When a society emerges, I guess most of whom we call "intellectuals" feel the need to involve themselves in the shaping of its future. There could be many motivations for it- altruism (most of them are hardly affected by the machinations of the state), a higher calling (simply reading books, doing jobs and thrashing out meaningful arguments in a debate has a shelf life) or simply the egotistic feel of driving the less privileged (less moneyed, less educated and less articulate) on the road to promises.
It does not quite remain the same when the society matures. When the first set of intellectuals retire, their actions are scrutinised and perhaps for some time their halo remains intact. Then as times change, irreverence breeds and new ideas emerge. Newer truths emerge, some skeletons are dragged out of the closets and most halos slip. The "icons" get their sets of admirers and detractors- they debate about the ideology, acumen and the motivation of the icons. The less serious ones do not even spare the private lives of these icons.
The new intellectuals, groomed in the dialogic tradition, face a dilemma- whether to carry on the tradition of public involvement or carry on with their lives. Now, the difficulties of living in a mundane world (same old job, same old environs, same old debates) are less visible. For one, if indeed the society has progressed, there are more intellectuals (as a proportion) to argue with. More intellectuals may mean more books, more ideas and more issues to contend with. Arguments can go back and forth and a lifetime can be spent on them. Newer societies (again if there has been some progress) will create more diverse opportunities (in the private sphere) and will for some time, set back the ennui that settles in a simpler life.
Perhaps more importantly, the courage disappears. Having seen the icons fall from grace, and reduced to old hacks, the new set plays safe- despite the sound bites, chooses no involvement. The muddiness of public service readily offers an excuse- its beyond repair and much more can be done without the stymying public life.
Hence the popularity of doing nothing. It does not feel right to blame this school- after all staying away does not always mean they are irresponsible. Society has to run on wheels- and wheels perhaps run better when there are brighter people running them. And truth be told, a lot of do-gooders are fed on the ambition to be someone (one way or another) rather than out of some higher calling.
But I guess someone has to reinvent the wheel.
It does not quite remain the same when the society matures. When the first set of intellectuals retire, their actions are scrutinised and perhaps for some time their halo remains intact. Then as times change, irreverence breeds and new ideas emerge. Newer truths emerge, some skeletons are dragged out of the closets and most halos slip. The "icons" get their sets of admirers and detractors- they debate about the ideology, acumen and the motivation of the icons. The less serious ones do not even spare the private lives of these icons.
The new intellectuals, groomed in the dialogic tradition, face a dilemma- whether to carry on the tradition of public involvement or carry on with their lives. Now, the difficulties of living in a mundane world (same old job, same old environs, same old debates) are less visible. For one, if indeed the society has progressed, there are more intellectuals (as a proportion) to argue with. More intellectuals may mean more books, more ideas and more issues to contend with. Arguments can go back and forth and a lifetime can be spent on them. Newer societies (again if there has been some progress) will create more diverse opportunities (in the private sphere) and will for some time, set back the ennui that settles in a simpler life.
Perhaps more importantly, the courage disappears. Having seen the icons fall from grace, and reduced to old hacks, the new set plays safe- despite the sound bites, chooses no involvement. The muddiness of public service readily offers an excuse- its beyond repair and much more can be done without the stymying public life.
Hence the popularity of doing nothing. It does not feel right to blame this school- after all staying away does not always mean they are irresponsible. Society has to run on wheels- and wheels perhaps run better when there are brighter people running them. And truth be told, a lot of do-gooders are fed on the ambition to be someone (one way or another) rather than out of some higher calling.
But I guess someone has to reinvent the wheel.
