Steve Macek's piece on the Marxist framing of intellectuals hit many of the right notes. The first noteworthy point made was how despite the filtration of Marxist concepts into much of mainstream rhetoric literature and communication circles, we haven't experienced such a transition of intellectuals in the political process. Early Marxist figures would employ much of a hands-on approach to ensuring that ideas translate into reality through political organizing and involvement in social movements. The frequent interaction of the intellectual with 'the common man,' as Macek asserts, revitalizes the movement towards social and economics justice.
The paucity today of politically active intellectuals, both in the communication and broader academic circles, has less to do with the deficiencies in the critical communications theories than it does with the restructured system of academia. Institutions housing intellectual opinion are more often publicly subsidized, creating a natural hesitancy to totally deconstruct state policy. Writings that tend to be more critical are designed for mere academic consumption, and its efficacy in shifting public opinion is therefore reduced. Rhetorically, there seems to be a major disconnect between the well-intentioned intellectual and the public, with the former choosing language that can be considered prosaic, stale, and anodyne.
What I feel is the result nowadays is the creation of a class of pseudo-intellectual lightweights. Instead of deconstructing public policy, they're task is to merely repackage the government strategy with some minor tactical reservations. Rhetorically, they would often employ fear-provoking hyperbole or oversimplified metaphors. Beyond their smooth-talking veneer are political leanings that inevitably remain within the status quo.
The paucity today of politically active intellectuals, both in the communication and broader academic circles, has less to do with the deficiencies in the critical communications theories than it does with the restructured system of academia. Institutions housing intellectual opinion are more often publicly subsidized, creating a natural hesitancy to totally deconstruct state policy. Writings that tend to be more critical are designed for mere academic consumption, and its efficacy in shifting public opinion is therefore reduced. Rhetorically, there seems to be a major disconnect between the well-intentioned intellectual and the public, with the former choosing language that can be considered prosaic, stale, and anodyne.
What I feel is the result nowadays is the creation of a class of pseudo-intellectual lightweights. Instead of deconstructing public policy, they're task is to merely repackage the government strategy with some minor tactical reservations. Rhetorically, they would often employ fear-provoking hyperbole or oversimplified metaphors. Beyond their smooth-talking veneer are political leanings that inevitably remain within the status quo.
Comments