http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\01\13\story_13-1-2010_pg3_2
Wednesday, January 13, 2010 COMMENT: Modern-day intellectuals -Munir Attaullah Consider a multifaceted genius such as Leonardo De Vinci. Who can doubt his uniquely inventive and brilliant mind? And yet it feels odd to call him an intellectual. That is why, at the end of the day, in my book, the intellectual should be judged solely by the quality of his ideas Who is an 'intellectual'? "Don't define; describe," advised Wittgenstein, the influential 20th century philosopher. That is good advice; especially as such omnibus words always have many shades and hues of meaning, leaving plenty of room for controversy. Obviously, a high degree of intelligence (there is another omnibus word!) is a prerequisite. That must be married to the right kind of knowledge. Before you can be an 'intellectual physicist' you need to have a certain factual mastery of your subject. But we still need something more, I think. For, there are plenty of intelligent and knowledgeable physicists - the academic sort you might call 'an expert' - who you would not classify as 'intellectuals'. That additional crucial requirement is the rare capacity to conjure up the sort of abstract and profound cross-generalisation that can provide deep insight, either into the subject itself, or more generally. In the often tawdry open market of theories and ideas, intellectuals trade in the equivalent of gems and bullion rather than the inflation-prone paper currency. As far as I am concerned, that should be good enough. Yet we need to admit to a somewhat different meaning of the word in the popular lexicon. For, it is clear that scientists, as a class, have long been largely excluded from this category, whatever their brilliance. Why? In part the blame lies with the scientific community itself. The finest among them have long tended to be totally immersed in their research, and primarily concerned with their professional reputation amongst only their peers. Most are hardly known to the wider public. In contrast we have those whose interests are primarily literary, philosophical, and cultural (and, additionally, in medieval times and in our own case, religious). To be successful, such people need to actively sell themselves, and their work, to the public. And the usual subjects of their concern are the great social, cultural, political and moral questions of the day. Therefore, if one is articulate enough - which most usually are - it is not too difficult to develop a reputation with the public as a person with an outstanding mind whose views deserve great respect. Here is the genesis of the popular concept of an intellectual. Indeed, Sartre, the quintessential intellectual by the above description, thought the 'intellectual' was the equivalent of the moral conscience of his age. I suppose that is one reason why Chomsky, in our own times, is considered by non-Americans to fit the bill (though, of course, I unhesitatingly consider him one, simply by my own criteria). On the other hand, I emphatically do not agree with Edward Said's view that "the true intellectual is always an outsider, living in self-imposed exile and on the margins of society". That may be true in some cases (for the intellectual, in search of the 'truth', is often at odds with some accepted wisdoms of his society, and his convictions allow for no compromise), but Said's view is probably more in the nature of a romantic self-portrait. Sure, you have the likes of Camus, Genet, and Foucault (intellectuals are more of a fashionable commodity in France, whereas the Anglo-Saxon world is somewhat suspicious of them). But, equally, there are many rich and socially well integrated people like Russell, Keynes, Goethe and Nietzsche, who are intellectuals in everyone's book. Similar remarks apply to that other popular notion that intellectuals are usually well to the left of the political spectrum. That may well be also true, by and large. For, there is always much that is wrong in every society, and it is very much the business of the intellectual to argue against the status quo, and in favour of radical change. But let us not forget that there are also many outstanding intellectuals of conservative bent. For every Keynes and Krugman, there is a Hayek and a Friedman. And for every Marx and Mill, there is a Plato and a Nietzsche. And, while we are at it, how should we classify those impressive minds (such as Socrates and Ibn Khaldun) that are impossible to fit into such categories as above? Surely they were intellectuals par excellence. On the other hand, consider a multifaceted genius such as Leonardo De Vinci. Who can doubt his uniquely inventive and brilliant mind? And yet it feels odd to call him an intellectual. That is why, at the end of the day, in my book, the intellectual should be judged solely by the quality of his ideas. Fifty years ago, CP Snow could famously lament the existence of 'two cultures' (the scientific and the literary) that hardly ever interacted. There was a distinct element of social snobbery in how the popular intellectual perceived the scientist: why should he bother understanding the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the mysteries of Quantum Mechanics, or even the implications of Darwinian Evolution? As for the scientists, few were bothered enough, or literate enough, to engage the public and explain to them why at least some knowledge of such matters should be an essential ingredient of their education. But even though that gap persists, times are changing. The first inroads into the fiercely defended territory hitherto occupied by the popular intellectual were made by the 'soft' sciences. Economic and social theory is now very much part of the public discourse. And more recently, no serious discussion on subjects like climate change and bio-ethics can be meaningful without the needed scientific knowledge. Moreover, some of those age-old questions that have always haunted the human race - questions such as who are we, where have we come from, and what is our place in this universe - can no longer be even satisfactorily discussed without adequate knowledge of what modern science has to teach us. Fortunately for everyone, there are now many top class scientists who have mastered the art of explaining their complex ideas in simple and lucid terms that the average educated reader can understand. Scientists are more and more making a significant contribution to public discourse; and the popular intellectual appreciates more and more that he can no longer afford to be haughtily ignorant of what the scientists are telling us. The gap Snow was referring to has been substantially bridged. At this juncture it would be a dereliction of duty to ignore the $ 64,000 question I know you are dying to ask me: I have freely indulged in a name-dropping exercise concerning many well-known foreign intellectual personalities, but do we have our own home-grown intellectuals? Well, I am not going to answer that question, for a whole host of obvious and not so obvious reasons. But I will say this: the paucity of intellectuals - of the older or modern variety - in our country is a sad but accurate reflection on the values of our society. The writer is a businessman. A selection of his columns is now available in book form. Visit munirattaullah.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
