Remapping knowledge and political and economic decision-making: on the value of intellectuals
“Do not let intellectuals play with/ matches”, wrote Jacques Prévert in 1946, because “with all that prodigal talk about builders’/ work” we find that “as soon as it’s left alone … The world of the mind/ conceives/ monumental lies.” Prévert was a master of irony, a fine poet who could write intense love poems, and a scathing critic of social hypocrisy, including the haughty attitude of the educated classes – of the intellectuals – towards “popular” sentiments. Yet, he was an intellectual himself, able to offer profound interpretations of ideas, passions and feelings, as well as strict advice on lifestyle choices – just the opposite of a merely “prude” conformist.
Those verses about intellectuals and matches recur throughout the pages of a recent lucidly and meticulously written book by Sabino Cassese, one of the finest jurists in European political culture, published by Il Mulino as part of its stimulating series Parole controtempo (Syncopated words) and simply and appropriately entitled Intellettuali (Intellectuals).
In such “dark times for both intellectuals and the means they adopt to make themselves heard” – because “if ‘one is as good as the other’ there can be no difference between the wise and the ignorant” – Cassese rekindles the values of intellectual commitment, study, research, the dissemination of knowledge, and emphasises the intermingled relationship between freedom and responsibility. And it’s precisely in these difficult, controversial times, loaded with new political, economic and social challenges and ancient tensions resurfacing under new guises (the crisis of globalisation, the pandemic, war, environmental disasters, the increasingly unbearable inequality concerning rights, living conditions and opportunities for development) that intellectuals have the responsibility to ask meaningful questions as part of the public debate, in order to sharpen the tools that can provide the answers.
The “triumph of populism,” insists Cassese, “feeds the rejection of intellectuals” because “the populist attitude and the political forces that inspire or encourage it are based on a false egalitarianism that, depending on the circumstances, either declares it can do without intellectuals by often accusing them of betraying people’s expectations, relegates them to a lower position, or exploits them.”
A negative trend, to be countered with some careful thinking about intellectual work and the need for a real “battle of ideas” against demagogy, the bigoted vulgarity rampant on TV and social media, the spread of fake news, the devaluation of knowledge, the rewarding of irresponsible incompetents’ wrongdoing.
We need to go back to studying, reading, writing, researching, discussing issues and viewpoints in depth – we need to draft new knowledge maps, work on the relationship between memories and the future, between roots and innovation, and enrich our social capital with competent skills, because “the elites, competent people, are a key critical ingredient of democracy.”
The challenge concerns the intellectual professions (rereading Max Weber‘s works is recommended), but also the political and economic spheres, social organisations and businesses, the structures of association and representation. No one should be allowed to wallow in mediocrity, ignorance, conjecture.
Indeed, the economic and social spheres are not talk shows, and the complexities inherent to the “risk society” require articulate and exhaustive answers, some proper pondering, rigorous investigations on the evolution of social balances and advice on what should be done in terms of political choices and policy instruments. We need to adopt deep thought as a working tool, politics as a civil servant’s duty.
Cassese continues, “The role of university professors as public intellectuals or public moralists is part of the Italian tradition (one needs only remember Francesco Saverio Nitti, Gaetano Salvemini, Vilfredo Pareto, Luigi Einaudi). It’s precisely when we mistakenly set the people against the elite that the members of such elite need to make themselves heard – not to prolong the fight but to show that they do know how to interpret the society to which they belong (and, by extension, the people).” Essentially, we need to “react against such a worn out attitude towards dialogue, the result of the crisis affecting our political parties and of the endless opportunity everyone has to vent their opinions on the web.”
Cassese calls for the “reflection method”. He reminds us how the importance of science and research has gained new value, precisely during the pandemic period. He very well knows the weight and reputation that cultural figures and associations dedicated to study and debate have. He emphasises the value of writing and well-informed “public discourse” that applies critical thinking. He further asserts that, “Intellectuals need to teach rationality and dialogue, as well as give us hope in a potentially better future, which does not mean lesser criticism when things go bad but a less gloomy view of the future.” Thus, “they should not neglect their scholarly activities but expand them, share them with a wider audience if they believe they have something interesting to tell such audience. This also requires the ability to ‘reinvent oneself’, yet without betraying one’s vocation.”
Such reinvention also calls for a re-evaluation and a revival of the importance of words – spoken or written – as well as clarity of language and awareness of how significant what we say and do might be. We need a “linguistic ecology that could give back words the power to enlighten, rather than to hide and commandeer reality, and that could allow us to understand and interpret the world with eyes unencumbered by judgement or clouded by prejudice; that could teach us the art of naming things” reminds us Latin scholar Ivano Dionigi in his Benedetta parola. La rivincita del tempo (The holy word. The revenge of time), published by Il Mulino. Words that clarify. Words that teach. Words that change the world.
Words that lead us across history. Just like – to mention a name amongst many – Ludwig Wittgenstein taught us: “Our language can be seen as an ancient city: a maze of little streets and squares, of old and new houses, and of buildings with additions from different periods; and all this surrounded by new neighbourhoods with straight streets and uniform housing blocks… To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life.” A key intellectual responsibility, then, following new maps of knowledge that needs to be both rediscovered and rewritten.
