Intellectualism and Pseudo-Intellectualism

Yesterday a friend said something that set me thinking. My friend said: I love intellectuals, but I dislike pseudo-intellectuals. Since the topic of the gathering was something else, I did not pursue this remark, but I had a conversation with myself about it, the gist of which I am sharing with you. Edward Said, who wrote a book titled “Who Is an Intellectual? What Is Intellectualism?”, considers the intellectual’s task to be “the critique of institutions of power.” An important principle proven throughout history and across geographies is that power without critique breeds corruption. Even the most ethical people, when seated at the top of the ladder of power, if not seriously controlled through oversight and critique, fall prey to “narcissism” and then sink into the quagmire of “ideocracy” (that is, “the religion of protecting power”), after which whatever is abominable and forbidden for others becomes permissible for the “Sultan.” For this reason, in society, the intellectual critiques and critiques so that institutions of power remain “healthy.” One of the characteristics that separates the intellectual from the “pseudo-intellectual” or “intellectualist” is that the pseudo-intellectual does not “critique” but rather “whines.” Critiquing is not an easy task. To critique the management of a system, you need to know the history and workflow of that system, review the statistics and figures related to it, and be familiar with the process of information analysis. So critiquing requires expertise, skill, and the investment of time and energy. But you can whine about anything without having spent the slightest time studying or researching it! “Whining” is an “emotion-focused” process. That is, by whining we become calmer, we share our anger and sorrow with others, and we “vent,” but “critiquing” is a “problem-focused” process; when we critique, we do not unburden ourselves but rather “dissect” and turn the problem inside out. “Whining” has no defined audience; it is enough to find a free ear, then you can start whining. But critiquing has a defined audience. The intellectual’s audience is, first and foremost, the institutions of power themselves, and then experts, stakeholder groups, the media, and other critics. Critiquing, besides requiring knowledge, skill, and the investment of time and energy, requires nerve and courage—the courage to pay the cost! You can whine at any party you sit at and in any taxi you ride in; no one bothers you! But if you send your critique to institutions of power and the media, you must also be prepared to pay the cost. Therefore, another characteristic of intellectuals that separates them from pseudo-intellectuals is “courage.” Of course, here it is necessary to explain about a group of intellectuals who undertake an even harder task, and that is raising awareness among the masses. Someone who is to enlighten the masses must, on the one hand, possess the knowledge and skill of critique, and on the other, be able to speak in non-specialist language. This task is like “tightrope walking.” If they speak a little too technically, their audience will not understand their words, and if they speak a little too populistically, they quickly fall into “populism”—vulgarization! Many intellectuals who stepped into this realm have fallen off either on this side or that. Nevertheless, this perilous realm must not be left empty, for by leaving it empty we open the space for “real populists,” those who, instead of writing the word “snake,” draw the shape of a “snake.” An important characteristic of intellectuals is that they form organizations and networks; the intellectual is not one of isolation and withdrawal. They do not become estranged from society, nor do they become despondent, because from the outset they did not expect dramatic changes. Pseudo-intellectuals are despondent and disillusioned. Perhaps some of them were intellectuals who had great expectations of the people and society; they were seeking “utopia”—the virtuous city—and have been left unfulfilled. The intellectual is hopeful about the constant, step-by-step movement of society, so they maintain their contact with society and build teams and organizations. By organization, I do not mean a circle but civil institutions—registered civil institutions that grow continuously and connect with the society outside themselves, influencing and being influenced.

Dr. Mohammad Reza Sargolzaei—Psychiatrist

Postscript: Regarding Iranian intellectuals, three very valuable books have been published: Identity Thinkers and the Intellectual Legacy of Ahmad Fardid, Religious New Thinkers, and A Typology of Iranian Intellectuals. The first two books were written by Mohammad Mansour Hashemi and the third by Nezam Bahrami Komil. All three books have been published by Kavir Publications.