How To Be A Privileged Intellectual: Prospect Magazine May 2008

I found two articles this morning, from a magazine I hadn't noticed before: Prospect. The first that I read was by Alexander Linklader, and the second was by Christopher Hitchens (following his writings now, of course).

The first one by Alexander was informative, and seemed to glorify Hitchens in an obscure way, sort of the reverse of a backhanded compliment. Suffice it to say, Hitchens will never lose his place in history, but whether he will be more famous after death I couldn't say, because I think too many people enjoy the fire he is here on earth, now. Much of his writing won't go away though, and will be culled by professors in the future to provide students with an alternate view of current events at the time. Alexander wrote about Hitchens' "demise" and popularity, and then it was a nice counterbalance to see Hitchens write about his own popularity and the notion of "intellectual". He also even mentions his death, and how he should like to be viewed afterwards (we are all anticipating this moment, it seems, even the man himself).

I took personal offense and also, constructive criticism from the article by Hitchens. First of all, because I am a "blogger" and the truth hurts (I am predominantly of the "no thought unpublished" category). I think I've also referred to myself as an "intellectual" though I've done it tongue in cheek. What was interesting to me, is that after reading Alexander's article, which goes on and on about all the history of Hitchens and the politics, and international politics at that, (which I've no clue about) I compared myself to him (Hitchens). Everyone makes comparisons, and I don't often have anything challenging to compare myself against in the places I've lived (if I do say so myself, very un-intellectually), or at least with the people I've met. But then you find out about someone like Hitchens, whom I identify with in many ways, but also cannot come close to approximating.

Hitchens attempts to define "intellectual". Pundits, self-made bloggers, plain journalists, and many intelligent professors need not apply for the designation. The definition he uses is, I think, the oldest and narrowest, which combines intelligence and problem-solving "with the mind" with knowledge of history. I think he also tries to make a distinction between activist and intellectual, but primarily assigns analyical skills with the intellectual. From what I gathered, it is not enough to be intelligent, or have a good base of knowledge, but to integrate these things into an probing analysis and make it publicly known, for debate.

There is one problem, and that is elitism. Hitchens knows what it is like to be poor, and to be snubbed, from his days in boarding school. He doesn't know, however, anything about the problem of being uneducated. He was educated in the best schools, from his primary years. Even the most intelligent and analytical child, without good education, and/or direction, will never attain any designation of "intellectual" without years of formation or peppering in the pot.

Of all the listed intellectuals besides, how many of them are people of color, who have historically had a more difficult time achieving the means for an excellent education, when only 50 years ago they had to spend most of their time fighting for the most fundamental of human and civil rights, in the United States of America, of all places? Not to mention the brains of our immigrants who wash dishes, work in orchards, and whose children are constantly passed over and ignored.

Had Hitchens' mother not determined, AND had the means to put both her sons into good boarding schools (the best) and university, would he be the intellectual we know today? Any of the intellectuals, from the list Hitchens mentions, were any of them raised in public schools by poor or uneducated families, taking a giant leap into the scholastic and analytical fields through sheer willpower? Even without saturation and direction from others, who has done such a thing without a mentor, or without the privilege of time.

Reading books, even, and learning about history, takes time. People in poor families and even middle-class families, do not typically have time to devote to reading a vast collection of materials. They have to work, in menial jobs or corporate jobs which demand conformity and do not reward creativity, to support themselves. They do not have the privilege of acquiring knowledge for the sake of knowledge unless they are in college and have room and board paid for (without having to work and study at the same time), or have a rich benefactor willing to support their endeavors, or live in a monastery with plenty of time to read. Even professors, whom Hitchens claims may not be intellectuals because of their inability to possess analytical or probing powers, are not automatically given a level platform upon which to build radical and problem-solving ideologies, because they will not, most likely, be able to make up for lost time. They have not all been raised in boarding schools, which, unhappy environment that they may be, at least encourage intellectual growth.

Of course, going to boarding school does not make an intellectual either, as half those who go, haven't the intelligence or fire within to begin with. I know, as I've dated more than my share of former "boarders", and within my own family, one relative comes to mind at well, who was kicked out of at least 3 or 4 of the best boarding schools in the states.

How can someone who has not had the freedom and liberty of time, become a public intellectual? Is there a "How To" book on it? One of those chapters should be: "How To Make Up For Lost Time, Against All Rational Odds".

Some of our nations brightest and best minds, who have a fine temperment and passion to go along with their intelligence, will never rival the Hitch. By the time they're old enough to figure out for themselves what they've been missing, it is too late. Not that improvement can't be made, but the quickest learner, even taking a crash course in history, politics, and life, will never acquire the amount of information, material, and important life experience that someone of similar talents has been assimilating since the age of 7. Without that base of knowledge, there can be no deciphering and analysis of the past and how to best move toward the future.

"How To Be A Public Intellectual" first needs a prologue, entitled perhaps, "How To Secure A Boarding School Education". How does the saying go? something about putting the horse before the cart?

As for those who have had equal opportunities, and have simply been squandering the talents and privileges they have been blessed with, this article may be fairly read. The fact is, this sort of article is probably addressed to that kind of crowd to begin with, and should have been titled: "How To Be A Privileged Intellectual", or "How To Be A Public Intellectual: Primer For The Privileged".

I don't dislike Hitchens now, I like the debate, period. It takes a lot for someone to fall out of favor with me.

There is a fine line between humility and false modesty.

But I am wondering, if an intellectual should not call themself an intellectual (sort of like a genius not calling themself a "genius"), what of the activists? I have a hard enough time calling myself a "writer" but in fact, I do write. I don't know anyone who objects to an activist calling themself an "activist", but is this more acceptable because it has both negative and positive connotations?. We don't have problems labeling ourselves as "professional(s)" when very often this is a term used for the most unprofessional behavior (and individuals imaginable). Even to describe our own physical attributes as "attractive" is acceptable.

There is a biblical proverb about not flattering oneself and plenty of proverbs about being "wise in ones own eyes". I suppose the most aggregious form of self-flattery is to say or admit one is an "intellectual"? Is this because the other intellectuals won't like the comparison and perceived downgrading of the term? Only other privileged intellectuals should be able to decide who is in their company?

Perhaps there is a difference between "public intellectual" and an "intellectual for the public." The first intellectual is the one whom the public may admire from a proper distance, and the second intellectual is one of their own.