The intellectuals

SnakBrits

Bliv bruger af LibraryThing, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg

The intellectuals

Dette emne er markeret som "i hvile"—det seneste indlæg er mere end 90 dage gammel. Du kan vække emnet til live ved at poste et indlæg.

1leigonj
Redigeret: nov 28, 2012, 11:32 am

For whatever reason, I've recently recalled an interview with the historian Richard Overy in which he was discussing his book The Morbid Age, which focuses on the inter-war period in Britain and, primarily, the anxieties of that period over what appeared to be the looming collapse of civilisation due to war, the failure of capitalism, the decline of the race etc. - and the debates among the era's intellectuals over those anxieties and potential remedies (the peace movement, utopian ideals, eugenics etc.). Of course, our own age is not without its own concerns - the economy, Europe, our place in the world - but one question raised in the interview was who are the modern British intellectuals who are leading the debates on these and whatever other issues?

Overy pointed out that intellectuals don't have the same place in modern Britain that they did in the 1920s and 30s - probably because of the extension of mass media, perhaps because of a public distrust of (or distaste for) the so called 'intellectual' - but nonetheless, I think the question an interesting one: who are the most significant actors/ thinkers/ ideologists in Britain today - the modern equivalents of Julian Huxley, H. G. Wells, Marie Stopes - in politics, economics, science, culture?

EDIT: I do not necessarily mean those making the deepest, most well-reasoned, educated, or intelligent arguements but those representing the significant positions in the various areas - political, cultural etc. - of public life today in Britain (with the addition of scientists, philosophers too - i.e. the true intellectuals - and also artists, simply to see who people here consider them to be).

The aim of the thread is to establish between us the intellectual, political and cultural climate of our country at this time.

2leigonj
Redigeret: nov 23, 2012, 10:20 am

Those who spring to my mind include:

Richard Dawkins - evolutionary scientist. He sparked a lot of debate over the imagined incompatibility of religion and science with his book The God Delusion. He is one of the country's best known scientists.

Mervyn King - governor of Bank of England, which probably makes him the most significant economist in the country. He has been critical of the financial industry in the wake of the banking crisis and following the last general election endorsed the Conservative's pledge to reduce the deficit more quickly than Labour had proposed.

Nick Griffin - leader of the British Nationalist Party. Contraversial (and I'm sure someone would make a joke about him being in a list of intellectuals if I don't do it first), however he represents the feelings of a portion of the British population who are discontent with mass immigration. Is chiefly significant for being a public figure who is utterly opposed to the status-quo.

Damien Hirst - entrepreneur. Very famous for distorting the word 'art' and making lots of money out of doing so. Objectively he personifies a void of creativity in the cultural mainstream and underlying flaws in capitalism, as well as the modern obsession with fame.

3oldstick
nov 23, 2012, 11:14 am

Intellectuals don't feel the need to be on television so most of the population don't know they exist.
I have great hopes of the new Archbishop of Canterbury - if he dares to stick to his present beliefs.
There must be some writers who qualify?

4Booksloth
nov 24, 2012, 7:08 am

#2 I think anyone who watched Griffin attempt to take part in Question Time back before the last general election would have to dispute any claims this small-minded, inarticulate yob has to intellectualism. Surely in order to be considered an intellectual somebody should have some fresh and worthwhile thoughts of their own - not just nasty, recycled prejudices? (I'm assuming your inclusion of him in your list was a joke.)

5ed.pendragon
nov 25, 2012, 8:09 am

>2 leigonj:
Richard Dawkins sparked a lot of debate over the imagined incompatibility of religion and science...
I'm happy for Dawkins to be counted an intellectual, but the 'imagined' incompatibility of religion and science? I assume you take a stance on this?

Mervyn King ... the most significant economist in the country
Significant in that he is a powerful figure as Governor, but is he more intellectual than any number of other economists or commentators?

Nick Griffin ... Contraversial (sic) ... opposed to the status-quo
Griffin has a degree, but intellectual? (See Booksloth's comment above.) And does opposing the status quo make you an intellectual?

Damien Hirst
An artist who stimulates debate, but again, a significant intellectual? And how current is he in leading debates nowadays?

I feel you've chosen a random group of individuals in philosophy, economy, politics and art and set them up as signifcant thinkers, but all I can see is people who are controversial, most of them creating more heat than light.

