Public Intellectuals and Politics: Part 2

Filipino intellectuals who are involved in partisan electoral politics can feel addressed by the comments of a philosophy professor in South Africa about  intellectuals in relation to politics, and politicians.

Bert Olivier teaches at the Nelson Mandela University. In one of his blog posts, he cites the publicly-known involvement of Cornel West as “adviser” during the campaign of Barack Obama, and information he has about South African intellectuals who may have received funding from certain politicians in exchange for their “intellectual services.”

He asks if ” intellectuals who have placed themselves in the (perhaps paid) service of politicians, retain their integrity and independence as intellectuals.”

The premise of his question is that “it is characteristic of intellectuals… that they exercise their social and political involvement with a high degree of autonomy through the medium of intellectual engagement.”

His answer is carefully balanced: “An ‘intellectual whose ‘intellectual services’ are bought, that is, paid for to promote a certain political agenda – and one with which he or she does NOT necessarily agree – seems to me to have compromised his or her autonomy. (Schopenhauer called such people “bread-thinkers.”) However, if an intellectual supports and promotes the interests of a specific political figure or party voluntarily and for a certain time, because he or she believes in the principles or values represented by such a figure or party (at that time), it need not be a compromising activity.”

For him, Cornel West’s lending his intellectual support to Barack Obama is acceptable, “as long as West is using his formidable intellect as a way of exercising his political freedom to further certain societal values,” which Obama shares with him. But he is quite scathing of some South African intellectuals: “There are other so-called intellectuals in this country who have already compromised their intellectual integrity – that is, their commitment to what they understand as being the best and most just manner of organising society – by yielding to an irresistible offer or two. They have ceased being intellectuals in the true sense.”

Does Olivier’s sharp distinction between two forms of intellectual engagement in politics apply to the Philippines?

In the heat of partisan polemics, many Filipino intellectuals yield to the temptation of claiming that only those on “our side” are like Cornell West, while those on the “other side” are Schopenhauer’s “bread-intellectuals.”

This partisan framework extends to how they classify traditional political leaders who switch from the administration. They are either “principled” or “opportunist” depending on which opposition camp they join.

To them, Saul Alinsky offers a more realistic and fairer framework.

Saul Alinsky’s ideas on community organizing have influenced our generation of Filipino activist-intellectuals. He has written that good community organizers need to be “somewhat schizophrenic.”

Why schizophrenic? Because when community organizers agitate people for conflict-confrontation, they have to pose the issue in “either-or” terms, 100 percent versus zero. “Polarize and personalize,” he says. Analytically, organizers may know that the choice is only between 60% versus 40%. However, since no one will commit their energies for a 20% margin, public agitation must pose the choice as a stark 100 percent versus zero.

We could also describe this as the tension between being an analyst and being an activist. If we present our analysis with all its nuances, will we not be less effective partisans? If we “polarize and personalize” we may be effective agitators, but at the expense of educating the public. And would we not be sacrificing our intellectual integrity?

During the 1992 electoral campaign, I was a partisan for the presidential bid of Senator Jovy Salonga. At a forum sponsored by the Institute for Popular Democracy, I was asked to present an analysis of the comparative strategies and chances of the competing candidates. While doing my homework, I arrived at the conclusion that Fidel Ramos had the best strategy and chance of winning.

As an analyst, I would have to present that conclusion which favored Ramos. But that contradicted my role as a partisan campaigner for Salonga. I begged off from doing the presentation of the analysis. And in responding to it, I cited the fact that Salonga had twice been on top of the winning list of senators. Perhaps the analysis missed out on factors we do not know. Maybe we needed to consider what a Protestant pastor called a “margin of mystery.”  Well, that mystery still remains.

A final word from Olivier about the partisan choices of intellectuals: “Whether it is likely that she or he would be in agreement with everything promoted by the political figure or party in question, is a matter for debate; my own feeling would be that it is unlikely – if one were to be honest with oneself, it would be hard to claim that you always agree with even your closest friend. But this is not regrettable, because the ‘good’ is never definitively attained in any society; there is invariably room for improvement and improvement requires debate.”

Explore posts in the same categories: Community Organizing, Leadership, Renewing our spirit