.jpg)
printPolitical Function of the Intellectual:
History and Modernity
Dyakov A.V.,
Associate Professor, Head of Department for Ontology and Theory of Epistemology, Institute of Philosophy, Saint Petersburg State University, a_diakoff@mail.ru
elibrary_id: 681761 |
DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2019.01.03
For citation:
Dyakov A.V. Political Function of the Intellectual: History and Modernity. – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No. 1. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.01.03
Abstract
The article analyzes political function of the intellectual in terms of epistemology. Although “intellectual and politics” is a rather popular research topic, the subject of such studies is usually limited to the question whether the intellectual should be an advocate of some ideology or political party. Moreover, in such studies the epistemological aspect tends to be left out – a gap this article seeks to fill. The author considers the political engagement of the intellectual not as dependent on his inner circle or biographical data, but as directly derived from the discursive modification in which his theoretical activity takes place. This allows to represent the relationship of philosophy and politics at a discursive, rather than psychological level. The article shows how the theoretical discourse itself can be a political action. It substantiates the thesis that the political function of the intellectual is not an arbitrary choice alien to his main work. On the contrary, the intellectual’s theoretical position substantiates his political choice and gives him the opportunity to become a subject of political action. Political action, in turn, serves as a justification for theoretical work and an active moment of self-reflection for the intellectual. With the disappearance of one of the components, the other one loses its meaning as well. The article offers a schematic overview of the relationship of theoretical and political discourses directly related to the work of a traditional intellectual, identifies the main parameters andconsequences of the abolition of this connection that occurs in modern political space. The author shows the negative consequences of this gap, which adversely affects both the nature of the theoretical activity of the intellectual and the practical sense of intellectual’s political gestures. Analysis of the current state of the problem allows the author to identify the need for redefining the political engagement of the intellectual and problematizing new relations of political practice and theoretical work.
Keywords
political activity, intellectual, epistemology, discourse, postmodern, subject, subjectivation.
References
Allen A. 2011. Foucault and the Politics of Our Selves. – History of the Human Sciences. Vol. 24. No. 4. P. 43-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695111411623
Aysha E.El-Din. 2006. Foucault’s Iran and Islamic Identity Politics Beyond Civilizational Clashes, External and Internal. – International Studies Perspectives. Vol. 7. No. 4. P. 377-394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2006.00260.x
Baudrillard J. 1991. La Guerre du Golfe n’a pas eu lieu. Paris: Galilee. P. 104. (In French)
Drake D. 2003. Sartre: Intellectual of the Twentieth Century. – Sartre Studies International. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Existentialism and Contemporary Culture. Vol. 9. No. 2. P. 29-39.
Dyrberg T.B. 2016. Foucault on Parrhesia. – Political Theory. Vol. 44. No. 2. P. 265-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591715576082
Elshtain J.B. 2014. Why Public Intellectuals? – The Wilson Quarterly. Vol. 38. No. 1. P. 76-88.
Foucault M. 1978. I reportages di idee. – Corriere della sera. Vol. 103. No. 267. 12.11. P. 1.
Giesen B. 2011. Intellectuals and Politics. – Nations and Nationalism. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 291-301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8129.2011.00490.x
Gutting G. 2016. The Politics of the Order of Things: Foucault, Sartre, and Deleuse. – History & Theory. Studies in the Philosophyof History. Vol. 55. No. 4. P. 54-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/hith.10828
Jubb R., Kurtulmus A.F. 2012. No Country for Honest Men: Political Philosophers and Real Politics. – Political Studies. Vol. 60. No. 3. P. 539-556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00934.x
Kromann J., Andersen Th.K. 2011. ‘Parrēsia’: The Problem of Truth. – Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization. Vol. 11. No. 2. P. 225-230.
