Daily Archives

3 Articles
Uncategorized

The double sided intellectual, who is what?

Posted by Jeff Allred (he/him/his) on

In Antonio Gramsci’s Formation of the Intellectuals, Gramsci identifies two different kinds of intellectuals: organic intellectuals and traditional intellectuals and that “all men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals” (Gramsci 1004.) These categories depict a set of skill per say and I would even say that some of these skills seem like heirlooms: passed down generation to generation. When Gramsci identifies tradition intellectuals, it’s as if to me he was talking about some sort of tradition, and these traditions can be seen in everyday social life as we pass through our lives. An example would be higher education institutions such as Vassar College per say. To connect Gramsci and Benjamin, there is an aura to certain traditions, especially when it comes to higher education.

A Professor is an example of the traditional intellectual but I would even say that this human within an institution seems to be an instrument of some sort. The College or University itself has its own particular aura, and inset there was once a human that set the tone for that aura. This is to say that this human set the rules and groundwork for what the institution would be and be known for. I think after enough time has passed even without these humans, the building itself serves as its own entity. The aura it possesses is one of a kind in the sense that there’s only one in the world and like Benjamin iterates, everyone wants to share in the emotional and traditional connection between the subject and its object. Yes, that aura can fade through mechanical reproduction as I could wear a t-shirt with the Vassar logo on it and have a mug with the main campus on it, but wouldn’t these replications become one of a kind as well? In the sense that even though it was replicated, nothing is ever alike and because I have ownership of this. particular mug let’s say and someone else doesn’t, wouldn’t that carry its own aura? Including if what if all of the other mugs were tainted but mine was the only flawless one, does it become one of a kind or the same in a bunch.

We see with the traditionalist this sense of elitism or “espirit decorps” in society. Like I mentioned these are people who have become Professors or Medical Doctors and Lawyers; there is a sense of tradition within these areas of expertise as these are instructed on how to become what they are through the heirloom: rules and opinion passed down to one person to another through the generations in a given space or time. I think what puzzles me the most is that while someone may say that these professors and doctors and lawyers are replicas of the same mind, I would say that is untrue because not everyone portrays the same information in the same way everyone in some sort of way has a difference of perspective. I would even say that just because that person has a difference in perspective it doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve become an organic individual as there is fluidity between the two types of intellectuals, this person may not have the same mindset but they may follow between the strict rigid lines of the taught skills and rules.

Another question I think that sparks in my mind is with doctors, every doctor is taught techniques and skills, most of the time every doctor follows the same rule of code, then what becomes of the doctors who push the boundaries of medicine and manipulate things that were taught in a specific way in a different and create something different? Would that make these individuals organic intellectuals? Or would they stay as traditional intellectuals because they used the information passed down to them to create something new? Would they become the new teachers to pass down this information?

When it comes to hegemony, does it necessarily group all these individuals together or could it be broken into different sub-sections? What I mean by that is to say that hegemony is executed through a society with direct authority through the government upon the individual in society and while I can see and understand the government rule over the individual, and the rules set in place for the many individuals, aren’t those same individuals creating more rules and dictation within their social groups and peers? Maybe that’s why no one questions a Doctor with their opinion because there is this subconscious consent set in place created by no other than a group of doctors. Is this why doctors feel unsettled when questioned about their opinion? Because it never usually happens like that? It ties back in with Gramsci and the traditional intellectuals “there is no human activity from which every form of intellectual participation can be excluded: homo faber cannot be separated from homo sapiens” (Gramsci 1004) this is to say that even though traditional intellectuals may think they are standing as an independent in reality contribute to a group that many others are a part of.

Uncategorized

questions for index cards today

Posted by Jeff Allred (he/him/his) on

I just wanted to give quick responses to the excellent questions that came back from my trusty index cards:

Q: Could you argue that the difference between the traditional and organic intellectual is that a traditional intellectual is based on what they do and an organic intellectual is based on who they are?

A: It’s tricky. I see where the question is going, since AG means “organic” to mean “organically attached to a class” and thus you are an organic intellectual bound to the working class, in most cases, because you come from that class and speak in its accent. But it’s a bit more complicated in that AG also means to align the organic intellectual with action: that is, in contrast to the traditional intellectual, s/he is an “organizer” who serves a “directive function,” who works as a “permanent persuader,” and so on. In this sense, you might argue the opposite: that a priest, for example, just “is” a priest, whereas an organic intellectual must constantly do things to enact his/her status as an intellectual.

 

Q: Does the Eiffel Tower have an aura? Reminds me of Barthes and Bogost.

A: What a cool question! It depends on the weather. I’m joking, of course. Barthes emphasizes that the Tower is very much subject to mechanical reproduction and to that extent robbed of its aura: one has seen it reproduced so many times, it’s hard to feel the ritual power of when finally seeing it. Barthes ultimately has other aims in his analysis than the consideration of aura, however: for Barthes the “ritual value” of the Tower is, at once, enhanced by its “emptiness” as a signifier–it means anything and everything and thus possesses an occult power over us–and emptied out by our confusion at what its is and how to “possess” it–we can’t figure out how to “enter” it or figure out when we’ve finished experiencing it; we can’t figure out whether its something to be seen or something to see from; etc.

 

Q: Can you explain the different aspects of language (conative, associative, etc.)?

