In our societies, the word ‘Intellectual’ is being put to enormous use these days, since its understanding is fluid and, more or less, vague to most of us. More often than not, it’s being used as a synonym for intelligence. At other times, this title is attributed to the people of Knowledge. Many perceive intellectualism to be a mix of both: Intelligence & Knowledge. However, there is much more to it. So, who is an intellectual?
Beginning with a very simplistic version of an intellectual, Noam Chomsky says anybody who is materially established on a basic level and thus has the luxury of thinking about matters beyond basic survival of themselves is an intellectual. His essay: The Responsibility of Intellectuals (published in New York Review of Books on Feb 23, 1967) is considered to be the single most influential piece of anti-war literature that has, somewhat, set its standards. It opines that this whole concept of ‘intellectuals’ in the modern sense gained currency with the 1898 ‘Manifesto of the Intellectuals’ produced by Dreyfusards (supporters of Alfred Dreyfus- who was booked for treason in France). Their document paints an image of intellectuals as defenders of justice, confronting power with courage and integrity.
Chomsky categorizes intellectuals into 1) value-oriented intellectuals who pose a challenge to the authority and are called anarchists, and 2) technocratic and policy-oriented intellectuals, who are called ‘responsible intellectuals’ by their governments. Those who belong to the first category- Chomsky himself included- question, not only the government but even the established order if they find it objectionable. The status-quoists abhor them and see them as a problem who are to be dealt with. This is where they are even branded as ‘enemies of peace’ since the peace to the authority, in this context, means surrender to them, notwithstanding their egregious policies. The intellectuals of the second category are those who play safe and work within the red lines drawn by the authorities. In fact, they strive to support governments to be in their good books. They call themselves patriots who are out there to defend their country (read its policies), whether right or wrong. It is in this context that, in the essay cited above, Noam asks the question: To what extent were the Germans and the Japanese people responsible for the atrocities committed by their governments? Then he turns to his own people asking them: To what extent are the American or British people responsible for the vicious terror bombing of civilians, perfected as a technique of warfare by the Western democracies and reaching their culmination in Hiroshima & Nagasaki- surely among the most unspeakable crimes in the history? This is the question that many other nations- India included- should ask themselves. To what extent are the people of India responsible for the bone-chilling atrocities committed by it in Kashmir, in the name of ‘safeguarding national interest’ or ‘defeating Pakistani designs’? It is this second category of intellectuals that rule the roost in India, and that anybody crossing that red line (into the 1st category), is passed as anti-national; Arundhati Roy, just to exemplify one.
Coming to the duty of intellectuals, it is the responsibility that the privilege brings to a person, which needs to be done justice with. Whether it is a privilege of being rich, influential, highly educated, well-connected, or being eloquent- anything that gives you the platform is a privilege that must be used, to tell the truth, and expose the lies. In The Intellectual (2015), Steven Fuller says that cultural capital gives power and social status to the group, which necessitates their independence to ensure their credibility. This is why it is comparatively convenient for aristocratic and wealthy individuals to exhibit autonomy. All they need to do is disown their status and champion causes of the poor. This may not be easy to do for someone with a proletariat background.
There’s an argument that all academics are intellectuals, which is imprecise. Only when an academic goes public about his/her thoughts does s/he become an intellectual. Anybody keeping knowledge as secret or playing safe is not. Since commoners who are busy making their ends meet cannot be expected to study the policies of their government or the continuously changing world order, it becomes incumbent upon intellectuals- who have time and interest to study it to understand it- to campaign and inform the people what it means and what needs to be done about it. Their job is to communicate the complex and specialized knowledge of the scientists or other specialties to the general masses. And this set of people needs to be fearless, unlike the second category intellectuals who simply assist the government to form policies within the set parameters. This is why Edward Said said that an intellectual is someone who is able to speak the truth. He further says s/he ought to be courageous & an angry individual for whom no worldly power is too big and imposing to be criticized and pointedly taken to task. He argues that a real or true intellectual is, therefore, an outsider, living in a self-imposed exile, and on the margins of society. An intellectual speaks to, as well as for, public, necessarily in public, and is properly on the side of the dispossessed, the unrepresented and the forgotten.
So yes it does take a speck of intelligence (not necessarily superintelligence) and knowledge to be an intellectual, but the most important feature is the grit to speak publicly about it to aware the masses. If injustice (economic, political or of any kind) does not pinch your conscience to the extent that you stand up for it and take a stand against all odds, ensure your understanding reaches people, you may be an expert on the field but not an intellectual. All societies in the world need a vibrant intellectual fraternity. At times, some people use this term pejoratively. This happens in places where literati or ‘óver-education’ is considered impractical. This is anti-intellectualism: hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism, which actually trickles down from the sense of deprecation, and perception of the uselessness of education, art, literature & sciences. They feel threatened by academic elitism and due to their insecurity, they tend to see educated people as some form of status class. With complete literacy rate, such a logical fallacy can be extinct.