Intellectuals and Society: Difference between revisions

Intellectuals and Society
	Cover of the hardcover edition
Author	Thomas Sowell
Language	English
Subjects	Sociology, social philosophy
Publisher	Basic Books
Publication date	January 5, 2010
Publication place	United States
Media type	Print; eBook; audiobook
Pages	416
ISBN	0-465-01948-X
Preceded by	The Housing Boom and Bust

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 10:10, 12 November 2024

Intellectuals and Society is a non-fiction book by Thomas Sowell.^[1]^[2] The book was initially published on January 5, 2010, by Basic Books.

Intellectuals are defined as "idea workers" who exercise profound influence on policy makers and public opinion, but are often not directly accountable for the results. Intellectuals and Society examines the record of these idea workers and the conditions, methods and incentives driving their points of view that, according to Sowell, have often resulted in disaster for societies where intellectuals have been allowed "undue influence".

Undue influence of intellectuals

Sowell explained undue influence of intellectuals as follows:

"Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas — the intellectuals — have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times.

The quick answer is that intellectuals have done both. But certainly, during the 20th century, it is hard to escape the conclusion that intellectuals have on balance made the world a worse and more dangerous place. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the 20th century was without his supporters, admirers, or apologists among the leading intellectuals — not only within his own country, but in foreign democracies, where intellectuals were free to say whatever they wanted.

...intellectuals are people whose end products are intangible ideas, and they are usually judged by whether those ideas sound good to other intellectuals or resonate with the public. Whether their ideas turn out to work — whether they make life better or worse for others — is another question entirely."^[3]

Summary

Sowell argues that intellectuals, whom he defines as people whose occupations deal primarily with ideas (writers, historians, academics, etc.), usually consider themselves as "anointed", or as endowed with superior intellect or insight with which to guide the masses and those who have authority over them. Sowell contends that several characteristics mark such intellectuals.^[4]

Working with ideas

An intellectual's work begins and ends with ideas, not the practical application of ideas to real world problems. These purveyors of ideas may be at all points of the political and ideological spectrum, although Sowell generally reserves his sharpest criticisms for those on the left. Certain common patterns in intellectuals, he argues, cut across specific political ideologies. He argues that intellectuals like to work outside the established power structures and apply what is presumed to be superior insight in order to control the resources and decision-making processes of the masses and their official leaders. For example, both National Socialism and Stalinism attempted to micro-manage the lives of their citizens; both implemented sweeping propaganda campaigns to reframe reality, and both resulted in leadership by an elite outside group.^[5]

Lack of real accountability

The work of intellectuals is ultimately not subject to external (real world) verifiability, as compared to those engaged in more practical pursuits with readily observable results. An intellectual, for example, can condemn a military operation for "excessive force" but has no accountability in regards to the actual outcome of that operation. By contrast, a military commander who fails to deploy sufficient force at the appropriate time can pay with his own life and that of his men. The acclaim given to intellectuals, despite their predictions having failed, is a prime example of the lack of ultimate accountability, Sowell maintains.^[6]

Narrow and specialized knowledge

Intellectuals usually have thorough knowledge in their areas of expertise. Outside these fields, however, they may be as uninformed as the average person. Too often, Sowell argues, this does not stop them from attempting to influence public opinion in areas where they are not fully qualified. Sowell lists several examples that he argues support his thesis.^[7]

Intellectual climate of distortion and misinformation

Sowell states that intellectuals often assume that their specialized knowledge qualifies them to guide others, as do experts in any field of endeavor, practical or otherwise. Sowell argues that what is crucial is their influence on the people who wield decision-making power. The presumption of insight often creates a climate that influences the way events are reported by the media, and may make politicians hesitant to take certain approaches to problem-solving. Before World War II, for example, British intellectuals played a large role in the process of creating the opposition to re-armament, which proved to be a deadly mistake.^[8]

Verbal virtuosity (rhetoric) versus evidence or logic

Sowell suggests that intellectuals rely heavily on what he calls "verbal virtuosity" (clever phrasing, vague euphemisms, witty quotes, deceptive labeling, name-calling and sneering asides) to substitute for evidence, logic and analysis. Other tactics of "verbal virtuosity" include dismissing opposing ideas as simplistic, portraying those making opposing arguments as morally unworthy, invoking "rights" which have no legal basis, vague calls for "change", reliance on the abstract versus the concrete, and a constant "filtering of reality".^[9]

