The Norm of Intellectualism

Intellectualism in its general usage is used for the emphasis on exercise of intellect and reason. However, this blog shall use the word Intellectualism in a different light. Intellectualism is the obsession of people with appearing intellectual. Guy Debord elaborated on the fixation of society with “spectacles” or appearances rather than actual subject matter. Debord extensively wrote about the rising consumerist class which wishes to consume more and more goods. This idea can be extended further to consumption of ideas for not the sake of expansion of knowledge but for attention and space in public discourse. There is a rising obsession of common folks to engage in public spaces in discourses with common redundant ideas. There is an increased fascination with “activism”. A neo-interpretation of activism in digital spaces has taken form of “social media activism”, birthchild of “intellectualism”, easy access to a platform and obsession with appearance.

Activism is an ambiguous term as it can range anywhere from a non-violent non-cooperation to a bloody protest. It has several different layers to it and several different aims. A new digital space in the form of social media has emerged, a revolution in the public discourse. Jurgen Habermas defined a public sphere as one wherein people are free to discuss their issues of the day free and unrestricted out of the state apparatus. Although there are positive sides to a free unrestricted space there is also a side to it that shapes the discourse malignantly.

Active propaganda is not the only way that an individual’s thinking process is affected. The most common way is manipulation and agenda setting. Social media makes people aware of the identities that might not even actually exist. There is a heightened sense of identification and sensitivity towards constructed social group while complete abandonment of the traditional institutions.

We should first start with the concept of “sologamy” a hyper-constructed unreal socially blasphemous destruction of the traditional institution of marriage. In every culture across the world, the significance of marriage remains alike. Marriage is viewed as a sacred tie, sanctitious and holy. The most fundamental principle of marriage is the cooperation between a man and a woman to raise a child and build a family. To contort this basic social institution, a prima facie example of our inter-dependence as humans into a narcissistic reality is at best criminal. There are certain underlying institutions that have evolved by themselves and exist in every culture without active preservation. The most important aspect is how the customs associated with marriage might change, however the sanctity of the union remains throughout. The neo-woke feminists might argue that marriage makes women subordinate to men; however, that is not the case entirely. This argument usually comes from the privileged educated section of women who in most cases are not exposed to social evils. Their want for more freedom and limited duties arises from this wave of argument that forces women to think that they are oppressed similarly, to the same degree and even universalization of this oppression. The distinction between solidarity with women in distress and self-imposition of struggle and victimization draws in thin. The traditional institution of marriage has certain duties associated with the role of husband and wife, which are not at all rigid as such in every stratum but the so-called sologamist believes them to be applicable to every marriage.

Woke culture increases the desire of humans to want more and more “freedom” unreasonable and isolating as it may be. Such hedonistic desire isolates one from one's own community, leaving an atomistic individual behind. The discourse built in any debate for identity is now based on individual identity rather than identity as a part of a group. There is a growing, and rather worrying, desire for an individualistic lifestyle.

Recently, Roald Dahl’s books were heavily and brutally censored in the name of sensitization and inclusivity. Passages and words related to mental health, gender and race were altered by the British publisher Penguin Random House’s sub-division Puffin books. Roald Dahl is renowned for his imaginative and vibrant books for children. In one of his most popular books “Charlie and Chocolate Factory” the antagonist’s description has been changed from being ‘enormously fat” to just “enormous”. In another blow to his imagination, the new edition of his work “Witches”, a supernatural female poses to be an ordinary woman working as a “top scientist or running a business” instead of as a “cashier in a supermarket or typing letters for a businessman”. This is what hyper-awareness brings; an attack on free thinking in the garb of protecting individuality.