“Do not let intellectuals play with/ matches”, wrote Jacques Prévert in 1946, because “with all that prodigal talk about builders’/ work” we find that “as soon as it’s left alone … The world of the mind/ conceives/ monumental lies.” Prévert was a master of irony, a fine poet who could write intense love poems, and a scathing critic of social hypocrisy, including the haughty attitude of the educated classes – of the intellectuals – towards “popular” sentiments. Yet, he was an intellectual himself, able to offer profound interpretations of ideas, passions and feelings, as well as strict advice on lifestyle choices – just the opposite of a merely “prude” conformist.
Those verses about intellectuals and matches recur throughout the pages of a recent lucidly and meticulously written book by Sabino Cassese, one of the finest jurists in European political culture, published by Il Mulino as part of its stimulating series Parole controtempo (Syncopated words) and simply and appropriately entitled Intellettuali (Intellectuals).
In such “dark times for both intellectuals and the means they adopt to make themselves heard” – because “if ‘one is as good as the other’ there can be no difference between the wise and the ignorant” – Cassese rekindles the values of intellectual commitment, study, research, the dissemination of knowledge, and emphasises the intermingled relationship between freedom and responsibility. And it’s precisely in these difficult, controversial times, loaded with new political, economic and social challenges and ancient tensions resurfacing under new guises (the crisis of globalisation, the pandemic, war, environmental disasters, the increasingly unbearable inequality concerning rights, living conditions and opportunities for development) that intellectuals have the responsibility to ask meaningful questions as part of the public debate, in order to sharpen the tools that can provide the answers.
The “triumph of populism,” insists Cassese, “feeds the rejection of intellectuals” because “the populist attitude and the political forces that inspire or encourage it are based on a false egalitarianism that, depending on the circumstances, either declares it can do without intellectuals by often accusing them of betraying people’s expectations, relegates them to a lower position, or exploits them.”
A negative trend, to be countered with some careful thinking about intellectual work and the need for a real “battle of ideas” against demagogy, the bigoted vulgarity rampant on TV and social media, the spread of fake news, the devaluation of knowledge, the rewarding of irresponsible incompetents’ wrongdoing.
We need to go back to studying, reading, writing, researching, discussing issues and viewpoints in depth – we need to draft new knowledge maps, work on the relationship between memories and the future, between roots and innovation, and enrich our social capital with competent skills, because “the elites, competent people, are a key critical ingredient of democracy.”
The challenge concerns the intellectual professions (rereading Max Weber‘s works is recommended), but also the political and economic spheres, social organisations and businesses, the structures of association and representation. No one should be allowed to wallow in mediocrity, ignorance, conjecture.
Indeed, the economic and social spheres are not talk shows, and the complexities inherent to the “risk society” require articulate and exhaustive answers, some proper pondering, rigorous investigations on the evolution of social balances and advice on what should be done in terms of political choices and policy instruments. We need to adopt deep thought as a working tool, politics as a civil servant’s duty.
Cassese continues, “The role of university professors as public intellectuals or public moralists is part of the Italian tradition (one needs only remember Francesco Saverio Nitti, Gaetano Salvemini, Vilfredo Pareto, Luigi Einaudi). It’s precisely when we mistakenly set the people against the elite that the members of such elite need to make themselves heard – not to prolong the fight but to show that they do know how to interpret the society to which they belong (and, by extension, the people).” Essentially, we need to “react against such a worn out attitude towards dialogue, the result of the crisis affecting our political parties and of the endless opportunity everyone has to vent their opinions on the web.”
Cassese calls for the “reflection method”. He reminds us how the importance of science and research has gained new value, precisely during the pandemic period. He very well knows the weight and reputation that cultural figures and associations dedicated to study and debate have. He emphasises the value of writing and well-informed “public discourse” that applies critical thinking. He further asserts that, “Intellectuals need to teach rationality and dialogue, as well as give us hope in a potentially better future, which does not mean lesser criticism when things go bad but a less gloomy view of the future.” Thus, “they should not neglect their scholarly activities but expand them, share them with a wider audience if they believe they have something interesting to tell such audience. This also requires the ability to ‘reinvent oneself’, yet without betraying one’s vocation.”
Such reinvention also calls for a re-evaluation and a revival of the importance of words – spoken or written – as well as clarity of language and awareness of how significant what we say and do might be. We need a “linguistic ecology that could give back words the power to enlighten, rather than to hide and commandeer reality, and that could allow us to understand and interpret the world with eyes unencumbered by judgement or clouded by prejudice; that could teach us the art of naming things” reminds us Latin scholar Ivano Dionigi in his Benedetta parola. La rivincita del tempo (The holy word. The revenge of time), published by Il Mulino. Words that clarify. Words that teach. Words that change the world.
Words that lead us across history. Just like – to mention a name amongst many – Ludwig Wittgenstein taught us: “Our language can be seen as an ancient city: a maze of little streets and squares, of old and new houses, and of buildings with additions from different periods; and all this surrounded by new neighbourhoods with straight streets and uniform housing blocks… To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life.” A key intellectual responsibility, then, following new maps of knowledge that needs to be both rediscovered and rewritten.