Ego-involvement and personalization

The presumption of wisdom and/or virtue causes intellectuals to personalize situations where contending ideas are involved. This often results in: (a) the demonization of opponents, and (b) personal fulfillment serving as a substitute for debate and evidence. Sowell does not make it clear if intellectuals acquired these traits from politicians, or the other way around.^[10]

Reception

In 2010, American libertarian philosopher David Gordon wrote a positive review of the book for the Independent Institute. He states that Sowell has written an excellent book as a whole.^[11]

In 2012, Aidan Byrne, from the School of Humanities at the University of Wolverhampton wrote a negative review of the book for LSE Review of Books. Unaware of Sowell's race, Byrne wrote within the review: "To him, slavery's cultural legacy means that it shouldn't be considered a moral problem, nor should amelioration be attempted: easy for a rich white man to say."^[12] In 2020, Byrne's review was removed from the LSE Review of Books website with a message declaring that the review "did not meet the minimum standard for publication and has consequently been removed."^[13]

References

^ Sowell, Thomas (July 17, 2012). "Why Aren't Race Riots News?". The National Review.
^ The Independent Institute
^ Sowell, T. "Intellectuals and Society" (January 5, 2010), National Review Online. Retrieved June 14, 2009 The National Review Archived 2010-07-01 at the Wayback Machine
^ Sowell, Intellectuals... pp. 4–116; 281–319
^ Sowell, Intellectuals... pp. 75–157
^ Sowell, Intellectuals... p. 4–31
^ Sowell, Intellectuals... p. 13-50
^ Sowell, Intellectuals... pp. 203–281
^ Sowell, Intellectuals... pp. 10–241
^ Sowell, Intellectuals... pp. 75–157
^ Gordon, David (2010). "Book Review | Intellectuals and Society, by Thomas Sowell". The Independent Institute. Retrieved 2022-06-09.
^ "Book Review: Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell". LSE. 26 May 2012. Archived from the original on 17 November 2017. Retrieved 20 August 2020.
^ "This book review of Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society, originally published in 2012, has been removed". LSE Review of Books. 26 May 2012. Retrieved 20 August 2020.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Short description|2010 book by Thomas Sowell}}
-{{italic title}}
 {{Infobox book
 | name = Intellectuals and Society
 | image = Intellecutuals society thomas sowell1.jpg
-| caption = Hardcover edition
+| caption = Cover of the hardcover edition
 | author = [[Thomas Sowell]]
 | country = United States
 | language = English
+| subjects = Sociology, social philosophy
-| genre = [[Non-fiction]]
-| subject = Sociology, social philosophy
 | pub_date = January 5, 2010
 | publisher = [[Basic Books]]
-| media_type = Print<br>[[eBook]]
+| media_type = Print<br>[[eBook]]<br>[[audiobook]]
 | pages = 416
 | isbn = 0-465-01948-X
@@ Line 18: / Line 17: @@
 }}
-'''''Intellectuals and Society''''' is a non-fiction book by [[Thomas Sowell]].<ref>{{cite web|work=[[The National Review]]|authorlink=Thomas Sowell|first=Thomas|last=Sowell|date=July 17, 2012|title=Why Aren’t Race Riots News?|url=http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309578/why-aren-t-race-riots-news-thomas-sowell}}</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=812 The Independent Institute]</ref> The book was initially published on January 5, 2010 by [[Basic Books]].
+'''''Intellectuals and Society''''' is a non-fiction book by [[Thomas Sowell]].<ref>{{cite web|work=[[The National Review]]|authorlink=Thomas Sowell|first=Thomas|last=Sowell|date=July 17, 2012|title=Why Aren't Race Riots News?|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2012/07/why-arent-race-riots-news-thomas-sowell}}</ref><ref>[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=812 The Independent Institute]</ref> The book was initially published on January 5, 2010, by [[Basic Books]].
+[[Intellectual]]s are defined as "idea workers" who exercise profound influence on policy makers and public opinion, but are often not directly accountable for the results. ''Intellectuals and Society'' examines the record of these idea workers and the conditions, methods and incentives driving their points of view that, according to Sowell, have often resulted in disaster for societies where intellectuals have been allowed "undue influence".
+==Undue influence of intellectuals==
+Sowell explained undue influence of intellectuals as follows:
