it behind closed doors."
tryanmax, Doesn't it seem racist that only whites can feel white guilt? I don't know, sounds discriminatory to me.
Don't egg me on, today, Andrew. The sarcasm machine is in the shop right now.
LOL! Made perfect sense to me. :P
Patriot - I would say that Barack Obama falls into the "sad intellectual" category...
Okay, I think I've already spotted the problem. I shouldn't have used the word "tapestry." Thank God I didn't try "mosaic!"
Bev, I put him in the just sad category. He doesn't seem to actually manage the intellectual part. I've seen no evidence of any theories... just a belief that he should be in charge so he can pick the advisors to do the work.
Tryanmax - Next time try "skies of tomorrow" or "follow me on the oceans of tomorrow". It worked this week for Obama, intellectual and all around sad guy. (No matter WHAT andrew says...)
Who but a truly sad intellectual would actually string these words together and actually say them out loud to a large group of people not drinking coffee and snapping their fingers"
"America, we have made it through the worst of yesterday’s winds. And if we find the courage to keep moving forward; if we set our eyes on the horizon, we too will find an ocean of tomorrows, a sky of tomorrows – for America’s people, and for this great country that we love..."
Bev, You're just wrong, sweatervester. ;P
Seriously, Obama is a reader, not a thinker. As for the quote you produce, I agree it's bad, but it could be worse. He could have read this:
America (snap snap)
Through yesterday’s winds.
Find courage, (snap snap)
Moving forward,
Keep forward. . . winds.
We set our eyes on the oceans of tomorrow.
The sky. (snap snap)
Horizons of America.
Love the winds.
Andrew, please tell me that's not set to modern jazz. If it's in a modern jazz beat, I'm going to thump my head against the table.
And I must qualify, Obama is a reader insofar as what he reads verifies his opinion of himself. The man is a narcissist before he's anything else.
C'mon guys! I'm trying to fix this thing! *snap*
Um, that wasn't my fingers. I think this piece was expensive...
Well, tryanmax, you did manage to sound like a humorless liberal for the first half of that comment, so I'd say you're making process.
(Neither T-Rav nor the voices in his head are responsible for the failure of anyone's sarcasm machine. His kitten army, maybe.)
Andrew, don't forget Tom Friedman. Where Krugman is, there Friedman must be also. Or maybe he's just a Sinophile.
I would probably also include Richard Dawkins. And Peter Singer, and other upper-crust academics. And though he was at times smarter than the average intellectual bear, sadly the late Chris Hitchens would probably belong as well.
Critch, although that's not exactly what I would want to hear if I happened to be strolling by a bomb-construction unit, I do appreciate the underlying sentiment. Nice anecdote. :-)
Where Krugman is, there Friedman must be also.
Whoa! Did anybody else get a chill?
I prefer to think of this in terms of culture.
50s culture dominated by more or less monolithic Christianity. Cultural commentators = Priests, "Church officials", self styled religious orators, etc.
Typical "opinion piece" = unmarried men and women shouldn't dance too close together as it promotes sexual thoughts.
Today's culture dominated by secular humanists, marxist theoreticians, postmodernists etc. Cultural commentators = "Intellectuals".
Typical "opinion piece" = barbeques should be restricted as they promote genderist thoughts.
A true "intellectual" or person of the mind would reject both cultural assumptions based on the perceived dominant culture and move to compensate for the effects of being immersed in an operating "hivemind" while searching for truth.
tryanmax, I did, but I think it was the air-conditioner on your sarcasm machine. You should probably make sure it isn't jammed or something.
T-Rav, Isn't all boatnick... er, beatnik poetry performed to a jazz beat?
I think your list is a good one. I think the key to getting on the list is a degree of smugness.
Andrew, yes, but you have to be wearing a dark turtleneck first.
I should have added Noam Chomsky to the list. Can't believe I forgot the Chomster. But it's a start, sure.
K, that's one way to look at it, but for me it's easier to think of the "true" intellectuals as philosophers--those who love and genuinely seek wisdom. The people we've been discussing wouldn't fit (of course, neither do a lot of people holding a philosophy degree).
Countdown to Catastrophe
JULY 26, 1914 (99 years ago today…) –Part 1 of 2
At 3:26 in the morning, Russia’s ‘Period Preparatory to War’ begins when the orders for Phases 1 and 2 are signed by Chief of Staff General V.A. Sukhomlinov. Two more military districts- Warsaw and Vilnius- are being prepped in addition to the original four. Phase 1 includes calling up reservists; prepping naval vessels; reshoeing horses; arresting alleged spies; moving valuables away from frontier; and arming frontier posts. Phase 2 will include more call-ups; mining Russian harbors; acquiring more horses and non-Russian trains (in an effort to hold off invasion, Russia uses a wider railway gauge; however, this has created the coincidental problem of needing foreign trains should Russian armies cross their borders to the west); and moving officers’ families to safety.
In St. Petersburg, German Ambassador Pourtales and Sazonov meet on a train. Pourtales encourages direct talks between Russia and Austria. Sazonov seems to be having a change of heart. Like Berchtold, he now seems worried with war a sudden and distinct possibility. He agrees to meet with Szapary immediately.
The meeting seems to go well. Both are apologetic. During his career, Sazonov has often been viewed with suspicion by Russian society for avoiding talk of war whenever possible. (They wonder if he’s truly fit for the job.) The last week could, therefore, be seen as him throwing a tantrum (ordering pre-mobilization orders and all that), and now returning to his normal state of mind. He tells Szapary that he doesn’t want war over the Balkans. He suggests that Serbia could meet most of the ultimatum, but points 5 and 6 could compromise sovereignty and result in a military coup d’état (led by the Black Hand).
