Intellectual Violence

As both real life and physical debate continues outside our small group of thinkers to extend to conversations we end up having between us, with other people, or in other seminars, I cannot but reflect on the ways the experience of this course has sharpened and reframed my notion of violence, at the same time, raising awareness in me on issues that up until now I had dealt with only on the surface. I believe each one of us to be taking away something different and at the same time special and precious, but in the form of a more cohesive summary, allow me the couple of points that will follow. 

In the realm of the symbolic, what went critically unexamined were the notions of intellectualization and political correctness, derivative one could argue, of a subcategory that one may call "intellectual violence". There are many possible forms/paradigms to conceptualize intellectual violence, including copyright violation and accessing information, hate-speech and systemic violence veiled by political correctness, or even worse, political correctness turning us into a-political agents. But beyond these or other examples one can bring up, I want to mention two instances that came up in the past two days.

First there was a discussion between Jinna, Elise, Alex and I prompt by the usage of language and how one speaks reveal (or disclose) his/her class and social background: the prerogative of a "pure", "clean" language that becomes the "official" over dialect, slang and any other form of hybrid language grounded in the grassroot. An oppression regarding self-expression of rural, downscale and colonized subjects alike. 

Following a couple of lecture's I've attended the past few days, a second example which came up and that to me is imperative to consider is the irrefutable and indisputable dominance of a western-centric anthology of concepts which are repetitively recycled and overused in our effort to describe the world or project a future vision for it. Coincidently, such terms also happen to be, on the one hand, antiquated, on the other, bankrupt. Meaning that their non-refined, non-updated usage serves only to highlight how we are constantly trying to talk about the future by using the past. A tactic that renders our mission impossible. 

My critique towards both lecturers was of their constant use of the term "democracy". Mind you, both liberal Marxists in my understanding. The first guy was talking about America's diplomatic and military interventions in the geopolitical reconfiguration of the Middle East, the latter was discussing the realization of socialist utopias within the current capitalist system; or a synergy between them that could transform the system into a more democratic one. Now, my problem is the following. Democracy is repeatedly evoked to stand either as an ideal or as an example. Not only is there never an effective critique upon the ideal itself, just to consider whether such a model of governance continues to be the ideal one considering what are its limits or origins for that matter (think Ancient Greece: democracy over there was practice by a certain elite: the People were essentially the upper class, free men of Athens: slaves, women, non-Athenians excepted.) Secondly, by referring to democracy as a paradigm of how well the western world is working, we are shutting ourselves from a most important criticism, that in fact, democracy is not working in the West, our system of governance is as corrupted as in the most authoritative states.

I liked how Billy worked through it in his email:

democracy seems more meaningfully the ability to summon dictatorship and produce bourgeois subjects. to say that things are ‘thin’ or ‘deep’ democracies is interesting, too, mostly in that it returns a (incredibly pathetic) agency.

Intellectual violence in this case has something to do with scholarship's resistance to either challenge or doubt it's own sensibility. It also links in a direct way with the discussion we had in class over institutionalizing cultural products. They are acceptable as long as they originate from or are destined to belong in the mausoleum of art museums and universities. Indeed, there is something very problematic and in fact very dangerous going on. I believe that the mission of young intellectuals must always be Nietzschean, by that, I mean nihilistic. Our aim of course is not to rediscover the wheel but neither is it any longer wise to appropriate the same vehicles. We must kill our idols and their values must die with them. Our era is accused of not being able to produce anything original; how can we, when the monsters of the past lurk over our necks so persistently? When we refuse to let go, say no, and make way for our own routes?

Our revolutions will lead to new democratic dictatorships unless we are willing to change our agenda, redefine our concepts, sharpen our criticism and stop looking up to the old order of things as the only way to go about our business. Radical scholarship needs to be removed from the sidelines and the institutional coercion that keeps it there. Intellectuals have a responsibility, first and foremost to speak up and speak loud, or else they become the very hypocrites that will have to go down alongside the filthy rich and the murderers.