Pertanyaan: Pak de Ibnu mendefinisikan mereka yang merasa paling unggul tidak ada yang melebihi kehebatannya adalah superior intelectualis sebagai lawan dari superior imanis yang serasa paling benar keyakinannya/imannya.
Mengapa pak de tidak menggunakan istilah superior integentia.
Pak de kutipkan pengertian umum mengenai kedua istilah tsb:
IntellectualFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An intellectual is a person who engages in critical study, thought, and reflection about the reality of society, proposes solutions for the normativeproblems of society, and by such discourse in the public sphere gains authority from public opinion. Coming from the world of culture, either as a creator or as a mediator, the intellectual participates in politics, either to defend a concrete proposition or to denounce an injustice, usually by producing or by extending an ideology, and by defending one or another system of values.
In a society, the intellectuals constitute the intelligentsia, a status class organised either by ideology (the conservative, fascist, progressive, reactionary,revolutionary, democratic, communist intellectuals, et al.) or by nationality (the “American intellectuals”, the “French intellectuals”, the “Ibero–American intellectuals”). As a status class, the intellectuals originated from the intelligentsiya of Tsarist Russia (ca. 1860s–70s), the social stratum of men and women who possessed intellectual formation (education or Enlightenment or both), and so were the social counterpart to the German Bildungsbürgertumand to the French bourgeoisie éclairée, the “enlightened middle class” of those countries.
In the late 19th century, during the Dreyfus Affair (1894–1906), an identity crisis of anti–Semitic nationalism for the French Third Republic (1870–1940), the reactionary anti–Dreyfusards (Maurice Barrès, Ferdinand Brunetière, and others) used the terms “intellectual” and “the intellectuals” to deride the liberal Dreyfusards (Émile Zola, Octave Mirbeau, Anatole France, and others) as political busy-bodies, from the realms of culture, art, and science, who had become involved in what was none of their business, by their public advocacy for the exoneration and liberation of the Jewish Artillery CaptainAlfred Dreyfus, who had been falsely condemned of betraying France to Germany.
In the 20th century, the term “intellectual” acquired positive connotations of social prestige derived from him or her possessing intellect and superiorintelligence, especially when the intellectual’s activities in the public sphere exerted positive consequences upon the common good, by means of moralresponsibility, altruism, and solidarity, in effort to elevate the intellectual understanding of the public at large, without resorting to the manipulations ofpopulism, paternalism, and condescension. Hence, for the educated man and woman, participating in politics (the public sphere) is a social function that dates from the Græco–Latin Classical era:
I am a man; I reckon nothing human to be foreign to me. (Homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto.)
The determining factor for a thinker (historian, philosopher, scientist, writer, artist, et al.) to be considered “an Intellectual” is the degree to which he or she is implicated and engaged with the vital reality of contemporary times; that is to say, participation in the public affairs of society. Consequently, being designated as “an Intellectual” is determined by the degree of influence of the designator’s motivations, opinions, and options of action (social, political, ideological), and by his or her affinity with the given thinker; therefore: 
The Intellectual is someone who meddles in what does not concern him. (L’intellectuel est quelqu’un qui se mêle de ce qui ne le regarde pas.)
Analogously, the application and the conceptual value of the terms “intellectual” and “the intellectuals” are socially negative when the practice ofintellectuality is exclusively in service to The Establishment who wield power in a society, as such:
. . . someone able to speak the truth, a . . . courageous and angry individual for whom no worldly power is too big and imposing to be criticised and pointedly taken to task. The real or “true” intellectual is therefore always an outsider, living in self-imposed exile, and on the margins of society. He or she speaks to, as well as for, a public, necessarily in public, and is properly on the side of the dispossessed, the un-represented and the forgotten.
- 1 Terms and endeavours
- 2 Historical background
- 3 Intelligentsia
- 4 Public intellectual
- 5 Criticism
- 6 See also
- 7 Notes
- 8 References
- 9 Further reading
- 10 External links
Terms and endeavours
This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor’s particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (September 2014)
The intellectual is a specific variety of the intelligent, which unlike the general property, is strictly associated with reason and thinking. Many everyday roles require the application of intelligence to skills that may have a psychomotor component, for example, in the fields of medicine or the arts, but these do not necessarily involve the practitioner in the “world of ideas”. The distinctive quality of the intellectual person is that the mental skills, which one demonstrates, are not simply intelligent, but even more, they focus on thinking about the abstract, philosophical and esoteric aspects of human inquiry and the value of their thinking.
The intellectual and the scholarly classes are related; the intellectual usually is not a teacher involved in the production of scholarship, but has an academic background, and works in a profession, practices an art, or a science. The intellectual person is a one who applies critical thinking and reason in either a professional or a personal capacity, and so has authority in the public sphere of their society; the term intellectual identifies three types of person, one who:
- is erudite, and develops abstract ideas and theories
- a professional who produces cultural capital, as in philosophy, literary criticism, sociology, philosophy, medicine, science or
- an artist who writes, composes, paints, etc.
Man of Letters
The English term “Man of Letters” derives from the French term belletrist, but is not synonymous with “An academic”. The term Man of Letters distinguished the literate man (“able to read and write”) from the illiterate man (“unable to read and write”), in a time when literacy was a rare form of cultural capital. In the 17th and 18th centuries the term Belletrist identified the literati, the French “citizens of the Republic of Letters”, which evolved into the salon, a social institution, usually run by a hostess, meant for the edification, education, and cultural refinement of the participants.
In English the term intellectual identifies a “literate thinker”; its earlier usage, as in the book title The Evolution of an Intellectual (1920), by John Middleton Murry, denotes literary activity, rather than the activities of the public intellectual.
In the late 19th century, when literacy was relatively uncommon in European countries, such as the United Kingdom, the “Man of Letters” (littérateur)) denotation broadened, to mean “specialised”, a man who earned his living writing intellectually, not creatively, about literature the essayist, thejournalist, the critic, et al. In the 20th century, such an approach was gradually superseded by the academic method, and the term “Man of Letters” became disused, replaced by the generic term “Intellectual”, comprehending intellectual men and women. In the late 19th century, the term intellectual became a common usage to denote the defenders of the falsely accused artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus.
