We are really looking forward to tomorrow's discussion and are hoping it will clarify some of these points for us further - however, we have done a lot of thinkinng about these topics in the last few days and this is how we hope to steer the conversation.
Firstly, our readings for this week were centered around intellectuals and universities. But what is an intellectual?
We encountered several definitions from diverse sociological standpoints. We started with "those who create, generate, and apply culture" (CITE), but this comically broad definition risks "diluting the object beyond recognition" (Eyal, Buchholz 118). Given our project, Foucault's definition "simply the person who uses his knowledge, his competence, and his relation to the …show more content…
This word adroitly pairs separation and prestige - both potent concepts for a theorization of intellectuality. Given our understanding of intellectuals as situated within an institutional context though, the marriage breaks down: Intellectuals *must* be affiliated (47) - the "consequence" which Foucault is getting at clearly depends on alignments of and with power - both for and against (42). Since individual and institutional prestige depend as well on consequence, distinction's slippery meaning becomes outright oxymoronic. Burawoy gives us a clear warning that the entrepreneurial approach taken by administrators of UNC Chapel Hill (85) is not for everyone, and that in order to truly fulfill its promise as an educational facility and knowledgeable agent, a university has to address problems "consequentially" not only on a global scale, but with a meshwork of global and local contexts informed by a deeper sense of institutional responsibility. This understanding is particularly important for our class because of our intimate connections to Brown and the University of Warsaw, especially as we at Brown attempt to "Build on Distinction" for the next ten years, and as OMM work to reveal the treasure of solidarity to a global …show more content…
Alignment is Kennedy's turn, but Eyal and Buchholz also alight upon the similar concept of "allegiance". In their review they isolate three questions asked by sociologists before 1980. 1. Under what conditions do intellectuals become radicalized in political behavior, 2. What is the role of "party" intellectuals, and 3. What is the class of intellectuals and where between labor and capital might we locate it. To what/whom do intellectuals owe allegiance
Firstly, our readings for this week were centered around intellectuals and universities. But what is an intellectual?
We encountered several definitions from diverse sociological standpoints. We started with "those who create, generate, and apply culture" (CITE), but this comically broad definition risks "diluting the object beyond recognition" (Eyal, Buchholz 118). Given our project, Foucault's definition "simply the person who uses his knowledge, his competence, and his relation to the …show more content…
This word adroitly pairs separation and prestige - both potent concepts for a theorization of intellectuality. Given our understanding of intellectuals as situated within an institutional context though, the marriage breaks down: Intellectuals *must* be affiliated (47) - the "consequence" which Foucault is getting at clearly depends on alignments of and with power - both for and against (42). Since individual and institutional prestige depend as well on consequence, distinction's slippery meaning becomes outright oxymoronic. Burawoy gives us a clear warning that the entrepreneurial approach taken by administrators of UNC Chapel Hill (85) is not for everyone, and that in order to truly fulfill its promise as an educational facility and knowledgeable agent, a university has to address problems "consequentially" not only on a global scale, but with a meshwork of global and local contexts informed by a deeper sense of institutional responsibility. This understanding is particularly important for our class because of our intimate connections to Brown and the University of Warsaw, especially as we at Brown attempt to "Build on Distinction" for the next ten years, and as OMM work to reveal the treasure of solidarity to a global …show more content…
Alignment is Kennedy's turn, but Eyal and Buchholz also alight upon the similar concept of "allegiance". In their review they isolate three questions asked by sociologists before 1980. 1. Under what conditions do intellectuals become radicalized in political behavior, 2. What is the role of "party" intellectuals, and 3. What is the class of intellectuals and where between labor and capital might we locate it. To what/whom do intellectuals owe allegiance