English summary

English summary
A review of previous research shows that there is an institutionalized conception of contemporary intellectuals as silent, absent, or even deceased.
This is a conception that is established in several contributions of the scientific discourse of intellectuals, for example The Annual Review of Sociology.
Shortly after the turn of the millennium, Charles Kurzman and Lynn Owens
published The Sociology of Intellectuals, a review that came to the same
conclusion as stated earlier. Just over a decade later Gil Eyal and Larissa
Buchholz repeated the review with their contribution: From the Sociology of
Intellectuals to the Sociology of Interventions which came to the same conclusion. From that institutionalized conception this thesis asks how the former hero of reason became an absent figure in the academic discourse on
To begin with, the dissertation asks how intellectuals are usually described, in search of the answer to the question: what is an intellectual? The
result of the short reviewing shows that there is a broader definition, which
says that, an intellectual is a person who uses ideas to influence contemporary political issues. There is also a narrower definition, which says that intellectuals should be free of external interests associated with the disclosure
of knowledge, values and attitudes. Finally, intellectuals are often associated
with the Dreyfus affair and the struggle between the individual and political
power, a relation that is important for the construction of the intellectual, and
equally important for the deconstruction of the intellectual.
Further reading of previous research shows that there seems to be a consistent description of how intellectuals should act in order to be classed as
intellectual. The contributions read include Theories of the New Class Intellectuals and Power written by Lawrence Peter King and Iván Szelényi, The
Social Construction of Reality by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, Andrew Ross No Respect, Intellectuals and Popular Culture, Richard Sennetts
The Fall of Public Man, Robbins Bruce, editor, Intellectuals -Aesthetics,
Politics, Academics, Ron Eyermans Between Culture and Politics – Intellectuals in Modern Society and Vilfredo Paretos The Rise and Fall of the Elites.
The initial question therefore changed from what an intellectual is to what
makes an intellectual. And from that standpoint the thesis asks the question:
what happened when the discourse on the intellectual changed from a description of a hero to that of an absent figure?
The purpose of the dissertation is thus to illustrate how the discourse constructed a representation of the intellectual, and what consequences this construction has had for how contemporary intellectuals are described. The
analysis is made possible by an examination of a number of for the scientific
discourse central descriptions of intellectuals. As stated earlier, in almost all
descriptive text that in some way takes on the identity of the contemporary
intellectual, there is one common conclusion: intellectuals are absent. The
explanation for this is either that intellectuals do not behave as intellectuals,
or that we live in a time that does not fit the intellectual. But the descriptions
do not agree on what led to the absence of the intellectual. It is in some texts
explained as an effect of a more specialized society or another science discourse, in other texts as a result of changed politics. The review of previous
research motivates an analysis of how the collective representation of the
intellectual was established and which elements filled the nodal point with
content, and with a historical approach it is possible to see which elements
remain and which are new. Instead of analyzing the intellectuals I find it
more fruitful to analyze the discourse about intellectuals. An approach which
motivates how the myths (the difference between the modern or late capitalism and the postmodern) decide which elements that are possible to link with
the nodal point intellectual.
The theoretical point of departure is a discourse analysis in which the thesis attempts to reconcile the idea of the significance of myths for discourse
configuration. Therefore, I turned to theorists who have problematized the
concept of myth. The one I found most useful in relation to the primary theoretical approach was Jeffrey C. Alexander and his idea that even if we live in
a society which can be described as fragmented, we have a collective understanding about different phenomena, which in turn holds the society together. He writes that a society, both at micro and macro levels, is permeated by
symbolic, ritual-like activities. It is, from his theoretical perspective, possible
to understand intellectuals as a collective representation.
The concept of myth is supplemented with a discourse analysis, which is
inspired from Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s Hegemony and Socialist
Strategy. To write a thesis with a theoretical framework based upon Laclau
and Mouffe’s book proved not to be an easy way to do a discourse analysis.
That has to do with their ambition to write a book more like a concept book
rather than to provide the analyst with a coherent theory. Nevertheless, their
ideas, together with Alexander’s take on myths, made a theoretical “model”
where the concepts of Myth together with Hegemony, Nodal Point and
Chain of Equivalence made it possible for the thesis to take on a discourse
with both elderly and contemporary contributions as empirical data.
The analysis is carried out using a methodological approach that is primarily inspired by Jacques Derrida's concept of deconstruction. The dissertation does not use a specific discourse analysis. The simplest way to describe
the method used is as a way to reconstruct the principals that are taken for
granted and to reflect on what is hidden in the discourse. If we summarize
the method we end up with an ambition to identify how the different descriptions of intellectuals relate to the same or different myths and what elements
these myths enable. This is the same thing as to identify which elements
different descriptions use to fill the nodal point (or the concept of intellectual) with content. And by looking closely at how the different descriptions or
articulations fill the nodal point with content, it is also possible to analyze
how intellectuals are described and thus understand how the scientific discourse of intellectuals transformed the nodal point from a hero to an absent
The analyzed texts consist mainly of two types; texts written before and
after the linguistic turn. In part one the thesis analyses what I describe as the
fundamental texts. The analysis results in a collective representation that
deals with the individual's struggle against political power, a myth that can
be traced back to ancient myths such as the myth of Antigone, and which
appears in stories such as those of Socrates, Les Philosophes and not least
the Dreyfus affair where Maurice Barres established the concept of intellectuals in the newspaper L'Aurore in 1898. The founding myth has several
functions: it points out and enables understanding, and it gives the nodal
point a particular form.
The analyzed contributions starts with Julian Benda’s La trahison des
clercs, written in the mid twenties, then Karl Mannheim's Ideology und Utopie, published a couple of years later, and Antonio Gramcis’ Quaderni del
carcere , which was written between 1929 and 1935 but published after the
Second World War. Finally, the dissertation will also analyze Paul Nizan’s
Les Chiens de Garde. These are all texts written before the First World War.