6leigonj
Redigeret: nov 25, 2012, 3:50 pm

>5 ed.pendragon:. I understand I've mis-used the term 'intellectual' - I mentioned that the intellectual's position was different in the 20s and 30s to now, and I meant a more general question than simply 'who are the modern day intellectuals?' The thread's title is a reference to the subject of Richard Overy's book and interview, rather the question posed - but that probably confuses things too. I'll add an edit to the top post making more clear what I did mean.

Those I mentioned in my second post were indeed the most famous/ contraversial ones off the top of my head. That was intentional, in the hope of starting things off. If you disagree, then who do you suggest?

>4 Booksloth:. No, my inclusion of Nic Griffin was not a joke. I include him because he represents a section of the political sphere absolutely outside the mainstream. I probably couldn't think of any other politician worth including because, effectively, they are all little more than the voices and faces of the centre, who only tinker with the capitalist-realist economy and culture which now defines the country.

>3 oldstick:. I wanted to include some writers (novelists), but can't think of anyone worth mentioning. Who's the modern day Dickens or Orwell?

7jbbarret
nov 25, 2012, 3:10 pm

Novelists: two who have recently patched up a long running spat -

Salman Rushdie

and

John Le Carre

Politics:

Douglas Murray, writer and commentator. Critic of Islamic fundamentalism,

8leigonj
Redigeret: nov 25, 2012, 3:52 pm

Two more scientists:

James Lovelock - Most famous for the Gaia hypothesis which states that the Earth's biosphere is self-regulating in a way comparable to a single organism.

Roger Penrose - Physicist who, among other things, has postulated that the universe goes through cycles of big bangs.

9MyopicBookworm
Redigeret: nov 25, 2012, 3:49 pm

In art, I have more time for Tracey Emin than for Damien Hirst.

I'd have to list historian Diarmaid MacCulloch and historical commentator Melvyn Bragg.

In the field of science: Robert Winston, George Monbiot, David Attenborough, Brian Cox.

I think Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party is a more credible contender for your list than Griffin, but only as a figurehead for a particular mindset.

Plus Rowan Williams, the most poetic and deep-thinking of the Anglican bishops. Fortunately the UK doesn't have the high profile fundamentalist figures that beset the US: the most vocal of the evangelicals is probably George Carey, but I'm not sure how much he represents a "position": Tom Wright has more religious clout, but less political involvement. (More widely influential, but not in the political/cultural sphere at all, is Nicky Gumbel, who heads up the Alpha Course.) No Roman Catholic cleric has much credibility at present, and Ann Widdecombe seems to have lost profile.

Pathetic though it is to say it on LT, I don't know enough about mainstream novelists to have much idea.



10Booksloth
nov 26, 2012, 7:02 am

Well, as Oldstick suggested, a lot (probably the majority) of intellectuals are busy intellectualising away in universities and we never get to hear of them. The arts is one field in which these people do come to our attention, though, and even those who wouldn't necessarily call themselves 'artists' do get themselves noticed when they write a book or appear on TV. Some of my own suggestions would include Jeanette Winterson, Richard Dawkins, Simon Singh, Claire Tomalin, Stuart Hall (this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_%28cultural_theorist%29 - not the sports commentator), Julia Neuberger, David Lodge, Jenny Uglow, Kazuo Ishiguro (considered to be British despite his Japanese birth), John Sutherland, Orlando Figes, Julian Baggini, Germaine Greer (okay, call her an adopted Brit), Bettany Hughes, Hanif Kureishi, Mary Beard, Ben Goldacre, Michael Mansfield, Prof Brian Cox and the only politician I can think of worthy of the description, Dame Shirley Williams. Any one of these thrown into a debate with Griffin could easily annihilate any pretensions to his 'intellectualism' (assuming a definition that includes having an above-average intellect anyway).

12alaudacorax
nov 27, 2012, 8:08 am

#10, #11 - I wouldn't disagree that most of your list can be counted as intellectuals, but I wonder how wide a significance any of them have? 'Intellectuals' have long been viewed with suspicion in British society; but it seems to me they've become even more marginalised since Rupert Murdock's apparently successful onslaught on whatever culture we have.

Are any of them provoking any widespread debate about the nature of Britain today or its direction? Even Dawkins' high profile running battle with Christian fundamentalists probably has whatever significance it has much more in the USA than in the UK.