In the early 19th century in Britain, Samuel Taylor Coleridge coined the term clerisy, the intellectual class responsible for upholding and maintaining the national culture, the secular equivalent of the Anglican clergy. Likewise, in Tsarist Russia, there arose the intelligentsia (1860s–70s), who were the status class of white-collar workers. The theologian Alister McGrath said that “the emergence of a socially alienated, theologically literate, anti-establishment lay intelligentsia is one of the more significant phenomena of the social history of Germany in the 1830s”, and that “three or four theological graduates in ten might hope to find employment” in a church post. As such, politically radical thinkers already had participated in the French Revolution (1789–99); Robert Darnton said that they were not societal outsiders, but “respectable, domesticated, and assimilated”.
Thenceforth, in Europe, an intellectual class was socially important, especially to self-styled intellectuals, whose participation in the society’s arts, politics, journalism, and education – of either nationalist, internationalist, or ethnic sentiment – constitute the “vocation of the intellectual”. Morover, some intellectuals were anti-academic, despite universities (the Academy) being synonymous with intellectualism.
In France, the Dreyfus affair marked the full emergence of the “intellectual in public life”, especially Émile Zola, Octave Mirbeau, and Anatole Francedirectly addressing the matter of French anti-semitism to the public; thenceforward, “intellectual” became common, yet occasionally derogatory, usage; its French noun usage is attributed to Georges Clemenceau in 1898.
Habermas’ Structural Transformation of Public Sphere (1963)made significant contribution to the notion of public intellectual by historically and conceptually delineating the idea of private and public.
Intellectuals in the East
In India, the hereditary caste of Brahmins have held most intellectual and scholarly occupations, owing to the exclusive caste system, which reservededucation only for high-born men and women; however, following India’s independence (1947) and introduction of reservations for scheduled castes, more people from castes other than the Brahmins have been educated and had opportunity to be intellectuals and scholars, such as: Veda Vyasa, Valmiki, et al. In the past, according to the Vedic text Atreya smriti, the Brahmin was a person who devoted one’s life to education and scholarship, to the life of the mind; thus, was the word Brahmin synonymous with being an intellectual.
In Imperial China, in the period from 206 BC until AD 1912, the intellectuals were the Scholar-officials (“Scholar-gentlemen”), who were civil servants appointed by the Emperor of China to perform the tasks of daily governance. Such civil servants earned academic degrees by means of imperial examination, and also were skilled calligraphers, and knew Confucian philosophy.
In Joseon Korea (1392–1910), the intellectuals were the literati, who knew how to read and write, and had been designated, as the chungin (the “middle people”), in accordance with the Confucian system. Socially, they constituted the petite bourgeoisie, composed of scholar-bureaucrats (scholars, professionals, and technicians) who administered the dynastic rule of the Joseon dynasty.
Addressing their role as a social class, Jean-Paul Sartre said that intellectuals are the moral conscience of their age; that their moral and ethical responsibilities are to observe the socio-political moment, and to freely speak to their society, in accordance with their consciences. Like Sartre andNoam Chomsky, public intellectuals usually are polymaths, knowledgeable of the international order of the world, the political and economic organisation of contemporary society, the institutions and laws that regulate the lives of the layman citizen, the educational systems, and the private networks of mass communication media that control the broadcasting of information to the public.
Whereas, intellectuals (political scientists and sociologists), liberals, and democratic socialists usually hold, advocate, and support the principles of democracy (liberty, equality, fraternity, human rights, social justice, social welfare, environmental conservation), and the improvement of socio-political relations in domestic and international politics, the conservative public-intellectuals usually defend the social, economic, and political status quo as the realisation of the “perfect ideals” of Platonism, and present a static dominant ideology, in which utopias are unattainable and politically destabilizing of society.
In Marxist philosophy, the social-class function of the intellectuals (the intelligentsia) is to be the source of progressive ideas for the transformation of society; to provide advice and counsel to the political leaders; to interpret the country’s politics to the mass of the population (urban workers and peasants); and, as required, to provide leaders.
The Italian Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) developed Karl Marx’s conception of the intelligentisa to include political leadership in the public sphere. That, because “all knowledge is existentially-based”, the intellectuals, who create and preserve knowledge, are “spokesmen for different social groups, and articulate particular social interests”. That intellectuals occur in each social class and throughout the right wing, the centre, and the left wing of the political spectrum. That, as a social class, the “intellectuals view themselves as autonomous from the ruling class” of their society. That, in the course of class struggle meant to achieve political power, every social class requires a native intelligentsia who shape the ideology (world view) particular to the social class from which they originated. Therefore, the leadership of intellectuals is required for effecting and realising social change, because:
A human mass does not “distinguish” itself, does not become independent, in its own right, without, in the widest sense, organising itself; and there is no organisation without intellectuals, that is, without organisers and leaders, in other words, without … a group of people “specialised” in [the] conceptual and philosophical elaboration of ideas.
In the pamphlet What Is to Be Done? (1902), Lenin (1870–1924) said that vanguard-party revolution required the participation of the intellectuals to explain the complexities of socialist ideology to the uneducated proletariat and the urban industrial workers, in order to integrate them to the revolution; because “the history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness”, and will settle for the limited, socio-economic gains so achieved. In Russia, as in Continental Europe, Socialist theory was the product of the “educated representatives of the propertied classes”, of “revolutionary socialist intellectuals”, such as were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
In the formal codification of Leninism, the Hungarian Marxist philosopher, György Lukács (1885–1971) identified the intelligentsia as the privileged social class who provide revolutionary leadership. By means of intelligible and accessible interpretation, the intellectuals explain to the workers and peasants the “Who?” the “How?” and the “Why?” of the social, economic, and political status quo — the ideological totality of society — and its practical, revolutionary application to the transformation of their society.
The term “public intellectual” describes the intellectual who participates in the public-affairs discourse of society, in addition to their academic and professional affairs. Regardless of the academic or professional field of expertise, the public intellectual addresses and responds to the problems of their society, and, as such, is expected to be impartial, and to “rise above the partial preoccupation of one’s own profession … and engage with the global issues of truth, judgement, and taste of the time.”
…“true” intellectual is, therefore, always an outsider, living in self-imposed exile, and on the margins of society.
An intellectual is often associated with a particular ideology or with a particular philosophy, e.g. the Third Way centrism of Anthony Giddens in theLabour Government of Tony Blair. Václav Havel said that politics and intellectuals can be linked, but that responsibility for their ideas, even when advocated by a politician, remains with the intellectual. “Therefore, it’s best to avoid utopian intellectuals offering ‘universal insights’ that might, and have, harmed society, preferring, instead, that those intellectuals who are mindful of the ties created with their insights, words, and ideas should be … listened to with the greatest attention, regardless of whether [or not] they work as independent critics, holding up a much-needed mirror to politics andpower, or are directly involved in politics.”