A: I’ll save this for our review session to some extent, but I believe the question is asking about Jakobson’s various functions of language. Here, the important thing is to note that each function (conative, phatic, referential) maps onto a node in the network that transmits a message (receiver, channel, context). RJs point is that messages that foreground the messageness of the message are “poetic”: poetic language is languages that says “hey! I’m language!” rather than just (for example) expressing an emotion or transmitting information. “Associative” is a different ball of wax: the associative axis is the counterpart to the syntagmatic axis in language (for Saussure and for RJ as well, though they use slightly different terminology): again, to avoid confusing matters here, I promise to review in class.

Q: What does Benjamin mean by “distraction”?

A: Huh, what? Did you say something? Sorry, let me close a couple of tabs… Okay, “distraction”… A bit more seriously, Benjamin contrasts the mode of consuming or apprehending auratic art with that of mechanically reproduced art: for the former, the artwork is experienced in a sacred space and time (even if it’s the secular space of the gallery) and engaged with a certain intensity. Mechanically reproduced art, in contrast, is most often consumed in secular and often crowded space–think of the advertisements one sees on the walls of subway tunnels or the flow of images on Instagram. For Benjamin, this contrast is by no means stacked in favor of “intensity,” much as we might value intensity and seriousness in English departments. He claims that the masses experience their cultural forms–films, radio shows, music, photographs, ads–the way one experiences architecture: by wandering through it, touching it, feeling its power without necessarily thinking about it or articulating it. In an arresting phrase just before the epilogue, he says that the auratic image aborbs the looker, whereas the masses themselves absorb the mechanically reproduced art object. Thus distraction allows for a more critical relationship to the artwork. As I mentioned in class, we might disagree here: I would argue that most cinemagoers experience absorption and that there’s something almost “sacred” about going to the movies. But I think there’s less room to quibble with Web enabled cultural forms, where we are constantly flicking through streams of images and sounds, nearly always in a state of “distraction.”

Uncategorized

Organic vs Traditional Intellectuals

Posted by Jeff Allred (he/him/his) on

In Antonio Gramsci’s “Formation of the Intellectuals”, Gramsci identifies two different kinds of intellectuals: organic intellectuals and traditional intellectuals. He categorizes intellectuals based on certain skills that these intellectuals have to fulfill a function in society. Humans are classified by how they function or choose to function in everyday life. Gramsci states that “All men are intellectuals” and everyone must be able to practice intellectualism however they see fit in society. These intellectuals lay the ground for hegemony, the social, cultural, and ideological impact that an intellectual has on society. There must be a healthy balance of traditional and organic intellectuals in society for hegemony to be present.

Organic intellectuals are entrepreneurs and organizers of the mass population. They organize a new culture, social class, and they can act as a voice for the working class. According to Gramsci, “it can be observed that the “organic” intellectuals which every new class creates alongside itself and elaborates in the course of its development, are for the most part “specializations” or partial aspects of the primitive activity of the new social type which the new class has bought to prominence”. Organic intellectuals are special individuals who give a voice to those who need one and can inspire a group of people to fight for something worth fighting for. One example of an intellectual thinker is Kendrick Lamar. He is not a traditional intellectual in the sense that he was never part of an “elite” belonging. Even as his fame and fortune rise as he gets more popular, he remains true to his roots of growing up in Compton, California. He is a voice for the African- American community, communicating the overall feelings of injustice, yearn for equality, and letting the working class African- American community know that they have a spokesperson. He makes music that connects with his community of people and beoynd. He is truly a once in a lifetime talent that uses his platform to draw attention to various social issues.

Traditional intellectuals have “espirit decorps” which is a sense of elitism in society. These intellectuals tend to be the professors, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, scholars, scientists, philosophers, preachers, and media of today’s age. Traditional intellectuals tend to believe that they are independent of the dominant social group in society when in fact that is not true. According to Gramsci, “There is no human activity from which every form of intellectual participation can be excluded”. Gramsci is saying that all intellectualism, no matter if it is Traditional or Organic, feeds off of each other.

Education is crucial in modern society and is usually the groundwork for most Traditional intellectuals. These individuals usually come from an institute of higher learning (college) in order to prepare them to be a doctor, lawyer, etc. These individuals sustain the “long- lived tradition” that these jobs have. These are the jobs that are considered part of the social norm and the jobs that tend to make more money than most organic intellectual jobs. There are plenty of individuals who want to have the financial means to support their families as well as help society in the field that they have chosen. Some families encourage their children to take the traditional route because it can be more financially stable and it encourages higher education. This need for education is especially seen in today’s society where children can start school younger than pre -kindergarten and young adults often need to go school beyond their typical four year college.  Education can be seen as an indication of social status. A goal for many parents could be to prepare their children to get into an Ivy league school because those colleges are seen as the “elite” schools for those of high educational aptitude. The traditional intellectuals tend to live above the fray of society.

One of America’s most controversial Ivy League graduates is now our President. President Trump is the quintessential Traditional intellectual. He has often been seen as an “elite” because of his wealth and his business acumen. Furthermore, President Trump is an example of Hegemony. Hegemony is executed throughout society with direct domination through the government onto those who do not give consent. Although any president can not have a satisfaction rating of one hundred percent, President Trump often uses his elite image to force things upon people who do not give consent. He constantly tears down a group of people almost every day and asserts himself in a way that is not needed from the leader of the free world. There is an irony with the supporters of Donald Trump that Gramsci would probably find hilarious. Donald Trump the ultimate elite Tradtional intellectual has gained the loyalty of millions of Organic intellectuals (intellectual being used loosely).

Skip to toolbar