The intellectuals and the intelligentsia (Dr. Basharat Ali)

The Intellectuals and the Intelligentsia

Dr. M. Basharat Ali

Like ‘culture’ it is the fashion today to use scientific and sociological terms without adequate definition and specification of meaning. Not only common man but those who are well-educated and belong to the periphery of scholars commit such mistakes consciously or unconsciously. I think this universal commission is due to the crisis and sensationalism of the age on one hand and on the other due to the crowd mentality, which is the outcome of frustration and mental chaos.

Above all, the people are not interested to equip themselves with scientific knowledge which requires enthusiasm, patience and arduous labour. They are only interested in easy-money philosophy and hence sap-work is the general trend of all.

As a result of such situation nobody is accurate. It is the prerogative of one and all to use the scientific terms as they like, keeping intact their individual philosophy and geocentricism. Nothing to say of the specialized terms which are hereby used, even the terms culture, intellectuals and intelligentsia etc., are used carelessly without realizing the fact that knowledge, and culture can neither be systematized nor transmitted without maintaining the accuracy of the meaning involved in the various specialties and systems of knowledge.

Even in the modern social sciences, especially in psychology, no book is to be found which could lead the man for the understanding of the terms. Even here the scholars use these terms in a variegated sense. In spite of differences of opinion, most of the scholars conform to define intellectuals as persons possessing knowledge or, in a narrower sense those whose judgement, based on reflection and knowledge, derives less directly and exclusively from sensory perception. Moral or aesthetic development is often associated with intellectuals. The most typical intellectuals are academicians or instructors in school learning. It would be wrong to define intellectual in terms of academic examination, while they are necessarily educated, the education they possess may vary widely in quantity and type from case to case. The half-educated are intellectuals, in so far as they assimilate the materials of knowledge and employ them in mental labour.

Like the intellectuals of the world, the intellectuals of our country played a special role in social life. On the verdict of modern Indian history we are well-suited to argue that the intellectuals of our country tended to revolt against the existing order whenever it hindered their freedom of intellectual activity. Their demand of freedom played an important role in the development of modern movements. Since their intellectual pursuit brought them into contact with information not available to others, they often re-find the social order as anachronistic with reference to ideas and institutions developed at other periods. Hence they acquired an intellectual motive urging change. It should be noted from the trend of the modern Indian history, that they always assumed a patriotic colouration when they felt that the advocated change was a national need. In most cases only a section of intellectuals was involved in the political revolutionary movement of our country. Intellectuals, no doubt, played their important role in stimulating national consciousness, the basis of their attitude was some form of idea and that was that the nation had a mission. It may be said that without students, professors, lawyers, journalists and writers, the national state of Pakistan could not have come into being.

In contradistinction to intellectuals, the intelligentsia are the practical people. They are not to be compared in education with intellectuals. Most of them, not educated, but, have experience and knowledge of the problems which they have to deal. Conceptualization of the interest is the characteristic of the intellectuals. But intelligentsia are realistic and their interest is purely non-calculative and practical.

They always undermine the traditional and ideological role of the intellectuals. The rise of intelligentsia marks the last phase of the growth of social consciousness. In this category we must include proletariat and other professional groups. All of them are group-conscious and in that frame-work they know how to protect their interest. They are called intelligentsia because of the fact of their social consciousness and constant leaning towards the group they belong. Being inferior intellectually automatically they are dependent on the intellectual segments of the society. All the groups belonging to this category of intelligentsia grope for social orientation, attempting a self-embracing interpretation of society. The democratic process which enhances the general capacity for self-determination primarily integrates people in a situation indicative of the characteristic of intelligentsia and ultimately it awakens consciousness of kind on a national scale. The intellectuals are nowhere without the help of intelligentsia, because they are the people who give life and blood to the ideological stand-points of the individuals. The intellectuals, inexperienced in sociological thinking as they are, have to force the alternative class or non-class to discover their own nullity.

One common attribute of intellectuals is the ‘differential exposure to culture. In this connection one could not neglect the differences between the types of the intellectuals. Each type is segregated with one another. This ambivalence of the educated and their deviation from model, tends to create a consentient group with a special esprir de crops.

The intelligentsia who acquire their judgement through the direct apprenticeship of life are not lost in a maze of intellectual fancy. Their pragmatic bent to apply to their thinking the daily test of relevance saves them from the temptation to stay into the realm of unverifiable construct. The special moulds of intellectual amalgamation furnish a significant basis for the understanding of the roles which the educated strata of society play and from case to ease, they even throw light on the prevalent style of expression and the mentality which the more articulate elements of society evolve.

A marked change between the intellectuals and intelligentsia of our country is to be clearly noted. Advanced intellectuals of our country are inclined towards a sociological orientation, because their success depends on the familiarity of the condition. They are becoming more and more pragmatic and the immediate impact of events has sensitized them to involve into new relations. Here is the possibility to utilize them for the purposes of the society. Similarly intelligentsia can also become reflective and articulate if sufficient chances are provided to them.

One of the peculiarities is that they tend to crystallize the dominant convention of their group and their society. No doubt, this nature varies from one culture to another, depending on the avenues through which an intelligentsia comes to assume the key function in a society. I think the Basic Democracies and the idea of the folk-culture are the suitable avenues along which we can develop our intelligentsia. The possibility of such developments are there, because once the intelligentsia assumes its place, it sets the pattern of culturation for the dominant elite and through it for the larger society.

Intellectuals are the great assets to our society, but due to various counter-acting personal and impersonal forces, they are negligent of their role in the larger society. Unfortunately our poets, writers, professors, teachers, scholars and journalists etc., form special grouping of their own and again they are detached from a greater society on the basis of local, institutional and detached habitat. Such a segregation is contrary to the spirit of Islam and it was expected from the formation of one unit that it would eliminate this detachment. Unfortunately it persists and will persist as long as the deliberate care is not taken to remove it.

This detachment, however, is not absolute. One needs only think of the majority of journalists who are bound by both the obvious and intangible commitments of the press. And yet, their political choices and social affiliations are not easy to predict, for they fluctuate to a degree which is characteristic of this stratum only. The dependence of the writer on his employer does not prevent him from being affected by social, political or religious currents which take shape outside his employer’s office, his community or his country. The journalist, the writer, the radio commentator and the leisure time scholar do not depend for their opinion on face to face contacts only. Spatial barriers mean comparatively little to them, precisely because of the medium of their occupation.

Really speaking we fail to create intelligentsia in the sense obtaining in the Western countries. In this category in the Western world those people are included which are inferior to the intellectuals. Half-educated are included in this category. In our country we have got very few people half-educated whereas the great majority is illiterate and ignorant. In view of these facts, we have included the great majority in the category of intelligentsia, on the basis of their practical understanding of the problems of life and practical shells in their profession.

It is the responsibility of the intellectuals to create intelligentsia, but our intellectuals are detached ones having passing acquaintance with the problems of life. They have their preferences. But, as I have said before, detachment, however, is not absolute. Their dependence on society should not prevent them from being affected by social, political, religious, economic and cultural currents which take shape outside. Spatial barrier has no meaning if they adopt a social outlook.

Understanding of this stratum will require that we consider a large complexity of factors, which bring to bear on the situation of the intellectuals. Of these the most important are the social taboos which keep our intellectuals away from the realities of social life.

The person who must face the daily consequence of his action cannot but acquire pragmatic habit and a critical view within the radius of his self-centred life. What is needed is that intellectuals should know and fore-see in order to act. Another trait of the educated person results from his book-learning. It is in itself a source of remoteness. In this age of speedy scientific development and human relation it is necessary that intellectuals should give up habit of exclusion from communication. As far as I have penetrated the life-patterns of the intellectuals of our country I was shocked to find a specific trait which is called schizothymia. It means a critical tension between the persons’ inner and his outer world which in extreme cases may impair his capacity, hypocrisy and self—deception. Their radical disillusionment is like leaven in the bread, although they do not provide the dough to maintain normal social contacts. It seems evident that the career of intellectuals partly depends on their temperamental reaction to the social distance.

Cut off from the realities of life, our intellectuals mostly have become skeptic. Some persons evolve an aesthetic view of life and the capacity to live the roles and thoughts of others. They are the commissars, the specialists in refined pleasures, the humanists. Others stabilize the impulse to transcend and to doubt a routine of bypassing ultimates. They become the perennial ironists and sarcasts, the acrobats of esprit, and the professional critics. They are those who preserve the productive care of their scepticism.