Thomas sawyer challenges sociologists from an economist's perspective. His vast knowledge has made his critical criticism of social issues so unique that he has often come directly to the heart of the problem in the form of admissions. Intellectuals and society was a work published in previous years。
Thomas sawyer's translation of the book " intellectuals and societies " , by intellectuals, reflected on their own groups. More famous, such as paul johnson, an intellectual of the british, focuses on the dark side of history's famous intellectuals, exposing the moral deficit behind their great achievements with a pen of scavenger journalists. The french, raymond allon, " opium of intellectuals " , confines writing to critical and analytical french intellectuals. And saïd's theory of intellectuals is a deconstructive approach to how intellectuals relate to the power structures behind them in a modern era where the media are well developed and where political and academic interests are closely linked. In contrast to what is described above by intellectuals, sowell's research is not aimed at a knowledge giant with a history of knowledge, nor at expert scholars who are at the forefront of research in their respective fields, but primarily at groups of intellectuals who speak about social affairs and have a direct or indirect impact on the various dimensions of society. This group is dominated by media, legal practitioners, etc. Experts in various humanities and sociology fields, even scientists, are included if they speak to public affairs outside their fields of expertise and are actually involved in influencing society. In the old saying, it is “public intellectuals”. The book appears to be shouting at “public awareness”, but the reader will find that the term “publicity”, as defined in the book, and the “criticalness” of this group, have a different meaning。
The book begins by pointing to the fact that intellectuals who express opinions on the various dimensions of society, and who even have an impact on them, do not have knowledge of the areas in which they express their views, let alone seek further information, data and research. Secondly, all social and historical events with enormous consequences, although influenced by collective rhetoric from intellectuals, are never held accountable. On the basis of these two points, sowell argues that the vast majority of statements made by public intellectuals to social firms are tendentious and tendentious, and are contrary to the principles of science and rigour that are prevalent among intellectuals in their fields of study。
However, sowell did not stop at a statement of the facts, but further explored the reasons for the phenomenon of “publicity”. In his view, the intellectuals' perception of social problems was broadly divided into two categories: one, which he named “the idea of sanctification”, and the other, known as “the idea of pessimism”. Intellectuals with a social vision of the former, first of all, believe that society is moving towards an established goal, that it is never perfect at this time, but that it can be close to perfect through efforts. For them, what has already been achieved in those realities is historical. What needs to be done is how to perfect those present deficits in the future. They are therefore always concerned and critical of the present shortcomings. However, those who hold the latter social vision are generally convinced that any outcome of human civilization needs to be sustained and protected in order to be sustainable, and that any optimism about the future or the enjoyment of its achievements will lead to unsustainable and inevitable deterioration of existing civilizations. They have always believed that human civilization and barbarism are only one step away. They do not believe that the world can be perfect, and that a better society is based on experience-based adaptation and improvement based on efforts to preserve existing good institutions and cultures。
Those who have the idea of sanctification have a strong sense of moral superiority and believe that their thoughts represent the high level of human morality, which is “for the sake of the people” and “for the peace of the world”. Therefore, in their view, any sacrifice and cost is justified under noble objectives. They are also characterized by the belief that any social problem has an abstract “ideal” and that all thinking needs to revolve around this ideal. Within the framework of thinking about “ideal” societies, specific problems, specific individual feelings are often drowned in cold data and grand narratives and ignored. In the author's view, the social tragedy caused by intellectuals with the idea of sanctification is evident. Paradoxically, pessimists do not recognize the existence of the so-called ideal, but the actual feeling of survival of one individual. Sowell has tactfully avoided the vague notions of “left”, “right” and so-called “conservative”, “radical” and, at the same time, “liberal”, “conservative” and so-called “conservative” terms, which can only be presented in the context of specific things. Instead, it divides social concepts, which differentiates two fundamentally different groups from one another。
Sowell's classification of intellectuals is similar to that of isaiah berlin's “fox-probate”. The latter, while studying russian intellectuals, referred to the poems of the ancient greek poet archlocks, which divided the world's intellectuals into “fox-type” and “precious-type”. In other words, there are two types of knowledge and expertise. Berlin's metaphorical dichotomy is actually intended to “provide a place of observation and comparison, a starting point for pure research” (isaiah berlin, russian thinker). It seems to me that whether berlin's “fox” or “sacrifice” metaphors or sower's “sacred” and “pessimism” ideas, they divide the knowledge community from the spiritual level. Both are at the heart of the intellectual community's thinking, effectively escaping the social identity fence and moving directly to the “meta-issue” dimension。
The author's main object of criticism is a group of intellectuals with an awareness of the concept of sanctification. By its very nature, the idea of sanctification divides societies between “due” and “real”. On specific issues, it is hoped that the utopian design package will address the problem. Unfortunately, sowell did not explore further the idea of “sacred” intellectuals. In fact, we can draw inspiration from the archaeological anatomy of knowledge carried out by foco。
