Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  223 / 126 Next Page
Show Menu
Previous Page 223 / 126 Next Page
Page Background



however, those “who had acted as a check on the realism of

the people began to act as its stimulators” (45). The clerks’

participation in the game of political passions signifies their

treason, which results in political turmoil and social upheaval.

Benda grieves at this treason, for it indicates the loss of

morality, conscience, and universal values.

In contrast to Benda, Antonio Gramsci would accentuate

the intellectual’s participation in social activities. Gramsci

distinguishes between two groups of intellectuals: the

traditional and the organic. Traditional intellectuals include

professionals in such spheres as the religious, literary, scientific,

etc., whose position “derives ultimately from past and present

class relations and conceals an attachment to various historical

class formations” (Gramsci, 1971: 3). Organic intellectuals, on

the other hand, form a new type of intelligentsia; they act as

“the thinking and organising element of a particular

fundamental social class,” characterized “less by their

profession . . . than by their function in directing the ideas and

aspirations of the class to which they organically belong” (3).

For Gramsci, “[a]ll men are intellectuals” (9), in the sense that

they have and use their intellect; but only those who

participate in social activities and class struggles perform the

intellectual function. Gramsci makes it clear: “The mode of

being of the new intellectual can no longer consist in

eloquence . . . but in active participation in practical life, as

constructor, organiser, ‘permanent persuader’ and not just a

simple orator” (10). Unlike Benda’s transcendental clerks,

Gramsci’s intellectuals are motivated by political passions and

devoted to the struggle of social forces

and hence are

essential to the workings of modern society.

Michel Foucault also differentiates between two

categories of intellectuals: the universal and the specific.

Dominant in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the

universal intellectual acted as “the spokesman of the universal”