The American academic Peter H. Smith described intellectual men and women of Latin America as being people from an identifiable social class, who have been conditioned by that common experience, and thus are inclined to share a set of common assumptions; that ninety-four per cent come from either the middle class or the upper class, and that only six per cent come from the working class. In The Intellectual (2005), philosopher Steven Fullersaid that, because cultural capital confers power and social status, they must be autonomous in order to be a credible intellectual: “It is relatively easy to demonstrate autonomy, if you come from a wealthy or [an] aristocratic background. You simply need to disown your status and champion the poor and [the] downtrodden . . . autonomy is much harder to demonstrate if you come from a poor or proletarian background . . . [thus] calls to join the wealthy in common cause appear to betray one’s class origins.”
The political importance and effective consequence of Émile Zola in the Dreyfus Affair (1894–1906) derived from being a leading French thinker; thus,J’accuse (I Accuse), his open letter to the French government and the nation proved critical to achieving the exoneration of Captain Alfred Dreyfus of the false charges of treason, which were facilitated by institutional anti-Semitism, among other ideological defects of the French Establishment.
In journalism, the term intellectual usually connotes “a university academic” of the humanities — especially a philosopher — who addresses the important social and political matters of the day. Hence, such an academic functions as a public intellectual who explains the theoretic bases of said problems and communicates possible answers to the policy makers and executive leaders of society. The sociologist Frank Furedi said that “Intellectuals are not defined according to the jobs they do, but [by] the manner in which they act, the way they see themselves, and the [social and political] values that they uphold. Public intellectuals usually arise from the educated élite of a society; although the North American usage of the term “Intellectual” includes the university academics. The difference between “an Intellectual” and “an Academic” is participation in the realm of public affairs.
Public policy role
In the matters of public policy, the public intellectual connects scholarly research to the practical matters of solving societal problems. The British sociologist Michael Burawoy, an exponent of public sociology, said that professional sociology has failed, by giving insufficient attention to resolving social problems, and that a dialogue between the academic and the layman would bridge the gap. An example is how Chilean intellectuals worked to re-establish democracy within the right-wing, neoliberal governments of the Military dictatorship of Chile (1973–90), the Pinochet régime allowed professional opportunities for some liberal and left-wing social scientists to work as politicians and as consultants in effort to realise the theoretical economics of the Chicago Boys, but their access to power was contingent upon political pragmatism, abandoning the political neutrality of the academic intellectual.
In The Sociological Imagination (1959), C. Wright Mills said that academics had become ill-equipped for participating in public discourse, and that journalists usually are “more politically alert and knowledgeable than sociologists, economists, and especially . . . political scientists”. That, because the universities of the U.S. are bureaucratic, private businesses, they do not teach critical reasoning to the student, who then does not “how to gauge what is going on in the general struggle for power in modern society”. Likewise, Richard Rorty criticised the participation of intellectuals in public discourse as an example of the “civic irresponsibility of intellect, especially academic intellect”.
The American legal scholar Richard Posner said that the participation of academic public intellectuals in the public life of society is characterised by logically untidy and politically biased statements, of the kind that would be unacceptable academic work. That there are few ideologically and politically-independent public intellectuals, and disapproves that public intellectuals limit themselves to practical matters of public policy, and not with values orpublic philosophy, or public ethics, or public theology, not with matters of moral and spiritual outrage.
About the place, roles, and functions of intellectuals in American society, the Congregational theologian Edwards A. Park said, “we do wrong to our own minds when we carry out scientific difficulties down to the arena of popular dissension”. That for social stability it is necessary “to separate the serious, technical role of professionals from their responsibility [for] supplying usable philosophies for the general public”; thus the cultural dichotomy of public-knowledge and private-knowledge, of “civic culture” and “professional culture”, which are the social constructs that describe and establish the intellectual sphere of life as separate from the civic sphere of life.
The public- and private-knowledge dichotomy originated in Ancient Greece, from Socrates‘s rejection of the Sophist concept that the pursuit of knowledge (Truth) is a “public market of ideas”, open to all men of the city, not only to philosophers. In contradiction, Socrates proposed a knowledge monopoly for and by the philosophers; thus, “those who sought a more penetrating and rigorous intellectual life rejected, and withdrew from, the general culture of the city, in order to embrace a new model of professionalism”; the private market of ideas.
From the Socratic division of knowledge arose criticism about the place, role, and function of the intellectuals of and in a society. In the Netherlands, the word “intellectual” negatively connotes them with “unrealistic visions of the World”. In post–Communist Hungary, the intellectual is an “egg-head” who is “too-clever” for the good of society. In the Czech Republic, the intellectual is a person aloof from reality. Yet, Stefan Collini said that derogatory connotations of “Intellectual” are not definitive, because, in the “case of English usage, positive, neutral, and pejorative uses can easily co-exist”; the example is Václav Havel who, “to many outside observers, [became] a favoured instance of ‘the intellectual as national icon’ ” in the early history of the post–Communist Czech Republic.
The British historian Norman Stone said that, as a social class, intellectuals misunderstood the reality of society, and so were doomed to error and [Ideological] stupidity; poor planning hampered by ideology. In her memoirs, the Tory politician Margaret Thatcher said that the anti-monarchicalFrench Revolution (1789–99) was “a utopian attempt to overthrow a traditional order . . . in the name of abstract ideas, formulated by vain intellectuals”. Yet, as Prime Minister, Thatcher asked Britain’s academics to help her government resolve the social problems of British society — whilst she retained the populist opinion of “The Intellectual” as being a man of un-British character; Thatcher’s opinion was shared by the conservative newspapersThe Spectator and The Sunday Telegraph, whose reportage on the subject documented a “lack of intellectuals” in Britain.
In the essay Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism? (1998), the Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick, of the Cato Institute, said that intellectuals become embittered leftists because their academic skills — much rewarded at school and at university — are under-valued and under-paid in the market economy; so, the intellectuals turned against capitalism despite enjoying a more financially comfortable life in a capitalist society than they would in either a socialist or a communist society. The economist F. A. Hayek said that intellectuals disproportionately support socialism; in the article “Why Socialism?”(1949), Albert Einstein said that the economy is not private property, that it is a “planetary community of production and consumption”. In the U.S., as a demographic group, intellectuals usually hold liberal-to-leftist perspectives about guns-or-butter fiscal policy.