Lynch Ch. 2013. On Plato’s Political Philosophy. – Perspectives on Political Science. Vol. 42. No. 1. P. 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2013.738988
Macmillan A. 2011. Michel Foucault’s Techniques of the Self and the Christian Politics of Obedience. – Theory, Culture & Society. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276411405348
Melzer A.M. 2003. The Public Intellectual: Between Philosophy and Politics. Lanham (Md.): Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 280 p.
Nemoianu V.P. 2004. Politics and the Intellectual World: Changes in Europe. – Modern Age. A Conservative Review. Vol. 46. No. 1/2. P. 32-42.
Nye S. 2015. Real Politics and Metaethical Baggage. – Ethical Theory & Moral Practice. Vol. 18. No. 5. P. 1083-1100.
Petković, K. 2010. Michel Foucault and the Ontology of Politics: E Pluribus Unum? – Politička Misao: Croatian Political Science Review. Vol. 47. No. 3, P. 176-202.
Smith G. 2014. Intellectuals and (Counter-)Politics. Essays in Historical Realism. New York; Oxford: Berghahn, 254 p.
Vossen B. van der. 2015. In Defence of the Ivory Tower: Why Philosophers should stay out of Politics. – Philosophical Psychology. 2015. Vol. 28. No. 7. P. 1045-1063. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2014.972353
Zuckert C.H. 2004. Plato’s Laws: Postlude or Prelude to Socratic Political Philosophy? – The Journal of Politics. Vol. 66. No. 2. P. 374-395. https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00156.x
Agamben G. 2012. Homo Sacer. Quel che resta di Auschwitz: L’archivio e il testimone. (Russ. ed.: Agamben G. Homo Sacer. Chto ostaetsya posle Osventsima: arkhiv i svidetel’. Moscow: Europa Publishers. 192 p.)
Diakov A.V. 2010. Michel Foucault i ego vremya [Michel Foucault and His Time]. Saint Petersburg: Aleteya Publishers. 672 p. (In Russ.)
Foucault M. 2014. Le Courage de la verite. Le gouvernement de soi et des autres. (Russ. ed.:
Foucault M. Muzhestvo istini. Upravlenie soboi i drugimi II. Saint Petersburg: Nauka Publishers. 358 p.)
Lenin V.I. 1968. Materializm i empiriokrititsizm [Materialism and empirio-criticism]. – Lenin V.I. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Izdanie 5 [Complete Set of Works. Fifth Edition]. Vol. 18. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury. P. 7-384. (In Russ.)
Lyotard J.-F. 1998. La Condition postmoderne. (Russ. ed.: Liotar J.-F. Sostoyanie postmoderna. Moscow, Saint Petersburg: Aleteya Publishers. 160 p.)
Plato. Sobranie sochinenii v chetyrekh tomakh [Collected Works in 4 volumes]. Vol. 4. Moscow: Mysl’ Publishers. 1994. 830 p. (In Russ.)
Sloterdijk P. 2009. Kritik der Zynischen Vernunft. (Russ. ed.: Sloterdijk P. Kritika tsinicheskogo razuma. Ekaterinburg: U-Factoriya Publishers; Moscow: AST Publishers. 800 p.)
Content No. 1, 2019
See also:
Round Table of the «Polis» Journal, Tolstykh V.I., Mezhuyev V.M., Guseynov A.A., Boroday Yu.M., Kazin A.L.,
National state: theory, history, political practice (Foreword ТоIstуkh V.I. Moments of discussion: Mezhuyev V.M., Guseупоv A.A., Воrоdау Yu .М., Кazin A.L. ). – Polis. Political Studies. 1992. No6
Inoguchi T.,
Political theory. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No3
Sudakov S.S.,
Epistemology of political pragmatism. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No1
Martyanov V.S.,
Post-modernity: Revenge by “the Accursed Side of Modernity”. – Polis. Political Studies. 2005. No2
Farmer M.,
Rational Choice: Theory and Practice. – Polis. Political Studies. 1994. No3
.jpg)
.jpg)