“The independent artist and intellectual are among the few remaining personalities equipped to resist and to fight the stereotyping and consequent death of genuinely living things. Fresh perception now involves the capacity to continually unmask and to smash the stereotypes of vision and intellect with which modern communications {i.e. modern systems of representation} swamp us. These worlds of mass-art and mass-thought are increasingly geared to the demands of politics. That is why it is in politics that intellectual solidarity and effort must be centered. If the thinker does not relate himself to the value of truth in political struggle, he cannot responsibly cope with the whole of life experience.”
- C. Wright Mills, taken from Edward Said's Representations of the Intellectual
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Is this talking about the drone of the modern world, the billions of digital voices, tapping away at their keyboards in unison. Governed by the technology, that sameness?
If the thinker/artist does not relate to the right or wrong of that governing, how can one experience life?
I'm full of questions, I guess this is sort of a testimony to being ignorant to the world or being part of the world. I suppose our mass communications muddles this and at the same time unifies us. hmmm, Mr or Mrs Mills, you make good burpings.
I think it was Kieth Herring who said something like "all art is political".
well I'm glad you're full of questions.
So am I.
I ordered this book from Amazon, but was hoping you guys had something to say about this idea until then...
This is why I believe political economy must be an ethnographic method first, and a political science/economic/sociological/historical one second.
:)
What about the stereotypical personality of the artist and the "intellectual"? Are these not constricting stereotypes in themselves? I do have alot of respect for people who call themselves artists and intellectuals, but I have also met individuals who call themselves thus and are also conforming to norms that restrict intellectual freedom.
What makes a writer more of an intellectual than a computer programmer.
I'm just saying, no one group of people are free from living within the bounds of stereotypes, and I think its only once we realize this that we truly have a chance of doing away with them.
Nothing makes the writer more of an intellectual than the computer programmer, as long as the latter can theorise and effectively argue (in written and spoken form) the application of their system of knowledge; and linking into Said (of what little I have read), such knowledge's value as a social good, and/or as an addition to the good.
And I am challenged by this notion that stereotyping is wholly a negative thing; what else is recognition of the set of 'writer' and of 'computer programmer' and of 'intellectual' if not a stereotype that allows us to conceive of the world?
Yet stereotyping is negative when it does exacly what has been suggested, namely place bounds on the potential for growth.
And that is a very human struggle.
Well this is an interesting debate that follows quite well from a class discussion I had earlier. It seems that many attach quite a bit of meaning to the title "intellectual". I can understand this- it's a word we throw around quite a bit without much thought of its meaning.
According to Said, earning the title of "intellectual" has very little to do with mental capacity. Therefore (and I agree with him)any given computer programmer, nurse or waitress is a potential intellectual.
What distinguishes those who are from those who aren't (amongst other things) is the courage to publicly express ideas and opinions that are counter to the status quo. As far as Said is concerned, intellectuals cannot sit in a laboratory and ignore the rest of the world's war of ideas.
And I think Carlos made an important point, that using language effectively is a critical ability held by the intellectual.
While we can obviously call all kinds of smart people intellectuals, I tend to agree with Said, that true intellectuals are those who understand their role in society, that is, to plead no allegiances to any single institution or ideology, and to poke, challenge, and question at all times. And that most definitely applies to oneself as well. Self-awareness is crucial to learning.
Yeah! Seeing the world as it is rather than how you want it to be.no learning room in the latter.
Yesterday a favorite student of mine, Dorothy, aked "who is smarter, Andrew teacher (Courtnage) or Gary teacher (My current co-worker)" ?
In most cases i would avoid answering this question, but with Dorothy, who is clearly a little genius, I had to indulge. I explained that there are different forms of intelligence, and it is very hard to compare them. i asked her "Who is smarter, Van Gogh, or Einstien" ? She replied with "Ahhh, I understand", which furthers my hunch that she is one of the smartest kids around. Both because she knew who the two being compared were, and because she could identify the difference between thier "intellectual" pursuits (sorry for stereotyping =) (analytical-math based-theory vrs visual-emotional-expression).