In the Reason magazine article “An Interview with Milton Friedman” (December 1974), the neoliberal American economist Milton Friedman (1912–2006) said that businessmen and the intellectuals are enemies of capitalism, because, as intellectuals, most held socialist beliefs, while the businessman expected economic privilege:
The two, chief enemies of the free society or free enterprise are intellectuals, on the one hand, and businessmen, on the other, for opposite reasons. Every intellectual believes in freedom for himself, but he’s opposed to freedom for others. . . . He thinks . . . [that] there ought to be a central planning board that will establish social priorities. . . . The businessmen are just the opposite — every businessman is in favor of freedom for everybody else, but, when it comes to himself that’s a different question. He’s always “the special case”. He ought to get special privileges from the government, a tariff, this, that, and the other thing. . . .
It is not the formulation of ideas, however misguided, but the desire to impose them on others that is the deadly sin of the intellectuals. That is why they so incline, by temperament, to the Left. For capitalism merely occurs; if no-one does anything to stop it. It is socialismthat has to be constructed, and, as a rule, forcibly imposed, thus providing a far bigger role for intellectuals in its genesis. The progressiveintellectual habitually entertains Walter Mitty visions of exercising power.
In The University of Chicago Law Review article “The Intellectuals and Socialism” (Spring 1949), the British economist Friedrich August von Hayek(1899–1992), who is identified with neoliberalism, said that “journalists, teachers, ministers, lecturers, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists” as the intellectual social-class who communicate the specialized ideas of the scientist to the general population. About their anti-capitalism, Hayek said that, in the twentieth century, intellectuals were attracted to Socialism and to Social democracy, because the Socialists offered “broad visions, the spacious comprehension of the social order, as a whole, which a planned system promises” and so “succeeded in inspiring the imagination of the intellectuals” to change and improve their societies.
- Jennings, Jeremy and Kemp-Welch, Tony. “The Century of the Intellectual: From Dreyfus to Salman Rushdie”, Intellectuals in Politics, Routledge: New York (1997) p.1.
- Top 100 Global Thinkers, Foreign Policy magazine.
- Pascal Ory and Jean-François Sirinelli, Les Intellectuels en France. De l’affaire Dreyfus à nos jours (The Intellectuals in France: From the Dreyfus Affair to Our Days), Paris: Armand Colin, 2002, p. 10.
- Santos Juliá, Elogio de Historia en tiempo de Memoria (The Praise of History in the Time of Memory), Marcial Pons: Madrid, 2001 (Reviewed in “Babelia” supplement, El País newspaper, 21 July 2012, by Miguel Ángel Bastenier): “The public writer [must act] as an engaged observer, without substituting for the reader, who shall draw his own conclusions, without occupying the place of power, neither that of opposition, but neither an illusory, intermediate place, by that appropriate to the intellectual in a democracy… it is the role of the critical observer, just as observed byRaymond Aron”.
- In The Twilight of Atheism (2004, p. 53), the theologian Alister McGrath said that “the emergence of a socially alienated, theologically literate, anti-establishment lay intelligentsia is one of the more significant phenomena of the social history of Germany in the 1830s . . . three or four theological graduates in ten might hope to find employment in a Church post”. In the essay, “The High Enlightenment and the Low-Life of Literature”, the cultural historian Robert Darnton said that the politically radical thinkers who had participated in the French Revolution (1789–99), were not social outsiders, rather they were respectable, domesticated, and assimilated men. (pp. 1–40.) The Literary Underground of the Old Régime, 1982.
- Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism, Second Edition. (1958) pp. 89–95.
- In the newspaper column, “Pilot Fish Among Sharks” (El País, 14 June 2014), the Spanish philosopher of ethics Fernando Fernández-Savater Martín explained the social function of the public intellectual with an anecdote about the Transcendentalist philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson, at whose public conferences, in different cities, there always was present the same uneducated woman, who answered his query about her presence, by saying: “It’s just that I like to listen to you, because you speak to us as if we were all intelligent.” ¶ Effectively so, that is precisely the specific function of the intellectual: To treat everyone else as if they, too, were intellectuals. That is to say, to not attempt to hypnotise them, to intimidate them, or to seduce them, but to awaken in them the mechanism of intelligence that weighs, evaluates, and comprehends. One must start from the Socratic premise that everyone in the world reveals himself, herself intelligent when treated as if intelligent. Is that social function compatible with the offices of politicians? Because, more often than not, they tend to govern themselves by the cynical principle that: “One must not treat the public as if they were imbeciles, nor forget that they are imbeciles”, which was established by the novelist Frédéric Beigbeder (who, not in vain, began his career as an advertising man); it is plainly obvious that those are opposite approaches. What is bad, is that the first approach demands effort from the interlocutors — attention, reflection, and dubious sizings-up, while the second approach flatters the primitive emotions of enthusiasm or revenge, and converts critical thinking to satire or to swearing curses, and social problems into notorious scandal. . . .¶ Of course, the advocates ofatavistic formulas periodically return to the charge, because those emotional formulas are easily assumed out of ignorance (populism, as you already know, is democracy for the mentally lazy), and, as such, are more necessary than ever; thus, if there be no intellectuals in politics, at the least, there should be intellectual ethos in public and in social discourse. Nonetheless, the lesson of personal experience often is negative, and the honest intellectuals whom I know always have returned crestfallen [from politics], like the pioneer Plato returned from Syracuse. . . .” (Peces piloto entre tiburones, el País, 15/06/2014).
- Howatson, M.C. (Ed.) The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature, Second Edition. Oxford University Press. 1993. “Heau’ton timōrū’menos”, 77, pp. 260–61.
- In the essay “Existentialism is a Humanism” (1946), Jean-Paul Sartre explains the philosophical concepts of implication and engagement. InNotas para una lectura|Notes for a Lecture, the Catalonian philosopher Ramón Alcoberro i Pericay explains Sartre’s opinion of not being engaged with one’s times, and the consequent implications: . . . once one comprehends his [Sartre’s] idea of “Man as Situation”, it is easier to understand the concepts of “responsibility” and “engagement”. To become engaged in a concrete situation — “to become embarked”, said Pascal — is the consequence of presuming that one cannot live in pure, conceptual abstraction; everyone always is in a given “situation”, and it corresponds to us to be responsible (to respond) to that situation; simply put, neutrality is not possible. In an editorial opinion in Les Temps modernes, in 1945, Sartre wrote, “I consider Flaubert and the Brothers Goncourt responsible for the repression that followed the Commune, because they never wrote, even a line, to impede it.” See: What is Literature? (1947)
- Annie Cohen-Solal, Sartre, Gallimard, 1989, pp. 588–89.
