> In standard usage, "intellectual" means someone who has sufficient
> privilege, resources, opportunities, etc., so as to be able to
> reach some kind of audience on matters of general human interest.
> Has nothing particular to do with insight, knowledge,
> intelligence,.... By "anti-intellectualism" I meant the strain in
> American culture that doesn't take intellectuals too seriously,
> about the opposite extreme from Paris, where if one of the famed
> "intellectuals" sneezes, there's a front-page story in Le Monde and
> everyone gasps with awe. In these terms, I'm an intellectual, and
> Americans shouldn't take me seriously for that reason. I'm all in
> favor of that.
Me, I don't think an "intellectual" is one with privileges, resources, connections, etc., or shouldn't be. An intellectual is someone with specialized knowledge, the capacity to synthesize facts and ideas into some sort of analysis, the skills to circulate their knowledge and analysis through words and images. Like Noam Chomsky, who deserves to be taken seriously.
Doug