A Review of “Intellectuals and Society” by Thomas Sowell
The central problem with this book is, the writer comments epitomises everything he criticised.
To be honest, I could not finish reading this book. As much as I was captivated by the idea of the book and what I thought Thomas Sowell (the writer) meant, his inability to stay unbiased remained a distraction. This was particularly surprising, especially considering what the book was about.
“Intellectuals and Society” was a discussion on the relevance of intellectuals. It raises some important questions: why do we need them? What role do they play? How do we weed out the good ones from the bad ones?
To start who is an intellectual? The book defined that as being “an occupational category, people whose occupations deal primarily with ideas”. This definition suggests they are incentivised to focus on ideas that are more shocking and jarring, rather than steer the population towards addressing critical issues in their society. Most “intellectuals” in this context emerge from the literal field, bringing to question the robustness of their arguments on critical topics like economics.
To illustrate using something closer to home, Chimamanda Adichie came to mind as I breezed through this section of the book. After her acclaimed book “Half the Yellow Sun” and her famous Ted Talk on the Single Story, the rising star found herself associated with a range of topics from identity to more recently, feminism. Using her platform to express or rather shine light on issues of concern, has generated some controversy.
Thomas Sowell’s argument is pretty much an against the club of intelligentsia. He questions their relevance in society because he believes that the know-how to any problem exists within the population. The experienced class understand trends and cycles; at least intuitively. And exposure to this, make them the go to resource not masters of words, whose claim to fame arise from being able to display consistency in thinking and cues that suggests merit-able ideas. He also talks about how the intelligentsia requires a rationalisation of actions by people working in a field in other to justify their existence. This he feels is a problem because the systems and procedures developed in-industry cannot always be logically presented nor explained to a simpler audience. All in all, he believes that the insights and ideas to a society’s problem are randomly distributed across every structure within the society and would require concise effort to identify. This uphill battle cannot be justified by the alternative, which is the judgement of intellectuals.
His arguments sounds thorough at first. But with each passing chapter it becomes clearer: intellectuals are left leaning progressive liberals, while the experienced class is everyone else. In other words, this book reads like an attack on liberal democratic ideals by a conservative thinker. His attack on the welfare state, government intervention and defense of multinationals was nauseatingly one sided. His style of discussion involved pointing out holes in the ideas of the “intellectuals” (all liberal democratic ideas) and later presenting a “balanced” point of view” (mostly conservative stances). If his argument was to be consistent, exploring intellectuals in the context of this book should have considered both the conservative stance and the liberal stance, after which he goes on to point out holes in BOTH arguments. A final recommendation should have then proposed a world view that considers what actually resolves the issue both side of the divide are trying to address. After-all, the final frontier for both liberals and conservative thinkers is a higher average standard of living; therefore, divergent points of views should not stand as hindrance.
Do not be mistaken: there is a need for intellectuals. As societies become more complicated, practices are developed that need to be constantly reviewed to ensure they align with the times and also protect the less vulnerable in society. It is in these space that intellectuals are relevant. They bring to the lime lights issues that are somewhat forgotten and have been sort of accepted as a part of life. By their actions, the public is empowered to make up their minds and sometimes, their style of expressions unlocks insight within people in the society into how that issue can be resolved.
Another topic from contemporary Nigeria will take us to a sensitive issue within its religious space, tithing. Tithing is a topic that most christians (myself included) had secretly questioned and wondered its relevance. A lot of preachers had used the bible verse, Malachi 3:10 as justification for collection. It had become a part of the customs and culture making many Nigerian religious leaders very rich, even as the message they preached had little or no effect on the society they were supposed to change. The bible verse “touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm” was constantly quoted as immunity from their church’s condemnation. Many christians grudgingly paid approximately $18 billion annually to these institutions, with a bulk in the form of tithe. In recent times however, a radio show host, Daddy Freeze challenged this practice claiming the way it is requested is not as designed by God. The logic and virility of his comments forced a response from a large number of church leaders. This comment further sparked a range of debates around the social responsibility and religion, expensive lifestyle of these leaders and tithing. Playing the role of an intellectual, his comments catalyzed the examination of the role of religious institutions in modern day Nigeria and has compelled some significant changes to how they operate.
Intellectualism does not have to be an occupational category or simply liberalism as Thomas Sowell chose to paint it. It can simply be a hobby or a way of life. With the entrance of the internet, anyone with time on his hand, a software to correct spelling & grammar mistakes, and a medium account (like moi) can be tagged an intellectual. They can curate ideas and solutions they haven’t the faintest idea about (to get clicks) or also share ideas as altruistic token contributions to society’s advancement. And they can self regulate their excesses, by ostracising anyone with catastrophic ideas or supporters of corruption and injustice. Until the accused can justifiably explain the reasons behind his or her misjudgment, other intellectuals will naturally rise up as gate keepers to protect the sanctity of the profession (or hobby). It will be difficult to fool many people all the time in an age where the internet never forgets.
A problem I have however with intellectuals is how difficult they find it to settle over conflicting ideas with a middle ground. Maybe out of fear of being ostracised, most are incentivised to retain their stance even amidst contrary evidence to it.
Despite this, history time and time again, reminds us that the best of societies are founded on the best of ideas. And the best of ideas are the product of subjecting structured ideas through the rigors of criticism and ridicules possible amongst intellectuals. The route to improving the type of ideas we generate is to generate more. Which translates to democratising the whole idea generating world by enabling an environment where all can give their honest opinions on every aspect of their daily lives and even give recommendations. Amidst this multitude of ideas, I believe we would eventually figure out contextually relevant ways to retain only the best ideas, and ensure they become a part of who we are.