In fact, I've been getting the impression lately that the ordinary person in the USA is much more likely to be concerned with the wider, bigger questions of society's nature and direction than his or her counterpart in the UK.

13Booksloth
nov 27, 2012, 10:56 am

I guess it depends on who you talk to. If you're judging by the majority of Murdoch's readership you may well be right but there are still plenty of us (who do not support his empire) who do sit around discussing Dawkins etc. Don't forget that the default position for the English has always been that it's okay as long as it doesn't frighten the horses so, in general, we don't get terribly worked up about these things. In America, there are far more fundies than in England and, since Dawkins's arguments tend to address fundamentalism in particular there are bound to be more people who see his views as a threat, a problem, or something that impacts upon their daily lives.

It also depends on how you define 'widespread debate'. I'd agree with you wholeheartedly that the average water-cooler chat is more likely to be about who did what to whom in Eastenders or what the latest Beckham offspring is likely to be called but I suspect that 'twas ever thus. I'd imagine that if you stood around the 18th or 19th century equivalent of the water-cooler you'd find people there were chatting rather more about how good the harvest is, whether Mrs Withermore is a witch or the fact that the young lord at the manor has his eye on Agnes the scullerymaid and rather less about the Jacobite uprising or the repeal of the Corn Laws.

14leigonj
Redigeret: nov 28, 2012, 12:09 pm

A few more from the art world:

Nicholas Serota - Director of the Tate, central in establishing the Tate Modern, chairman of the Turner Prize jury. Thus has a large share of the responsibility for the state of modern/ contemporary art.

Charles Saatchi - Art collector who has been hugely influential in shaping modern art in Britain, especially through his sponsorship of the Young British Artists including Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin.

Julian Spalding - Art critic. Especially critical of the state of contemporary art such as that which is celebrated by the Turner Prize and Tate Modern. Advocates that those who make art are artists, rather than the case that those simply labelled artists produce art.

15ed.pendragon
nov 29, 2012, 4:32 am

To get a better idea of intellectual debate you have to go to the written world with broadsheets such as the Guardian or Telegraph, or periodicals such as the New Statesman or The Economist or the Times Literary Supplement, or go to the broadcast world such as BBC Radio 4. You won't find much intellectual content in the Mirror or the Mail, or get your fix of the broad world of culture, the arts and philosophy if you rely on Radio 1 or, I don't know, Kiss FM or .... (insert suitable station according to choice).

In fact there is a vast range of intellectual discourse (and intellectuals) if you know where to look and to stick with it. Better still, go do philosophy or some other heady discipline at uni. Whatever else, the free-for-all of web forums such as this may not always supply what you want... But then, it depends on which side of the bed you get out of: I seem to have emerged from the wrong side this morning. Sorry, leigonj.

16leigonj
Redigeret: nov 29, 2012, 8:39 am

#12 I have to agree. Some of those being mentioned are academics who aren't adding anything to the discussion taking place in our country at this time. Brian Cox, for example, has been mentioned more than once: he's done a lot to popularise science as a presenter no doubt, and he is a scientist himself but what does he add to the debate - any debate?

Take a few examples:
- the non-intellectual Nick Griffin represents one side of the immigration debate; he might also be used as an example of an undercurrent of discontent with the political establishment in general. On this second point however, Nigel Farage is probably a better example, simply because of popularity (some recent polls have shown UKIP ahead of the Lib Dems in terms of support).
- Richard Dawkins represents a militant wing of atheism (as does A. C. Grayling) and in science a sort of strong darwinism (a model of evolution which is now beginning to look flawed because of newer discoveries in epi-genetics and so on).
- Roger Penrose is an intellectual whose theory of our universe going through endless cycles of creation, extinction (when all mass is consumed by black holes), creation... is - as I understand it - a radical one.

Of course, they needn't be radical. The Archbishop of Cantebury is a good example, representing the position of the Church, tradition, history. But unless they stand for something, represent something, or are saying something significant then they aren't really worth mentioning. (On that note, are there any novelists worth mentioning at all??)

17CliffordDorset
dec 1, 2012, 11:30 am

To a large extent 'intellectual' is a value judgement, as indeed is the word 'significance' (see #12) For most people, someone who even knows and can spell the word is an intellectual, and being 'significant' signifies the ability to make lots of money.

Novelists worth mentioning? Nicholas Mosley? Peter Ackroyd?