The basic tenet of liberalism in individualism. The pseudo-liberals and far-left-pseudo activists tend to forget that with individuality come dissenting opinions, a different sense of humor, a different imagination, a different perception and a whole new different set of beliefs. The woke social media activists list down on a few debates with the same redundant arguments of individual identity, freedom of expression of all forms and at the same time infringing on the rights of a dissenting idealogue to express ideas in any form. Roald Dahl is no political writer. His vividly humorously books are meant for children, yet the political debate of pseudo-inclusivity has seeped deep into his writing, ruining the legacy of Dahl’s distinctive writing.

I call these arguments pseudo-ideologies since they contradict the very ideology they claim to be in support of. Let us jump into the gender debate. There is a plethora of gender identities today and new identities on the spectrum keep being “discovered”. Every individual today seeks some form of identification; as a heterosexual, as a homosexual, as a pansexual, maybe even asexual and what not. There are terms and names for gender identities that are not even gender “identities” rather just preferences in romantic life. The obsession and fixation with conformism has reached a pinnacle point. Michel Foucault predicted the mobilization in the name of gender and called “sexuality a sham”. Evidently enough, this hyper-awareness in part of the people of their constructed identity (constructed out of general preferences) benefits corporate houses and even the state. During the pride month, there is a roll-out of numerous schemes and merchandise for celebrating the non-hetero gender identities. To believe in something greatly benefits corporates. When people group together as a herd based on a constructed non-traditional identity, they tend to stick to its ideals with greater conformism since there is no real idea or lifestyle attached to it. For example, when we talk about religious identities there is a set belief attached to it; a core set of principles that gives the identifiers enough freedom to interpret it as to suit their needs and wishes. Companies cannot interfere in this sphere and construct a new requirement; they have to compulsorily rely on what already exists; there is a huge scope of hurting sentiments. However, in the case of hyper-constructed identity, say for example asexuality, there is no core principle. There is tremendous scope of creating needs of items and services that might even be not needed. Woke campaigns are not aimed at bridging the existing inequalities rather to profit from the obsession with wokeness.

During the Black Lives Matter Movement the concerned Indian masses were calling for support in favor of it, completely forgetting the deep divides and social issues that exist in India. This is how the state benefits from hyper-sensitivity. It becomes plenty easy to distract citizens from the real world concerns, of economy, unemployment, education for all, access to healthcare, maternity care, equality of opportunity, social evils, intolerance and so on to a set of number of concerns of much greater insignificance such as pronouns.

A free digital space like social media platforms has proved that it is so much easier to construct a metanarrative and let people remain blind and fixated therein keeping them unaware of the reality that exists. You can create a narrative of severe oppression or of a utopia, all it depends on is an attractive piece of writing that can capture popular imagination.

Ideology is what we call a worldview, a set of beliefs that enable us to comprehend how society functions, that gives shape to our aspirations and aims. However, with the easy access to hedonistically free social media platforms there is a rise of hyper-sensitivity, hyper-reality and hyper-awareness. People are concerned with the association of their self with an identity marker, with a label, aspiring to become a part of a community constructed not on shared principles but rather a propaganda. The so-called anti-capitalists become a part of the corporate campaigns thinking they are making a difference when in reality they are simply reaping profit for the corporate houses. Traditional institutions are attacked and sought to be demolished in the name of feminism, individual freedom and liberalism when all it results in is a herd of atomistic individuals each of whom thinks he is a part of a community; however, remains alone and aloof in the fixation of picking sides and ideologies to appear intellectual. An intellectual is often the one who seems to be an intellectual, he may not necessarily have substance in unorginal argument but till the time he believes in a particular something even if blindly he will be viewed as an intelligent figure by the internet community. The essence does not lie in what the idea is trying to express rather it has been made into kind of a norm that being a “free-thinking political liberal” associates to being intellectual. The originality of ideas has been replaced by conforming to a certain set of arguments to classify as an intellectual.

Every debator starts associating atomistic individual freedom to policies and practices. There is a growing fascination with associating hyper-sensitivity to intellectuality when the two realms are entirely. Individual identity gets completely destroyed in this approach to protect a singular thought process.