218. Eclipse of the intellectual?
I adopt the definition of the ‘the intellectual’ from
Foucault[i]: ‘The person who uses his
knowledge, his competence, and his relation to truth in the field of political
struggles’.
A scientist mostly is not an intellectual. In item 99
of this blog I suggested that the difficulty of applying science to policy is
threefold. First, the scientist posits him/herself as an outside spectator,
objective and disinterested, while politics is about reconciling differences of
interest. Second, he/she engages in abstraction, seeking universal truths, laws
or regularities, while politics is about specific problems in specific
conditions. Third, the scientist is specialized in a certain field, while
policy needs to be integrative, including a variety of perspectives.
To resolve the tension, I proposed the pragmatist
approach that I advocate in this blog. That entails a process orientation, in
fallibilism, imperfection on the move, rather than an orientation towards
presumed optimal and stable outcome, and an endeavour to combine disciplines.
That turns policy advice into discourse rather than presentation of fixed and
univocal conclusions.
Here, I reconsider the issue more widely and
philosophically. As in the preceding items in this blog, I employ views from
Foucault, adding to them and deviating from them.
In pragmatist and ‘postmodern’ philosophy, if that is
still a useful term, philosophy developed away from the Cartesian view of the
subject as an outside, objective, disinterested observer of the world, building
on some prior foundations of knowledge and morality. Philosophers Nietzsche, Heidegger,
and Wittgenstein take the view of the subject as developing its identity,
cognition and judgement in interaction with the ‘object’, the world, muddling
through and improvising, in ‘bricolage’. Meaning of words is found in their
use. Universals have become suspect, and attention has shifted to individuals
and specific conditions. Attention has shifted from substance to process, from
being as a substantive to being as a verb.
Foucault proposed a transition from the ‘universal’ to
the ‘specific’ intellectual. His example of the latter is the expert (he used
the example of Oppenheimer, the nuclear physicist), knowing of specific
features of specific phenomena.
If the intellectual is defined as the bearer of
universals and free-floating abstractions, then indeed he/she is inevitably in
decline, or eclipse, and deservedly so. Or not? Do we now only have use for
technical experts? I think not.
In a pragmatist, process-oriented view of knowledge,
there is a dynamic of alternation between the general and the specific and
between stability and change, between the abstract and the concrete, between
Pascal’s spirit of geometry and spirit of finesse.
I argued that in my proposal of a ‘cycle of discovery’
in items 31 and 35 of this blog, and in the ‘hermeneutic circle’ in item 37.
This brings me back to my earlier plea for the
intellectual as engaging in pragmatism and debate, with practitioners and
people from other disciplines, deriving lessons from failure of abstractions
and generalizations to work in specific contexts, shifting ideas to cope with failure,
abstracting and generalizing from that, and so on. Not apodictic edicts, but
pragmatist, fallibilist intellectual practice and discourse.
Isn’t that what Popper proposed with his
falsificationism?
Counter to Foucault, this entails more than technical
expertise. But in agreement with Foucault, it requires that the intellectual
have not only the scientific knowledge (‘connaissance’) but also the knowledge
of the power system in which knowledge is embedded (‘savoir’).
However, it is also part of the concept of the intellectual
to maintain independence, not to become a partisan of vested interests or
dogma, an intellectual mercenary even. It is hard to combine independence with
close knowledge of the system. ‘Savoir’ requires some degree of approach,
familiarization, and this can easily slide into co-optation. Smart, educated people
‘in the know’ easily become virtuosi of the status quo. They become public
figures, mandarins, but in my book are no longer intellectuals. The
intellectual should have the moral courage to opt out. Is that too much to ask?
[i] In an interview on ‘Truth and
power’ in 1976, reprinted in James D. Faubion (ed.), Essential works of
Foucault 1954-1984, volume 3, Power, The New Press, 2000.
No comments:
Post a Comment