-[[Intellectual]]s are defined as "idea workers" that exercise profound influence on policy makers and public opinion, but are often not directly accountable for the results. ''Intellectuals and Society'' examines the record of these idea workers and the conditions, methods and incentives driving their points of view that, according to Sowell, have often resulted in disaster for societies where intellectuals have been allowed "undue influence". As Sowell expresses it:
 :"Those whose careers are built on the creation and dissemination of ideas — the intellectuals — have played a role in many societies out of all proportion to their numbers. Whether that role has, on balance, made those around them better off or worse off is one of the key questions of our times.
 :The quick answer is that intellectuals have done both. But certainly, during the 20th century, it is hard to escape the conclusion that intellectuals have on balance made the world a worse and more dangerous place. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the 20th century was without his supporters, admirers, or apologists among the leading intellectuals — not only within his own country, but in foreign democracies, where intellectuals were free to say whatever they wanted.
-:...intellectuals are people whose end products are intangible ideas, and they are usually judged by whether those ideas sound good to other intellectuals or resonate with the public. Whether their ideas turn out to work — whether they make life better or worse for others — is another question entirely."<ref>Sowell, T. "Intellectuals and Society" (January 5, 2010), National Review Online. Retrieved June 14, 2009 [http://article.nationalreview.com/419693/intellectuals-and-society/thomas-sowell The National Review]</ref>
+:...intellectuals are people whose end products are intangible ideas, and they are usually judged by whether those ideas sound good to other intellectuals or resonate with the public. Whether their ideas turn out to work — whether they make life better or worse for others — is another question entirely."<ref>Sowell, T. "Intellectuals and Society" (January 5, 2010), National Review Online. Retrieved June 14, 2009 [http://article.nationalreview.com/419693/intellectuals-and-society/thomas-sowell The National Review] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100701033129/http://article.nationalreview.com/419693/intellectuals-and-society/thomas-sowell |date=2010-07-01 }}</ref>
 ==Summary==
 Sowell argues that intellectuals, whom he defines as people whose occupations deal primarily with ideas (writers, historians, academics, etc.), usually consider themselves as "anointed", or as endowed with superior intellect or insight with which to guide the masses and those who have authority over them. Sowell contends that several characteristics mark such intellectuals.<ref>Sowell, Intellectuals... pp. 4–116; 281–319</ref>
-===Working With Ideas===
+===Working with ideas===
-An intellectual’s {{clarify|date=March 2016}} work begins and ends with ideas, not the practical application of ideas to real world problems. These purveyors of ideas may be at all points of the political and ideological spectrum, although Sowell generally reserves his sharpest criticisms for those on the left. Certain common patterns in intellectuals, he argues, cut across specific political ideologies. Intellectuals, for example, show a marked preference for third parties {{clarify|date=March 2016}}, working outside the established power structures and applying what is presumed to be superior insight, to control the resources and decision making processes of the masses and their official leaders. This preference sometimes makes outwardly competing ideologies appear more alike than different. For example both [[National Socialism]] and [[Stalinism]] attempted to [[micro-manage]] the lives of their citizens; both implemented sweeping [[propaganda]] campaigns to [[Reframing|reframe]] reality, and both resulted in leadership by an elite outside group. This, apparently, despite the fact that both movements were notoriously anti-intellectual.<ref>Sowell, Intellectuals… pp. 75–157</ref>
+An intellectual's work begins and ends with ideas, not the practical application of ideas to real world problems. These purveyors of ideas may be at all points of the political and ideological spectrum, although Sowell generally reserves his sharpest criticisms for those on the left. Certain common patterns in intellectuals, he argues, cut across specific political ideologies. He argues that intellectuals like to work outside the established power structures and apply what is presumed to be superior insight in order to control the resources and decision-making processes of the masses and their official leaders. For example, both [[National Socialism]] and [[Stalinism]] attempted to [[micro-manage]] the lives of their citizens; both implemented sweeping [[propaganda]] campaigns to reframe reality, and both resulted in leadership by an elite outside group.<ref>Sowell, Intellectuals... pp. 75–157</ref>