- Mitchell, Peter R. and Schoeffel, Michael John. Chomsky, Crítica, 2002, ISBN 8484323781, pg. 250.
- Jennings, Jeremy and Kemp–Welch, Anthony. (Eds.) Intellectuals in Politics: From the Dreyfus Affair to Salman Rushdie, 1997. pps. 1–2.
- Sowell, Thomas (1980). Knowledge and Decisions. Basic Books.
- The Oxford English Reference Dictionary Second Edition, (1996) p. 130.
- The New Cassel’s French–English, English–French Dictionary (1962) p.88.
- Collini p. 31.
- “Littérateur, n.”. Discover the Story of English (Second (1989) ed.). Oxford English Dictionary. June 2012 [First published in New English Dictionary, 1903].
- Gross (1969); see also Pierson (2006).
- The Twilight of Atheism (2004), p.53.
- From “The High Enlightenment and the Low-Life of Literature”, in The Literary Underground of the Old Regime (1982).
- Scriven 1993:119
- Scriven 1999:xii
- Jennings and Kemp-Welch, 1997:210.
- Le Blanc, Paul. Revolution, Democracy, Socialism: Selected Writings of Lenin (Pluto Press, London: 2008) pp. 31, 137-138.
- Etzioni, Amitai. Ed., Public Intellectuals, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.
- Bauman, 1987: 2.
- Furedi, 2004: 32.
- Jennings and Kemp Welch, 1997: 1–2.
- McLennan, 2004.
- Jennings and Kemp-Welch, 1997.
- Jennings and Kemp-Welch, 1997: 13.
- Fuller, 2005: pp. 113–114.
- Furedi (2004)
- McKee (2001).
- Bourdieu 1989.
- Gattone 2007
- Sorkin (2007)
- Mills, 1959: 99.
- Bender, T, 1993: 142.
- Bender, T, 1993: 12.
- Bender, T, 1993: 3.
- Collini, 2006: 205.
- Jennings and Kemp Welch, 1997.
- Thatcher, 1993:753.
- Collini, 2006: 127.
- Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism? by Robert Nozick
- “Papers of Interest”. Mises Institute.
- Albert Einstein (May 2009) [May 1949]. “Why Socialism? ”. Monthly Review 61 (1). Retrieved 2010-04-14.
- “Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion – Pew Research Center for the People & the Press”. People-press.org. July 9, 2009. Retrieved 2010-04-14.
- Reason Magazine, “An Interview with Milton Friedman“. December 1974
- Johnson, Paul. “The Heartless Lovers of Humankind”, The Wall Street Journal, 5 January 1987.
- “The Intellectuals and Socialism”, The University of Chicago Law Review (Spring 1949),
- Aron, Raymond (2001) The Opium of the Intellectuals. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
- Basov, Nikita et al. (2010). The Intellectual: A Phenomenon in Multidimensional Perspectives, Inter-Disciplinary Press.
- Bates, David, ed., (2007). Marxism, Intellectuals and Politics. London: Palgrave.
- Benda, Julien (2003). The Treason of the Intellectuals. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
- Bender, Thomas (1993). Intellect and Public Life. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Camp, Roderic (1985). Intellectuals and the State in Twentieth-Century Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press
- Collini, Stefan (2006). Absent Minds: Intellectuals In Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Coleman, Peter (2010) The Last Intellectuals. Sydney: Quadrant Books.
- Finkielkraut, Alain (1995). The Defeat of the Mind. Columbia University Press.
- Furedi, Frank (2004). Where Have All The Intellectuals Gone? London and New York: Continuum Press.
- Fuller, Steve (2005). The Intellectual: The Positive Power of Negative Thinking. Cambridge: Icon.
- Gattone, Charles. F. (2006). The Social Scientist As Public Intellectual: Critical Reflections In A Changing World. USA: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
- Gella, Aleksander, Ed., (1976). The Intelligentsia and the Intellectuals. California: Sage Publication.
- Gouldner, Alvin W. (1979). The Future of the Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class. New York: The Seabury Press.
- Gross, John (1969). The Rise and Fall of the Man of Letters. New York: Macmillan.
- Huszar, George B. de, ed., (1960). The Intellectuals: A Controversial Portrait. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. Anthology with many contributors.
- Jennings, Jeremy and Kemp-Welch, Anthony, eds. (1997). Intellectuals in Politics: From the Dreyfus Affair to Salman Rushdie. London: Routledge.
- Johnson, Paul (1990). Intellectuals. New York: Harper Perennial ISBN 0-06-091657-5. Highly ideological criticisms of Rousseau, Shelley, Marx,Ibsen, Tolstoy, Hemingway, Bertrand Russell, Brecht, Sartre, Edmund Wilson, Victor Gollancz, Lillian Hellman, Cyril Connolly, Norman Mailer,James Baldwin, Kenneth Tynan, Noam Chomsky, and others
- Konrad, George et al. (1979). The Intellectuals On The Road To Class Power. Sussex: Harvester Press.
- Kramer, Hilton (1999) The Twilight of the Intellectuals. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.
- Lasch, Christopher (1997). The New Radicalism in America, 1889–1963: The Intellectual as a Social Type. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
- Lemert, Charles (1991). Intellectuals and Politics. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
- McCaughan, Michael (2000). True Crime: Rodolfo Walsh and the Role of the Intellectual in Latin American Politics. Latin America Bureau ISBN 1-899365-43-5
- McLennan, Gregor (2004). “Traveling With Vehicular Ideas: The Case of the Third Way”, Economy and Society. Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 484–499.
- Michael, John (2000). Anxious Intellects: Academic Professionals, Public Intellectuals, and Enlightenment Values. Duke University Press.
- Mills, C.W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press.
- Misztal, Barbara A. (2007). Intellectuals and the Public Good. Cambridge University Press.
- Molnar, Thomas (1961). The Decline of the Intellectual. Cleveland: The World Publishing Company.
- Piereson, James (2006). “The Rise & Fall of the Intellectual,” The New Criterion, Vol. XXV, p. 52.