According to foco, “knowledge” is not by itself objective, but is “made” by many external factors such as culture, society, institutions, etc. In other words, knowledge is not “produced” or “created”, but rather “constructed”. As times change and external factors change, the “knowledge structure”, consisting of knowledge-cognitive approaches, can also mutate and break. As a result, the knowledge spectra of fukuo's recent generation has been characterized by typologies, i. E., “literate rebirth”, “classical knowledge” and “modern knowledge”. In short, renaissance is targeted by the universal connection between things, that everything is united by mysterious and intrinsic ties, and that concern is for the similarities that the world displays. To be clear on this point, it is easy to understand why da vinci is such an incomprehensible and uncorruptible generalist, as well as why he and the artists of the same period are filled with austrians and symbols. In contrast to classical knowledge, the focus of attention has shifted to similarities between things. As a result, this knowledge structure always attempts to classify things at different levels in order to demonstrate such differences. By means of a two-dimensional table, the holders of classical knowledge can integrate the world into different types. In the view of classical intellectuals, knowledge is the only thing that is classified and can be incorporated into the classification system. Thus, in this “formation” of knowledge, the world is divided into two distinct dimensions: an orderly world that has been transformed into knowledge by classification; and a real world that is chaotic. The former world exists in “ideal”, “rational”, “ideology”, while the latter is literally surrounded by itself. So, we can see that the so-called “sacred vision” of the mental cord is connected to the “classic knowledge” parent, defined by foco and derived from the late seventeenth century. Although the classical knowledge structure marked by hierarchical classification lays the foundation for today's scientific research (as is the case with linai's division of plant species, which forms the basis of today's biology), as a “cognitive form”, it overemphasizes differences and ignores the relevance of things, ultimately leading to the dichotomy of the world. Thus, foco pointed out that the “modern knowledge” that replaced the classical knowledge structure in the late nineteenth century sought to fill the gap in the former's cognitive structure by creating a functional, similar and related “organic structure”。
Sowell's criticism confirms foco's theory from another direction. In his view, the qualities of “general moralization” and “neglect of individuals” held by sanctifiers led them from the point of view to violate the principles of objectivity and logic, especially in areas unknown to them outside the scope of their profession. In the case of the “minimum wage”, public opinion that conceived and called for a minimum wage policy was intended to provide security for low-income people. Most governments of modern civilizations have adopted such policies, thanks to long-standing intellectual appeals and influence. But the consequence of the minimum wage is that employers are reluctant to hire more people, while young people would have been able to enter a certain industry through low wages and build up higher levels of proficiency through extended working hours, thus enabling them to receive higher salaries. However, the minimum wage system prevents more young people from gaining access to work, thereby losing the prospect of higher wages through experience. This was not only unexpected to the callers, but also unwilling to admit it. This case clearly shows the inherent “classical knowledge structure” of the “sacred intellectuals”, i. E. The fragmentation of labour and labour relations, and the neglect of differences between individual labourers with simplified classification and confrontation. In other words, the idea of “sacrosanctification” does not want to see either the intrinsic interconnectedness of a complex society or the end of differences, but rather attempts to replace individual, implicit and complex differences with simple, opposing and clear differences. The whole world is just an abstract dichotomy for them。
Despite the cautious reservations made in the book by sowell about the intellectuals being “circumficient,” it is even more ironic. However, the mental trap of his “perception of sanctification”, which he put forward and criticized, remains significant. The idea of sanctification can easily provoke social contradictions in the process of making the world a simple one. This way of thinking is not only an enormity of radical social reform and revolution, but also an engine of expansionism and war and a pet of modern nationalism and nationalism. The “impression of 1914”, which emerged before the first world war, which resolved all the remaining problems in europe through a major war, is very common in the european intellectual community. This classic “sacrosanct vision”, through intellectual advocacy, not only profoundly influences the decision-making on war at the national level, but also creates a general sense of optimism and militancy in society. After the second world war, the vast third world countries, which had suffered from colonialism, had ushered in a wave of independence, but it had also provided a fertile ground for the idea of sanctification to become a narrative of a great revolution. An “ideal” society plays an important role in most social upheavals, taking the form of ideology, religion, culture, nationalism and nationalism. While intellectuals in not all countries are playing a role, so long as the utopian-defeating reality’s rivalry persists, and so long as societies remain obsessed with abstract and ambitious goals such as “re-emergence”, the idea of “saltification” and its consequences will repeatedly erode the growth of civilization。
No matter how much sower opposes intellectual intervention in society, this group's criticism of society is both realistic and inevitable today. Even criticism of the intellectuals themselves is an important component of social criticism. Especially in societies where governments and people are relatively isolated, where intellectuals are forced to choose their positions, their impact on social direction is even more important. German philosopher carl yasbers wrote in the spiritual state of the times that “the unity of life and understanding seems entirely self-evident for ancient generations”, yet today's people find that life and understanding are at odds and therefore “think how the world should understand, and we doubt the validity of every interpretation”. In this sense of crisis, modern people have lost their homes. This book was written at the time when the nazis came to power, and he was thinking of the problems in a sense of “absolute shock”. When it is recognized that the present reality cannot be tolerated in any way, existence becomes a crisis. No profession or discipline can solve the crisis of modern human existence alone, and intellectuals are forced to take part in public affairs outside their circles. No one can find the most compelling truth, but questions must be asked or interpretations must be questioned。