I was thinking of language (written/spokenread/thought), and how we rely on it too heavily. If a deer wants to go down to the river for a drink it doesn't think (I assume) "Hmmm, I'm rather parched, I think I'll go down to that river and have myself a drink of water". It is very hard for me to imagine a non-language based thought, but it surely does exist. I realize you could call this mix of instinct and "visualization" a language, but just for the sake of my getting the point across, let's not. That animal-way of thinking has to still be a part of us somewhere. Maybe more so in autistic people, feral children, or something. Anyways, I'll have to look up "intellectual" in the dictionary after this, but what I think is interesting is , intelligence. Is an animal intelligent? Whales have huge brains. Animals do alot less harm to the world (and each other/within a species). When they taught cocoa the gorilla (?) how to speak sign language he/she said "Cocoa loves kitty, cocoa loves ... etc" . Maybe thinking that we "can theorise and effectively argue (in written and spoken form) the application of our system of knowledge; and linking into Said (of what little Carlos has read {I didn't read any}), such knowledge's value as a social good, and/or as an addition to the good." is just getting in the way. Maybe that's why the apple of knowledge was forbidden in the first place. But what know eh? Do we bash our heads and burn the books? Or is Blakes "organized innocence" a close runner up? Anyhow, this may be alot of crazy babble, but what can I say? The topic of conversation got me going, and is something I think about as an artist-intellectual (hehehe).
You're such a stereotyped freak!
:)
I guess all we can really do is keep walking along, and every once and a while take a look over your shoulder at your footprints. it's those footprints(experience) that we can learn from. and you might as well look at the other people's footprints too, ask them about them in fact.
Maybe creation, or all the things in world, and examination of those things is intelligence. rational thinking, thinking with reason, the ability to observe and process what you see.
I think animals have intelligence, or their capacity to adapt is relative to their state of minds, which for the most part is stable. now a deer's capacity to problem solve...hmmm Makes me think of the monkey trap, where the monkey reaches into a whole to get some beans and his fist is too big to pull his hand out so he's trapped.
Now here's where I get repetitive, you must read Paul Auster's New York Trilogy. In it, there's a boy who is kept in a basement without interaction for years and it is said that he learns the language of God. very interesting stuff, written in a post modern style.
Don't worry, I'm not going to do this to Drü!
Anyday now....attente
Sounds like a mouthful to me.
" If the thinker does not relate himself to the value of truth in political struggle, he cannot responsibly cope with the whole of life experience"
I read a bunch of these jerks in school too. They say stuff like this (above) all the time. Taken out of context one might think that anyone capable of understanding such jargon is the only hope for saving the universe.
Ohh.. wait... that is what he is sayin'!!!
"The independent artist and intellectual are among the few remaining personalities equipped to resist and to fight the stereotyping and consequent death of genuinely living things"
Well I am just such a falsely dead thing and yet I choose to not "cope" with the whole of life experience but instead to deal within the framework of stereotypes that have been ascribed.
This may be an irresponsible use of the intellectual abilities given me according to MR. Said. But last I checked I still havn't killed a genuine living thing in my passive appreiciation of it's beauty within the context of stereotypes in which they play.
I will post my Corona Girl appreication poetry above!
Well I'm not going to speak for Mills or Said, but I definitely don't agree with you. I think this is about critical thinking, and not accepting the status quo simply because it is amply supported by mass media and communications.
Appreciating beauty is another thing all together.
Sure Babe,
I just cut through the red tape a little to say one can think critically within the status quo.
I do not accapt the premis:
One cannot accept the status quo in order to think critically.
It leads, in my opinion, to a one sided view of the "intelectual".
That being said...
We are saying
All stereotypes are bad.
It is the responsibility of all intellectuals to unmask stereotypes.
and consequently
the few people accepted into the church of intelectualism are...
immune to stereotypes?
Anyway that's getting pretty complicated.
But you tell me I have the ability to be an intellectual.
Then you tell me that ability comes with the responsibility of unmasking stereotypes!
That irks me.
In order for me to be included in the church of this design I am unable to be a critical thinker if I misuse stereotypes. Well. Damn. I will playfully misuse stereotypes until it is apparent that:
IT IS EVERYONES RESPONSIBILITY TO CHALLENGE STEREO TYPES!
(and doing so doesn't make you an intellecual)
:)
Post a Comment