- Posner, Richard A. (2002). Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press ISBN 0-674-01246-1
- Rieff, Philip, Ed., (1969). On Intellectuals. New York: Doubleday & Co.
- Showalter, Elaine (2001). Inventing Herself: Claiming A Feminist Intellectual Heritage. London: Picador.
- Sowell, Thomas (2009). Intellectuals and Society. New York: Perseus ISBN 978-0-465-01948-9
- Thatcher, Margaret (1993). The Downing Street Years. London: HarperCollins ISBN 0-8317-5448-6
- Viereck, Peter (1953). Shame and Glory of the Intellectuals. Boston: Beacon Press.
- Aczél, Tamás & Méray, Tibor. (1959) The Revolt of the Mind. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
- Barzun, Jacques (1959). The House of Intellect. New York: Harper.
- Berman, Paul (2010). The Flight of the Intellectuals. New York: Melville House.
- Carey, John (2005). The Intellectuals And The Masses: Pride and Prejudice Among the Literary Intelligensia, 1880-1939. Chicago Review Press.
- Chomsky, Noam (1968). “The Responsibility of Intellectuals.” In: The Dissenting Academy, ed. Theolord Roszak. New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 254–298.
- Grayling, A.C. (2013). “Do Public Intellectuals Matter?,” Prospect Magazine, No. 206.
- Hamburger, Joseph (1966). Intellectuals in Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Hayek, F.A. (1949). “The Intellectuals and Socialism,” The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. XVI, No. 3, pp. 417–433.
- Huizinga, Johan (1936). In the Shadows of Tomorrow. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
- Kidder, David S., Oppenheim, Noah D., (2006).The Intellectual Devotional. Emmaus, Pennsylvania: Rodale Books ISBN 1-59486-513-2
- Laruelle, François (2014). Intellectuals and Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Lilla, Mark (2003). The Reckless Mind – Intellectuals in Politics. New York: New York Review Books.
- Lukacs, John A. (1958). “Intellectuals, Catholics, and the Intellectual Life,” Modern Age, Vol. II, No. 1, pp. 40–53.
- MacDonald, Heather (2001). The Burden of Bad Ideas. New York: Ivan R. Dee.
- Milosz, Czeslaw (1990). The Captive Mind.New York: Vintage Books.
- Molnar, Thomas (1958). “Intellectuals, Experts, and the Classless Society,” Modern Age, Vol. II, No. 1, pp. 33–39.
- Moses, A. Dirk (2009) German Intellectuals and the Nazi Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Rothbard, Murray N. (1989). “World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 1, pp. 81–125.
- Shapiro, J. Salwyn (1920). “The Revolutionary Intellectual,” The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. CXXV, pp. 320–330.
- Shenfield, Arthur A. (1970). “The Ugly Intellectual,” The Modern Age, Vol. XVI, No. 1, pp. 9–14.
- Shlapentokh, Vladimir (1990) Soviet Intellectuals and Political Power. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
- Shore, Marci (2009). Caviar and Ashes. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Small, Helen (2002). The Public Intellectual.Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
- Strunsky, Simeon (1921). “Intellectuals and Highbrows,” Part II, Vanity Fair, Vol. XV, pp. 52, 92.
- Whittington-Egan, Richard (2003-08-01). “The Vanishing Man of Letters: Part One”. Contemporary Review.
- Whittington-Egan, Richard (2003-10-01). “The Vanishing Man of Letters: Part Two”. Contemporary Review.
- Wolin, Richard (2010). The Wind from the East: French Intellectuals, the Culture Revolution and the Legacy of the 1960s. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Look up intellectual, literati, or public individual in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
- The Responsibility of Intellectuals, by Noam Chomsky, 23 February 1967
- “Interview with Richard Posner”, about his book Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline, Booknotes, 2 June 2002.
- PDF (105 KB) classified by profession, discipline, scholastic citations, media affiliation, number of Web hits, and sex.
- Where are the Great Women Thinkers? Thinking so Much about Women has Shrunk Their Minds., by Charlotte Allen, 16 February 2005.
- “Here’s a Few You Missed”, by Laura Barton, The Guardian, 2 July 2004.
- “The Optimist’s Book Club”, The New Haven Advocate — discussion of public intellectuals in the 21st century.
Theories Related topicsBy demographic By status By “collar” By type Creative Middle Working Warrior Under Upper Ruling IntellectualBy country or region United States Classes Income Standard of living Other countries Historic
- This page was last modified on 31 March 2015, at 16:25.
IntelligentsiaFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The intelligentsia, from Latin: intellegentia (Polish: inteligencja, Russian: интеллигенция, pronounced [ɪntʲɪlʲɪˈɡʲentsɨjə]) is a social class of people engaged in complex mental labour aimed at guiding or critiquing, or otherwise playing a leadership role in shaping a society’s culture and politics. This therefore might include everyone from artists to school teachers, as well as academics, writers, journalists and other hommes de lettres (men of letters) more usually thought of as being the main constituents of the intelligentsia. Intelligentsia is the subject of active polemics concerning its own role in the development of modern society not always positive historically, often contributing to higher degree of progress, but also to its backward movement.
In a social sense, the stratum of intelligentsia arose first in Russian-controlled Poland during the age of Partitions. The term was borrowed from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in around the 1840s, to describe the educated and professionally active segment of patriotic bourgeoisie able to become the spiritual leaders of the country ruled by a foreign power in an authoritarian way. Deprived of socio-political influence in the form of enterprises or any “effective levers of economic development”, the educated intelligentsia became a characteristic indicator of the East-European cultural periphery unlike the German Bildungsbürgertum or the British professions for whom leading societal roles were available.
In pre-revolutionary Russia the term was first used to describe people possessing cultural and political initiative. It was commonly used by those individuals themselves to create an apparent distance from the masses, and generally retained that narrow self-definition. More recently the term mass intelligentsia has been popularized to describe the intellectual effect of tertiary education upon a population. See the mass intelligentsia section below.