18ed.pendragon
dec 1, 2012, 12:13 pm

>17 CliffordDorset:
To a large extent 'intellectual' is a value judgement...
Reminds me of the (apocryphal?) story about supporters of Barry Goldwater (remember him?) who used to verbally abuse journalists for being speudo-intellectuals. That works on so many levels.

19PossMan
dec 1, 2012, 2:47 pm

#17#18: Agree entirely that "intellectual" is a value judgement but feel it is often used with negative, almost sneering, connotations. To me it would imply something more than cleverness or academic competence. Perhaps someone who compares with the polymaths of earlier times. IMHO someone not restricted to a small specialised field.

20alaudacorax
dec 1, 2012, 3:03 pm

There is something slightly sad in the fact that we actually have a word for it. It seems to be a recognition that they are somehow weird or odd. Do other languages have equivalent words?

21CliffordDorset
dec 4, 2012, 12:25 pm

If 'intellectual' is negative, then how about 'intelligentsia', a Russian coinage which I feel managed to become pejorative?

22ed.pendragon
dec 5, 2012, 7:15 am

>21 CliffordDorset:
Intelligence nowadays is particularly sinister, employed as it is by post-Cold War warriors, industrial spies and amoral newspaper hacks.

23oldstick
dec 5, 2012, 9:41 am

Anyone have an opinion as to whether Richard Osman is an intellectual - or does he just know stuff?

24ed.pendragon
dec 7, 2012, 3:33 pm

>23 oldstick:
Now you've raised the whole conundrum of what intellectualism principally consists of: is the knowledge, understanding, or wisdom?

25leigonj
Redigeret: dec 7, 2012, 7:16 pm

>23 oldstick:
I think Richard Osman (him from pointless we're talking about, right?) is not an intellectual. No doubt he is very intelligent, but he is not unlocking mysteries, helping us understand society, science, whatever, any better. He is very knowledgeable, but that is all; a factbook, not a polemic.

I think something else to mention, relating to the points made by #17 and #18, is that those people of high intelligence are more likely today than in the past to be channelled by the education system into a specialised field (the child good at maths studies that, finance or engineering at university, then works in that field; or one better at language follows a path into law perhaps). Employment, private or even public, may well be more efficient at absorbing the most intelligent people the country produces, training them in a certain direction and placing them in their work, earning, out of sight of the public eye. Specialisation, as required by the economy, works against a general, all-round intelligence: also it absorbs a mind, making a person is less concerned with other things.
Also, as we can all see, politics today is somewhat different to what it was even twenty years ago. Modern politics is primarily managerial: the main political parties are essentially the same because the primary concern of the government today is to manage the economy, not to alter the social character of the country. Social issues are secondary and so ideological differences have fallen away - the main political parties, and much of the general public too (hence growing apathy), have accepted Britain as being an economy above a country or nation. This has affected the position of intellectuals, who we would expect to be arguing over these issues.

26oldstick
Redigeret: dec 13, 2012, 6:35 am

I believe the ideal democracy is a meritocracy but we don't seem able to achieve that. As for politics, I went into it to change things and found it almost impossible, even at a local level. The ideals I used to have don't seem to be shared by the political party I used to support. In fact, all parties seem to blow in the wind of popularity. Perhaps we can only influence our nearest and dearest.
Yes, that's him. I thought I might get a reaction, thanks.

27CliffordDorset
dec 12, 2012, 12:09 pm

I went along with the concept of 'meritocracy' enthusiastically since its heyday in the sixties, but slowly I realised that it, too, was pathetically relative. What Tony Blur meant by 'education ... education ... education' was actually 'passing exams set by people pushing their own brand of merit'. If someone can't remember all the stuff this Osman, whoever he is, can, then you're forced into the 'you're all in it together' end of today's two-level states.

>26 oldstick: Oldstick, my congratulations! Given the choice of opting out of politics or exploiting its endemic corruption, it sounds to me that you have chosen the right one.

28oldstick
Redigeret: dec 13, 2012, 6:40 am

Hi Clifford, I thought that Richard Osman was the fount of all wisdom ( watching 'Pointless' rather than 'The Chase' in the early evening because it is funnier) until he said Bubble and Squeak was made with cheese and potato reather than greens! Now I feel like returning to admiring Mark - if only he wouldn't say 'fousand' instead of 'thousand.'

Bliv medlem af gruppen, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg