>
>The best spin I could put on the term intellectual is "a disinterested
>pursuit of the truth." Naturally, this definition excludes most profs and
>knowledge specialists and veers more toward the bohemian/radical.
Knowledge is rarely if ever disinterested, and least of alla mong radicals (by definition).
>
>Looking at it historically--it's a fairly recent concept--I think
>"intellectual" varies with culture--though as I enumerated the following,
>it seemed that the common thread was "the claim to authority and privilege
>without the burden of power."
This is invidious. It suggests that anyone who claims authority is ilegitimiately seeking undeserved privileges. Authority is real: if you want to know about relativity theory, read John Wheeler. If you want to know about 17th century English history, read Christopher Hill. These thinkers have earned their authority by making real contributions.
As far as "privilege" goes, I dunno, what's that? Wheeler and Hill just want to be able to teach and write. That's a privilege of sorts; not everyone who wants to or could can do that. But is it bad if they have that privilege?
As far as power goes, _critical_ intellectuals tend not to have it because power doesn't take well to criticism. You won't see antone proposing Noam Chomsky for Secretary of State. But is that the fault of the critical intellectuals, or or the power that can't take criticism? There are intellectuals with real power--Judge Posner comes to mind. But his claim to be "critical" is modest (though not entirely fraudulent).
>
>In the US, intellectual=egghead. Somebody who bothers about something that
>people with common sense would not.
Sure.
>
>In Russia/Eastern Europe before communism, an intellectual was a man who
>had the moral right to sit at the landowner's table without being rich or
>owning land himself. (At least, according to Dostoevsky)
>
>In Russia/Eastern Europe after communism, an intellectual was a man who
>felt he had the right to write/think/control cultural values in complete
>isolation from the working class and without having to dirty his hands with
>power.
I think the Russian notion of the intelligentsia is different from the notion of the intellectuals in Western Europe and the US. The former is more a distinct social stratum than the latter.
>
>In Western europe, an intellectual is someone who claims the privileges of
>the upper class without dirtying his hands either with power or physical
>labor.
>
>
Well, the "privileges" of the upper class largely involve living large, and although Western European intellectuals are often middle class, they don't generally vacation on the Riviera.
--jks _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com