History of the notion
The emergence of intelligentsia preceded the term ‘intelligentsia’ as proposed by the Polish Romantics. It was associated with the development of cities, the mass spread of printing and the construction of tenement houses available for rental occupancy in the urban core. That’s where the embryonic intelligentsia: journalists, teachers, civil servants, could find an apartment outside traditional class divisions. In the opinion of historian Maciej Janowski (The Rise of the Intelligentsia, 1750-1831) the new intelligentsia became “servants” to the modern state in the degree that the state they served, i.e. thepartitioned Poland became increasingly backward and repressive. In the Polish language the term ‘inteligencja’ was popularised in a meaning close to the present one by the Polish philosopher Karol Libelt, and became widespread in Polish science after the publication of his O miłości ojczyzny (On Love of the Fatherland) in 1844. In this publication he defined “inteligencja” as well-educated members of the society who undertake to lead others in a moral capacity as scholars, teachers, clergy, engineers, etc., and who guide for the reason of their higher enlightenment.
The term was also popularised by a Russian writer, Pyotr Boborykin, in the 1860s, who proclaimed himself the “godfather” of the notion.He claimed that he borrowed the term from German culture, where the term Intelligenz denoted the social strata of people engaged in intellectual occupations, however he insisted on a special meaning of the Russia term, which had an additional implication of high intellectual culture.From there it came into English and several other languages.
A narrower term ‘intellectuals’, according to Pierre Bourdieu, can be applied to these members of intelligentsia who not only work using their intellect, but also create cultural wealth.
The emergence of elite classes of intellectuals or well-educated people had been observed in other European countries (e.g., “intellectuels” in France and“Gebildete” in Germany) as well.
From signs of intelligentsia by Dr. Vitaly Tepikin:
- advanced for its time moral ideals, sensitiveness to fellow creature, tact in manifestations;
- active brain work and persistent self-education;
- patriotism, which is based on faith in its own people and whole-hearted, inexhaustible love to little and big Motherland;
- creative activity as a crucial part of intelligentsia lifestyle (this applies not only to artists, as many can consider, but also to scientists and engineers – ranging from creative approach to their main occupation to recreational culture, various hobbies and self-improvement practices, like sport and hiking);
- independence, aspiration to freedom of self-expression and finding of themselves in it.
The term intelligentsia was first used in Poland by Karol Libelt in 1844. The Polish intelligentsia specifically was considered[by whom?] the backbone of the modern Polish nation. Members of the intelligentsia were well aware of their social status and of their duties: educating the youth with the objective to restore the Republic of Poland, preserving the Polish language and patriotism were considered the most important. However, some intellectuals (e.g.Stanisław Brzozowski or Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński) criticised traditionalism and conservatism prevalent in Polish culture. Many of the political elites emigrated from Poland from 1831 to 1870 in the Great Emigration and many based themselves in France.
After the invasion of Poland in World War II the Polish intelligentsia were special targets of the Nazis (see Special Prosecution Book-Poland, German AB-Aktion in Poland, Intelligenzaktion, Intelligenzaktion Pommern etc.) and the Soviets (see Katyn massacre).
Nicholas II hated the intelligentsia so much he wanted the word removed from the Russian language
- “How repulsive I find that word”.
In 1860 there were 20,000 Russian professionals, 85,000 by 1900. Originally composed of nobles, the intelligentsia came to be dominated by classless people (raznochintsy) after 1861. In 1833 78.9% of secondary school pupils were sons of nobles and bureaucrats, by 1885 they were 49.1%. The proportion of commoners rose from 19-43.8% (the rest were priests’ sons). Nicholas I kept the number of university students at 3,000 per year, fearing a large intellectual proletariat. By 1894 there were 25,000 students. Similarly the number of periodicals increased from 15 in 1855 to 140, 30 years later.The ‘third element ‘ were professionals hired by zemstva. By 1900 there were 47,000 of them, most were ‘liberal – radicals’. Revolutionaries avoided zemstva on principle.
Russian Marxists’ perspective
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2015)
In the ideology of Bolsheviks, intelligentsia is not a real class; its status is described by the Russian word “prosloyka”, which is normally translated as “stratum,” but in this context has a negative connotation, meaning “liner” or “separating layer”. In other words, intelligentsia does not have a “real” place in the structure of the society: it is a midlayer between “toilers” and “exploiters”.
Intelligentsia grows by means of “recruiting” from among the people of labor, but its produce, i.e., the produce of its intellectual labor is just a sort ofgoods ordered and paid by the exploiter class. Hence its independence is a mere ideological illusion, and in fact intelligentsia is by large a class of “lackeys” of bourgeoisie and landowners. While de facto being an exploited category, en masse it lacks the revolutionary drive. Ironically, this theory was put forth by the representatives of intelligentsia itself, notably Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky among many others. In particular, Lenin is famous for his caustic remark that “[the] intelligentsia is not the ‘brain of the nation’, it is the ‘feces of the nation'”.
The Russian Revolution polarized the Russian intelligentsia, together with all other strata of the society. Some of them emigrated, some joined the White movement, some joined the Bolsheviks (and some were Bolsheviks from the very beginning), some tried to oppose Bolsheviks within the political framework of Soviet Union, some remained passive. Eventually the Bolsheviks got rid of all opponents by various means, ranging from forced deportation (e.g. on Philosophers’ ships) to execution. The remaining intelligentsia were supposed to serve “the cause of working class”. While the importance of this class was not underestimated, it was treated with reservation.
Soviet UnionMain article: Science and technology in the Soviet Union
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2013)
The fervent drive for professional education gave birth to new Soviet intelligentsia, which gave the current meaning to the term. Originally, this new class wasn’t clearly defined; instead, the labor of skilled professionals, scientists and artists was likened to proletarian labor in the different field. These professionals were officially unified under institutions similar to workmen unions (for examples, the Writer’s Union) and given strict standards for evaluating their work, enforced by the corresponding expert boards. In the late Soviet Union the term “intelligentsia” acquired a formal definition of mental and cultural workers. There were subcategories of “scientific-technical intelligentsia” (научно-техническая интеллигенция) and “creative intelligentsia” (творческая интеллигенция).
The approach to intelligentsia was varying: for example, scientists were kept in check by ideological sections of their universities, and, if doing sensitive research, were restricted both territorially and socially to so called “closed institutes” with top secret clearance or even “closed cities” that gathered such scientists in remote research and development campuses. Artists, on the other hand, weren’t contained physically, but any release, publication or performance needed to go through Union evaluation; their “means of production” (from printing presses to film labs) were strictly regulated and centralized. Therefore, Soviet Union was able to let the natural creative process crucial for nation’s survival continue, but at the same time didn’t allow for any official and ideological authority for the intellectual class on its own, as a social class.