 ===Lack of real accountability===
-The work of intellectuals is ultimately not subject to external (real world) verifiability, as compared to those engaged in more practical pursuits with readily observable results. An intellectual, for example, can condemn a military operation for "excessive force" but has no accountability in regards to the actual outcome of that operation. By contrast, a military commander who fails to deploy sufficient force at the appropriate time can pay with his own life and that of his men. The acclaim given to intellectuals, despite their predictions having failed, is a prime example of the lack of ultimate accountability, Sowell maintains.<ref>Sowell, Intellectuals… p. 4–31</ref>
+The work of intellectuals is ultimately not subject to external (real world) verifiability, as compared to those engaged in more practical pursuits with readily observable results. An intellectual, for example, can condemn a military operation for "excessive force" but has no accountability in regards to the actual outcome of that operation. By contrast, a military commander who fails to deploy sufficient force at the appropriate time can pay with his own life and that of his men. The acclaim given to intellectuals, despite their predictions having failed, is a prime example of the lack of ultimate accountability, Sowell maintains.<ref>Sowell, Intellectuals... p. 4–31</ref>
 ===Narrow and specialized knowledge===
-Intellectuals usually have thorough knowledge in their areas of expertise. Outside these fields, however, they may be as uninformed as the average person. Too often, Sowell argues, this does not stop them from attempting to influence public opinion in areas where they are not fully qualified. Sowell lists several examples that he argues support his thesis.<ref>Sowell, Intellectuals… p. 13-50</ref>
+Intellectuals usually have thorough knowledge in their areas of expertise. Outside these fields, however, they may be as uninformed as the average person. Too often, Sowell argues, this does not stop them from attempting to influence public opinion in areas where they are not fully qualified. Sowell lists several examples that he argues support his thesis.<ref>Sowell, Intellectuals... p. 13-50</ref>
 ===Intellectual climate of distortion and misinformation===
-Sowell states that intellectuals often assume that their specialized knowledge qualifies them to guide others, as do experts in any field of endeavor, practical or otherwise. Sowell argues that what is crucial is their influence on the people who wield decision making power. The presumption of insight often creates a climate that influences the way events are reported by the media, and may make politicians hesitant to take certain approaches to problem-solving. Before World War II, for example, British intellectuals played a large role in the process of creating the opposition to re-armament, which proved to be a deadly mistake.<ref>Sowell, Intellectuals… pp. 203–281</ref>
+Sowell states that intellectuals often assume that their specialized knowledge qualifies them to guide others, as do experts in any field of endeavor, practical or otherwise. Sowell argues that what is crucial is their influence on the people who wield decision-making power. The presumption of insight often creates a climate that influences the way events are reported by the media, and may make politicians hesitant to take certain approaches to problem-solving. Before World War II, for example, British intellectuals played a large role in the process of creating the opposition to re-armament, which proved to be a deadly mistake.<ref>Sowell, Intellectuals... pp. 203–281</ref>
 ===Verbal virtuosity (rhetoric) versus evidence or logic===
-Sowell suggests that intellectuals rely heavily on what he calls "verbal virtuosity" (clever phrasing, vague [[euphemism]]s, witty quotes, deceptive labeling, name-calling and sneering asides) to substitute for evidence, logic and analysis. Other tactics of "verbal virtuosity" include dismissing opposing ideas as simplistic, portraying those making opposing arguments as morally unworthy, invoking "rights" which have no legal basis, vague calls for "change", reliance on the abstract versus the concrete, and a constant "filtering of reality".<ref>Sowell, Intellectuals… pp. 10–241</ref>