My ambition was to follow the discourse from early modern to what is
sometimes described as postmodern times. Due to the Second World War,
there where few texts written about intellectuals from late 1930 to 1950, but
I found a couple of texts that came out during or shortly after the war. The
period will be represented by Theodor Geiger's Intelligence, which came out
during the war, and Simone de Beauvoir’s Les Mandarins, which came out
just after.
The initial reading tells us that the different contributions are leaning
against a long-established relationship, or myth that describes the political
power and individual stakeholders. The descriptions criticize (and thereby
create) contemporary social critics (or intellectuals). Along with the myth of
modern society the texts fill the nodal point with a particular content by establishing a chain of equivalence using elements such as rationality, freedom, politics and the city, a dissimulation that was consolidated by the contributions before, during and just after World War II. Based on the analysis
of the initial contributions we can say that intellectual described as a modern,
urban, universal and educated critics who relate free himself of both political
parties and other social organizations. And this is how the different petitions
wish intellectuals to be, and it is related to the notion that they variously
criticize contemporary social critics.
The analysis shows that these descriptions decided how descriptions
thereafter could be made. The descriptions made after the linguistic turn
replaced the element ‘city’ with Paris and introduced the element of specialization. The question is, what happened to the descriptions of intellectuals
when the Enlightenment challenged? In other words: what is the postmodern
critique the importance of which elements linked to the intellectuals?
The second part of the thesis begins with a review of the myth of the
postmodern, followed by a review of the contributions written after the linguistic turn. The texts that were chosen to represent the discourse after the
linguistic turn were Alvin Gouldners The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise
of the New Class, Michel Foucault’s Power/Knowledge, Selected Interview
& Other Writings 1972 – 1977, Russel Jacoby’s The Last Intellectuals,
Pierre Bourdieu’s writings about intellectuals, Zygmunt Bauman’s Legislators and Interpreters, Edward Said’s Representations of the Intellectual and
finally Frank Furedi’s Where Have all the Intellectuals Gone? The analysis
of the second part of establishment of a modern intellectual allowed then a
difference, a critique of contemporary intellectuals who do not live up to a
myth, an intellectual who especially through the connection to the lifestyle
of Jean Paul Sartre is currently described as absent.
The reading shows that the texts initially use the same myths as the
founding four descriptions, and the analysis shows that the descriptions create a modern universal intellectual as if there had been such an intellectual.
They describe how an intellectual should act, as if they really existed, and
say that they no longer act as they used to. The change of the discourse begins with the modern universal intellectual, described as a postmodern specific counterpart. When intellectuals are described as specialists the contributors replace elements such as rationality, freedom and politics with
bourgeois, academization and politicized. The discourse changes from what
an intellectual ought to do to what they are doing, and the collective representation that deals with the individual's struggle against the political power
is replaced with a specific intellectual lifestyle and especially the lifestyle
personified by Sartre. The myth that surrounds the “total” intellectual becomes a new collective representation that the intellectuals should live up to.
Overall, the descriptions written after the linguistic turn agree that intellectuals gave up the role of the total intellectual and of the political antagonist.
The dissertation shows that the founding texts established the nodal point
or intellectual in relation to two myths that I describe as the foundation myth
and the myth of the modern. There were myths that functioned, as Derrida
describes, as arch scripts. The myths established a representation that was
stored in discourse, a representation according to which each subsequent
description must behave. One aim of the project was to describe what happened when the collective representation of the intellectual changed from a
description of a hero to that of an absent figure? And as a contribution to the
relatively extensive research on intellectuals, I bring in the idea of cultural
and institutional regulation and how it cooperates with the change of the
discourse. When Alexander describes the difference between ancient and
contemporary stories he mentions that the traditional took on an almost mystical form, it was stories like that of Antigone or for that matter Les Philosophes or by Zola that set the tone for how intellectuals should behave. The
analysis shows that the founding contributions described the intellectuals in
relation to a myth, or to use Alexander’s conceptual framework, a holy
shape. When Antigone, Les Philosophes or Zola were described in contributions both before and after the linguistic turn they where described as almost
sacred, as they strived for a higher principle. The analysis shows that the
descriptions formulated after the linguistic turn first constructed an idealization of the modern intellectual, an idealization that the same contributions
used to show that contemporary intellectuals no longer existed. A criticism
that was possible by using Sartre in the same way (as an idealization) as
Antigone, Les Philosophes or Zola, but instead of using them to formulate
what I described as a fundamental myth (the relationship between the agent
or intellectual and political power). The contributions focused not so much
on what Sartre and others around him wrote or said. They focused more on a
the specific lifestyle that where metaphorically described by using quarters
like Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Greenwich Village or Bloomsbury and lifestyles which contemporary intellectuals have difficult relating to.
As Alexander writes, an actor must relate to existing myths to be interpreted. When it works, the audience doesn’t think that the actor is playing a
role. The difference identified in the discourse of intellectuals is that when
the description was transformed from a focus on how intellectuals should act
in relation to a "sacred" myth to analyzing how contemporary intellectuals
lived in relation to the myth (a myth that was well illustrated in Beauvoir's
descriptions of how actors try to look and behave as intellectuals, but failed
in her book Mandarins.), it became clear that it was impossible.
The ideal of the founding myth was simply impossible to live up to. The
principal contribution of the thesis to research on intellectuals is its consideration of how myths impact on how intellectuals can or should act and in
extension, the representation is described. We cannot free ourselves from the
notion of the intellectual because we can only understand an intellectual
based on an existing discourse about what an intellectual should do or be.
The discourse is in turn regulated by the myths that determine which elements can be linked to the intellectual.