Intellectuals and politics

Recently there have been a number of discussions/debates in the media on the role of ‘intellectuals’ in relation to politics, or more specifically, politicians. One of the things that gave rise to these discussions appears to have been the information, that African-American philosopher, Cornel West, has been acting in an advisory capacity to Democratic Party presidential nominee, Barack Obama, while (if I understood things correctly) other information seems to have surfaced concerning South African intellectuals who may have been receiving funding from certain politicians in exchange for their ‘intellectual services’. The question therefore arises, whether intellectuals who have placed themselves in the (perhaps paid) service of politicians, retain their integrity and independence as intellectuals.

‘Intellectuals’ have included figures such as Edward Said, Noam Chomsky (probably the best known ‘public intellectual’ today, given his widely publicised criticism of American foreign policy), and the public intellectual, African-American philosopher-theologian and activist, Cornel West, referred to earlier. What is characteristic of intellectuals is the fact that they exercise their social and political involvement with a high degree of autonomy through the medium of intellectual engagement. All philosophers, thinkers or writers are therefore not necessarily intellectuals – my guess would be that the majority don’t engage autonomously in debates of political consequence at all, even if the potential to do so is always there. An ‘intellectual’ whose ‘intellectual services’ are bought, that is, paid for to promote a certain political agenda – and one with which he or she does NOT necessarily agree – therefore seems to me to have compromised his or her autonomy. (Schopenhauer called such people “bread-thinkers.”)

An important qualification is called for here, however: if an intellectual supports and promotes the interests of a specific political figure or party voluntarily and for a certain time, because he or she believes in the principles or values represented by such a figure or party (at that time), it need not be a compromising activity. Whether it is likely that she or he would be in agreement with everything promoted by the political figure or party in question, is a matter for debate; my own feeling would be that it is unlikely – if one were to be honest with oneself, it would be hard to claim that you always agree with even your closest friend. But this is not regrettable, because the ‘good’ is never definitively attained in any society; there is invariably room for improvement and improvement requires debate.

To return to Cornel West lending his intellectual support to Barack Obama, it seems to me quite acceptable, as long as West is using his formidable intellect as a way of exercising his political freedom to further certain societal values. What I know of him and Obama indicates that they would share a great deal in this domain, anyway. Both of them are passionately committed to improving the social and economic conditions of ordinary (and especially poor) Americans. Neither of them is hesitant to get down to street level in engaging ordinary people on matters of social and political import, and both excel at it. When I was studying in America in the 1980s, Cornel West would shuttle between teaching his graduate courses at the university in New Haven and working with parishioners in New York and elsewhere. His aim is eloquently expressed in the title of one of his books: Restoring Hope. This just happens to be what Obama is committed to as well. Is it at all surprising, therefore, that the philosopher-intellectual has joined forces with the politician who seems to me to be the best chance America has had to bring about fundamental change since John F Kennedy?

In South Africa today one notices with concern the growth of a public ‘atmosphere’ increasingly hostile to the free democratic activity of (especially political) criticism exercised by intellectuals – something that manifests itself in institutions like some universities adopting a ‘media policy’, which severely restricts academics as far as public statements (in the media) are concerned. It is not difficult for intellectuals to circumvent this, of course, in a country that (still) has one of the most progressive constitutions in the world, by couching their criticism, as it should be done, in terms of disciplined (and discipline-oriented) academic freedom, guaranteed by the freedom of expression enshrined in the South African constitution. As the South African intellectual Sipho Seepe remarked at a seminar at the Central University of Technology of the Free State, SA (on October 17 2007), it astonishes him that people congratulate him on being ‘courageous’ in his published political criticism, because it should not require courage to criticise freely and responsibly in a democracy.

But Professor Seepe is, to the best of my knowledge, a ‘non-aligned’ thinker whose intellect is not for hire by the highest bidder – a man after my own heart. It may be the case that there are other so-called intellectuals in this country who have already compromised their intellectual integrity – that is, their commitment to what they understand as being the best and most just manner of organising society – by yielding to an irresistible offer or two. They have ceased being intellectuals in the true sense.
The thinker who, to my mind, has articulated the distinction between different kinds of intellectuals, and the tasks facing these better than anyone else, is Michel Foucault. But that is a topic for another time.