+Sowell suggests that intellectuals rely heavily on what he calls "verbal virtuosity" (clever phrasing, vague [[euphemism]]s, witty quotes, deceptive labeling, name-calling and sneering asides) to substitute for evidence, logic and analysis. Other tactics of "verbal virtuosity" include dismissing opposing ideas as simplistic, portraying those making opposing arguments as morally unworthy, invoking "rights" which have no legal basis, vague calls for "change", reliance on the abstract versus the concrete, and a constant "filtering of reality".<ref>Sowell, Intellectuals... pp. 10–241</ref>
 ===Ego-involvement and personalization===
-The presumption of wisdom and/or virtue causes intellectuals{{clarify|date=March 2016}} to personalize situations where contending ideas are involved. This often results in: (a) the demonization of opponents, and (b) personal fulfillment serving as a substitute for debate and evidence. Sowell does not make it clear if intellectuals acquired these traits from politicians, or the other way around.<ref>Sowell, Intellectuals… pp. 75–157</ref>
+The presumption of wisdom and/or virtue causes intellectuals to personalize situations where contending ideas are involved. This often results in: (a) the demonization of opponents, and (b) personal fulfillment serving as a substitute for debate and evidence. Sowell does not make it clear if intellectuals acquired these traits from politicians, or the other way around.<ref>Sowell, Intellectuals... pp. 75–157</ref>
+==Reception==
+In 2010, American libertarian philosopher [[David Gordon (philosopher)|David Gordon]] wrote a positive review of the book for the [[Independent Institute]]. He states that Sowell has written an excellent book as a whole.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gordon |first=David |date=2010 |title=Book Review {{!}} Intellectuals and Society, by Thomas Sowell |url=https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=812 |access-date=2022-06-09 |website=The Independent Institute}}</ref>
+In 2012, Aidan Byrne, from the School of Humanities at the [[University of Wolverhampton]] wrote a negative review of the book for [[London School of Economics|LSE Review of Books]]. Unaware of Sowell's race, Byrne wrote within the review: "To him, slavery's cultural legacy means that it shouldn't be considered a moral problem, nor should amelioration be attempted: easy for a rich white man to say."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2012/05/26/book-review-intellectuals-and-society-by-thomas-sowell/|title=Book Review: Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell|publisher=[[London School of Economics|LSE]]|date=26 May 2012|accessdate=20 August 2020|url-status=live|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20171117012519/http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2012/05/26/book-review-intellectuals-and-society-by-thomas-sowell/|archivedate=17 November 2017}}</ref> In 2020, Byrne's review was removed from the [[London School of Economics|LSE Review of Books]] website with a message declaring that the review "did not meet the minimum standard for publication and has consequently been removed."<ref>{{cite web|title=This book review of Thomas Sowell's Intellectuals and Society, originally published in 2012, has been removed. |url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2012/05/26/book-review-intellectuals-and-society-by-thomas-sowell/ |accessdate=20 August 2020 |work=LSE Review of Books |date=26 May 2012}}</ref>
 ==See also==
@@ Line 55: / Line 63: @@
 ==Related reading==
-*[[Raymond Aron]], ''The Opium of the Intellectuals'', Transaction (2001) ISBN 0-7658-0700-9
+*[[Raymond Aron]], ''The Opium of the Intellectuals'', Transaction (2001) {{ISBN|0-7658-0700-9}}
-*[[Julien Benda]], ''The Treason of the Intellectuals'', Transaction (2006) ISBN 1-4128-0623-2
+*[[Julien Benda]], ''The Treason of the Intellectuals'', Transaction (2006) {{ISBN|1-4128-0623-2}}
-*[[Edward W. Said]], ''Representations of the Intellectual'', Vintage (1996) ISBN 0-679-76127-6
+*[[Edward W. Said]], ''Representations of the Intellectual'', Vintage (1996) {{ISBN|0-679-76127-6}}
-*[[Florian Znaniecki]], ''The Social Role of the Man of Knowledge'', Harper Torchbooks (1968) ISBN 0-06-131372-6
+*[[Florian Znaniecki]], ''The Social Role of the Man of Knowledge'', Harper Torchbooks (1968) {{ISBN|0-06-131372-6}}
+{{Thomas Sowell}}
+{{Social philosophy}}
+[[Category:2010 non-fiction books]]
+[[Category:Basic Books books]]
 [[Category:Books by Thomas Sowell]]
 [[Category:Contemporary philosophical literature]]
-[[Category:Social philosophy literature]]
-[[Category:2010 books]]
 [[Category:English-language books]]
+[[Category:Social philosophy literature]]
+[[Category:Works about intelligentsia]]