In the post-Soviet period, the members of the former Soviet intelligentsia have displayed diverging attitudes towards the communist regime. While the older generation of intelligentsia has attempted to frame themselves as victims, the younger generation, who was in their 30s when the Soviet Union collapsed, has not allocated so much space for the repressive experience in their self-narratives. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the popularity and influence of the intelligentsia has significantly declined, therefore it is typical for the post-Soviet intelligentsia to feel nostalgic for the last years of the Soviet Union (perestroika), which they often regard as the golden age of the intelligentsia.
Max Weber considered intelligentsia to be a major category essentially distinct from other social categories, both in terms of attributes and interests. In his major work, Economy and Society he used this term in arbitrary chronological and geographical frames, e.g., he wrote that “this Christian preoccupation with the formulation of dogmas was in Antiquity particularly influenced by the distinctive character of ‘intelligentsia’, which was the product of Greekeducation”. When formulating major social classes of his time, Weber combines intelligentsia with other social categories, e.g., he defines a major class consisting of “the propertyless intelligentsia and specialists (technicians, various kinds of white-collar employees, civil servants – possible with considerable social differences depending on the cost of their training)” and yet other “classes privileged through property and education”.
The term mass intelligentsia describes the 20th century expansion of tertiary education to a saturation never seen before in history, and the resulting increase in moneyed adults curious about subjects, scientific, philosophic and humanitarian, beyond their own square on the chessboard. The term has been used regularly by sociologists but was widely popularised in the 2010s by English broadcaster and writer Melvyn Bragg. Bragg says it explains the popularity of book clubs and literary festivals that would historically have commanded little interest from the mass of middle- and working-class people.
One author who has explored expressions of the rising mass intelligentsia is British writer Jules Evans. He takes it to include informal learning, espoused by novel teachers such as celebrity chefs and members of an internet forum for new mothers.
American sociologist Richard Flacks defines mass intelligentsia thus:
“ What Marx could not anticipate … was that the antibourgeois intellectuals of his day were the first representatives of what has become in our time a mass intelligentsia, a group possessing many of the cultural and political characteristics of a class in Marx’s sense. By intelligentsia I mean those engaged vocationally in the production, distribution, interpretation, criticism and inculcation of cultural values. ”
- “Intelligentsia” in Merriam-Webster Online
- Tomasz Kizwalter (Oct 2009). transl. by Agnieszka Kreczmar. “The history of the Polish intelligentsia” (PDF file, direct download).Reviews (Acta Poloniae Historica): 241 242. Retrieved 16 December 2013.
Jerzy Jedlicki (ed.), Dzieje inteligencji polskiej do roku 1918 [The History of the Polish Intelligentsia until 1918]; and: Maciej Janowski, Narodziny inteligencji, 1750-1831 [The Rise of the Intelligentsia, 1750-1831].
- Oxford English Dictionary, [intelligentsia]
- Malgorzata Szpakowska. “Dzieje inteligencji polskiej do roku 1918 [History of Intelligentsia before 1918 in Poland]”. Zeszyty Literackie (Literary Letters). pp. 1 / 6. Retrieved 16 December 2013.
Dzieje inteligencji polskiej do roku 1918 ed. by Jerzy Jedlicki. Vol. I: Maciej Janowski,Narodziny inteligencji 1750-1831; Vol. II: Jerzy Jedlicki, Błędne koło 1832-1864; Vol. III: Magdalena Micińska, Inteligencja na rozdrożach 1864-1918. Warsaw, Polish Academy of Sciences Institute of History – Neriton, 2008, s. 260, 322, 232.
- Dr hab., Prof. UW Andrzej Szwarc (2009). “Kryteria i granice podziałów w badaniach nad inteligencją polską” [Criteria and divisions in research of Polish intelligentsia]. Instytut Historyczny UW (University of Warsaw Institute of History). Retrieved 16 December 2013.
- Tepikin, V. (2006). Culture and intelligentsia. Ivanovo: Ivanovo University
- Boy-Żeleński, T. (1932) Nasi okupanci.
- Abraham Ascher, The Revolution of 1905: Russia in Disarray, page 15
- Richard Pipes, Russia under the old regime, page 262
- Richard Pipes, Russia under the old regime, page 264
- Trotsky, L. (1910). The Intelligentsia and Socialism. https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1910/xx/intell.htm
- Lenin, V. I. (1915). Letter from Lenin to Gorky. http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/g2aleks.html
- See Kaprans, M. (2010) “Retrospective Anchoring of the Soviet Repressive System: the Autobiographies of the Latvian Intelligentsia.” In Starck, K. (ed.) Between Fear and Freedom: Cultural Representations of the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. P. 193-206.
- See Procevska, O. (2010). “Powerlessness, lamentation and nostalgia: discourses of the post-Soviet intelligentsia in modern Latvia.” In: Basov, N., Simet, G.F., Andel, J. van, Mahlomaholo, S., Netshandama, V. (eds). The Intellectual: A Phenomenon in Multidimensional Perspectives.Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press. ISBN 978-1-84888-027-6. P.47-56.
- Ehrenreich, B. (1989). Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class. New York: Harper Collins
- Max Weber, “Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology”, ISBN 0-520-03500-3 p.462
- Rockhill, Elena (2011). Lost To The State. Berghahn Books. p. 141. ISBN 9-781845-457389.
- Flacks, Richard (1973). Campus Power Struggle. Transition Books. p. 126. ISBN 0-87855-059-3.
- Boborykin, P.D. Russian Intelligentsia In: Russian Thought, 1904, # 12 (In Russian; Боборыкин П.Д. Русская интеллигенция// Русская мысль. 1904. №12;)
- Zhukovsky V. A. From the Diaries of Years 1827-1840, In: Our Heritage, Moscow, #32, 1994. (In Russian; Жуковский В.А. Из дневников 1827–1840 гг. // Наше наследие. М., 1994. №32.)
- The record dated by February 2, 1836 says: “Через три часа после этого общего бедствия … осветился великолепный Энгельгардтов дом, и к нему потянулись кареты, все наполненные лучшим петербургским дворянством, тем, которые у нас представляют всю русскую европейскую интеллигенцию” (“After three hours after this common disaster… the magnificent Engelhardt’s house was lit up and coaches started coming, filled with the best Peterburg dvoryanstvo, the ones who represent here the best Russian European intelligentsia.“) The casual, i.e., no-philosophical and non-literary context, suggests that the word was in common circulation.
- This page was last modified on 23 February 2015, at 21:17.