“Withdraw your ultimatum; modify the wording; and I will guarantee you the result.”
-Sazonov recalling what he said during the meeting to French Ambassador Paleologue
Szapary sends a promising note to the Ballplatz, but it won’t arrive until tomorrow afternoon.
In England, at the annual yacht races at Cowes, King George V tells Prince Heinrich of Prussia- Kaiser Wilhelm’s brother- that Britain wants to remain neutral. In London, German Ambassador Lichnowsky warns Permanent Undersecretary of State, Sir Arthur Nicolson, (Grey is taking the weekend off), about Russian war preparations. Nicolson denies that anything is happening. He refuses to talk to Russia as a neutral, again saying it’s none of Britain’s business. (Note: Britain’ ‘neutral’ status is in question, as British and French officers have been planning jointly for years for possible war with Germany on the continent. However, these plans have been kept from most members of the civilian government.) Nicolson then says that Grey’s earlier proposal for Four-Way talks has been replaced by a new proposal that requires Russia, Austria, and Serbia to suspend only active military operations- not mobilization. (Germany preferred Grey’s earlier proposal.) Lichnowsky endorses the idea, but it’s quickly rejected in Berlin. Meanwhile, with rumors of Russian mobilization spreading, Admiral Louis Battenburg orders the Royal Navy to remain at Portland. Naval reservists are not released.
Countdown to Catastrophe
JULY 26, 1914 (99 years ago today…) –Part 2 of 2
In Germany, the situation continues to grow tense. Prime Minister Bethmann and Foreign Minister Jagow continue to pressure Austria to declare war on Serbia, which, they were told, would happen right after the ultimatum expired. Bethmann, who is still on vacation, but has still been receiving reports and sending orders, finally realizes how much trouble he’s in. Over the last few weeks and under his watch, Austria kept Germany ill-informed, taking time when it was told to act swiftly, and not laying out its case for war as well as Germany had advised. Now, Russia is preparing its army, possibly to fight Germany as Austria’s likely wartime ally. Austria-Hungary still hasn’t declared war. And Britain, according to Lichnowsky’s reports of the last several days, seems to be growing ever more suspicious of Germany. (France, as Russia's lackey, will likely follow the Russians' lead.)
Adding to these problems, the Kaiser has ordered the German High Seas Fleet to return to its home ports, and furiously ignored Bethmann’s request to rescind that order. Both the Kaiser and Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, Secretary of State for the German Imperial Naval Office, are due to return tomorrow. While trying to publicly sue for peace while encouraging Austria to finish things with Serbia, (that being what everyone in Europe suspects Germany of doing in the first place), Germany has found itself caught between a reckless ally and several (possibly) hostile countries.
Austria isn’t much better off. Reports from Ambassador Szogyeny in Berlin indicate more pressure for Vienna to declare war on Serbia. German Ambassador Tschirschky supports this plan of action. Foreign Minister Berchtold does as well. But there’s a problem. General Conrad reports that Austria should not declare war until they’re ready to fight. And because of the more than two-week mobilization process, Austria won’t be ready to attack until August 12th. Berchtold says this isn’t acceptable, since “the diplomatic situation will not hold so long.” Tschirschky reports to Berlin that Austria still won’t declare war on Serbia.
This comes as a Hungarian Fort reportedly exchanges fire with Serbian warships on the Sava River near Temes-Kubin.
At the same time, German suspicions of Russia are on the rise. That evening, Sazonov tells Pourtales that while some military measures have been taken, no mobilization orders have been issued (a diplomatic and technically correct way of saying things.) Meanwhile, a German military attache meets with Chief of Staff Sukhomlinov, who lies through his teeth, saying that no military preparations are underway.
In Berlin, Chief of Staff Moltke gets this report and concludes that Russia is stalling for time.
T-Rav, Andrew, Bev...
I was late in posting today because I was entertaining a relative at a local amusement park. We stayed late until the rides were closed, getting the biggest bang for our buck.
But, in light of site regulations that were mentioned last weekend, I'm going to have to ask Andrew for information on his rates in the event that I find myself requiring counsel in dealing with Commentarama Management.
With that being mentioned, I must ask for another writ of habaeus Mountain Timeinus for July 26th.
Rustbelt, No problem. It's Friday. Management is gone until Monday. They'll never know! :D
Thanks, Andrew!
Andrew and T-Rav......A good list of some of today's representative "intellectuals."
What also bothers me, is the true "scientists" (Hawkings comes to mind) that step out side of their area of expertise and pontificate on political/cultural issues (boycotting Israel). Krugman and Friedman at least are in the arena of issues and have positioned themselves as highly paid intellectuals that others must pay heed.
Sort of like global warming scientists exhorting nations to increase taxes to combat global warming (sorry....'climate change'). I know why they do this (for the grant $$) yet their "opinion" should not be used as a reason to increase taxes.
One of the most egregious phrases Obama utters is the fatuous "The science is settled." Oh really Einstein!!
Patriot, which just goes to show how little Obama understands science on a conceptual level. It's never settled.
As for people like Hawking, whom I otherwise have a lot of respect for, my only guess is they feel their intelligence in one field and their overall position gives them the right/duty to speak out on other issues. I think, too, that they see themselves as dedicated to the "welfare" of the "human race," so if they think something is bad, they should say so. Either way, you're right--physicists are well out of their league when they try and talk foreign policy.
You'll all be happy to know I've got the sarcasm machine working again. I had to use parts from the belligerence machine, which I hardly ever used anyway, but it means ironic comments might have a slight caustic edge from now on. Deal with it.
Post a Comment