Intellectual Power, Part-1

Hamid Rayhan

The power of intellectuals remains a legitimate concern at a time when performativity, measured in terms of discourse on bureaucracy and corporatism, is becoming increasingly important. It should be. In fact, it is argued that the power of intellectuals should concern us and is supported by Nietzsche, Foucault, Edward Said, Lacan and other thinkers who support this claim. Intellectuals have an essential reason to assert that there is an intimate relationship between discourse, will and power and that all intellectuals try to express themselves, like the respective conceptions of Foucault and Lacan.

From this report to the question, what is it? The current state of universities is specifically in South Africa. Intellectuals are really spaces where academic freedom and intellectual autonomy flourish, or the real situation does not correspond to this normative expectation. The power concepts of intellectuals of discourse, power or knowledge, power, panoptic, intellectual and Lacan’s four discourses are examined to evaluate the de facto role of the world of intellectuals in opposition to the de jure role, concluding a review of the four parts, Heidegger as a possible touchstone for what is considered a speech welcoming the human being of the human being that seem disturbing as an amalgam of destiny that can affect these academics and intellectuals. The two words are not synonymous with those currently submitted and, in some cases, resist the widespread bureaucratization of universities in South Africa. Among other things, it is the prayer of boredom, the desert of gray and opaque boredom that those who resist want to avoid, not only for themselves, but also for their students. As Kierkegaard illustrates, boredom is closely linked to the need to combat it by the rotation method, an inventive way of giving life a never-ending aesthetic novelty, but this role has been assumed by the entertainment of the world, and current industry.  It is likely that few people go beyond simply changing TV channel or sending SMS via a properly called cell phone to fight boredom. In addition, the more people get bored, the more capitalism flourishes in the open air, providing instant interest, reality shows and professional sports to pornography; at a price, of course. And the provision of entertainment, in what Kristeva, after Debord, calls the society of the spectacle, is related to the theme of this document, namely the exercise of power.

Academics and intellectuals who work in universities, especially in the critical human and social sciences, and who conceive of these institutions not only as training camps for the future workers of a country’s economy, but also as spaces. For the culture of the citizens, a distinction made, able to live critically and responsibly in a democracy, has an interest in counteracting the paralyzing power of entertainment, but also the paralyzing power of the bureaucracy, with a power of a different type, what is relevant today for universities as politically sensitive institutions, regardless of the fact that the reasons for the crisis it refers to are different today, given the current universities of colonization by the imperatives of capitalism student demonstrations of the seventies in 1968. In the context of a discussion of the different types of intellectuals, who are in turn different intellectuals, the universal intellectual and the specific intellectual constitute respectively a return to the subject treated at the beginning of the interview, a sword, of science and its ideological functions. The questions posed by this are summed up in power and knowledge. It is to highlight the relationship of a science such as psychiatry with social, political and economic structures, the intertwining of the effects of power and knowledge, being more comprehensible, sciences such as theoretical physics and chemistry, something new, this also high. Later, this time regarding medicine. For various reasons, the interest of the intellectuals, the Marxists not in communist countries, but also in France as well as in other non-communist blocks, the question of the problems, the problems and the subject. The global dispensation, known as postmodernity, which the questions formulated graphically assume, assumes its political importance, which gives it the courage to move forward, this time in the direction of imprisonment practices.

In a variety of related topics, such as the mistaken theory of historical discontinuity, are credited with it. This translates into the assertion that, in the case of continuous and simple patterns of development, the evidence presented, the reason that has been proposed, the accepted forms of knowledge, and the language regimes have been redefined the affirmations of the policy of scientific affirmation. Already in this formulation, we can see an evolution, in terms of the notions of discursive regime, of the effects of the power of the game of utterances, in terms of the relation between science and conceived ideology. In Marxist terms, as false consciousness, it completes the final elaboration of relations between the different types of intellectuals including those of universities and power. Epistemological values, affirmations located in a system of propositions. That is, alluding to what is called the episteme, a concept has been considered a synonym, in conjunction with paradigm. What we mean by discursive regime and power regime, when it indicates rapid changes in scientific practices, so that only the sign of something else is presented: a change in the rules of formation of statements accepted as scientifically true. It is therefore not a question of a change of content, of the refutation of old errors, of the recovery of the Old Testament, nor of a change of renewal of the theoretical form of a paradigm, of the modification systematic sets. This is what governs the statements and how they are handled to constitute a set of scientifically acceptable proposals and, therefore, likely to be verified or falsified by the procedures. In summary, there is a problem of diet, the policy of the scientific statement. At this level, it is not so much about knowing what is external.

Power is imposed on science with respect to the effects of the power that circulates between scientific statements, its internal power regime and how and why, sometimes, this regime undergoes a global change. It is these different regimes that identify and describe the order of things, but what is missing is the problem of the discursive regime, the effects of the power of the game of statements. Too much with the systematic, the theoretical form or something, like a paradigm. The question of the political meaning of science, whose subject marks the beginning of the interview, as mentioned above, must be seen in the context of what, on the propositions governed by a discursive regime. Without this, one could not interpret their distinction between the universal intellectual and the specific intellectual, so that it is possible to understand that each of them belongs to a different discourse regime, with the concomitant implication that the regime of the universal intellectual gave. To another discursive regime, in which the intellectuals donot take place. This should be the case. The universal intellectual whose writer, who represents the moral and epistemic interests of humanity, is the exemplary figure, corresponds to the Marxist figure of the proletariat as a subject of historical history or carrier of the universal. Through the moral, political and theoretical choices made by the writer, the proletariat, incarnated to perfection, immediately embodies the universal dialectical telos, individualizes and becomes conscious. This is no longer justified. On the other hand, it can be considered that the specific intellectual has replaced its universal counterpart and this evolution can be understood in the light of the intellectuals’ assertions about the relationship between declarations and discursive regimes in light of their evolution in the historical evolution.

The situation, which is inseparable from the kind of scientific, technological and cultural change that includes a different system of coherent and corroborative concepts and propositions, the context in which the universal intellectual has worked, exists more. The reasons are a series of possible historical events in which the specific intellectual was conceived as a recognizable figure. In addition, sciences appear again here as one of the crucial, perhaps even decisive, contexts where such intellectuals play an important role, but with a difference: it is no longer the Althussian type of Marxist structuralist science. What justifies the workers of the false consciousness that accompanies the ideology that the conception is always taken in the obsolete philosophical model of the subject of the conscience, which has been resolutely overcome by the so-called linguistic turn, its own position being a complex appropriation The arrival of what could be called a linguistic episteme in the archaeological sense, while recognizing the role of language as a discourse that indicates the convergence of power and meaning, has something more decisive than the great linguistic model or the linguistic system. Signs and the relationships of meaning, and to understand today’s role change, one must understand what it is and what the consequences are. The point of reference of each individual should not be the great model of language or language and signs, but that of war and combat. The story that takes us and determines us in the form of a war instead of a language, and relations of power, not relations of meaning. History does not make sense, even if it does not mean that it is absurd or inconsistent. On the contrary, it is intelligible and should be analyzed down to the smallest detail, but this depends on the intelligibility of the struggles, strategies and tactics. Neither dialectics, as the logic of contradictions, nor semiotics, as the structure of communication, can explain the intrinsic intelligibility of conflicts. The dialectic is a way of avoiding the always open and dangerous reality of conflict, reducing it to a Hegelian skeleton, and semiology by avoiding its violent, bloody and murderous character by reducing it to a form of dialogue and platonic language.

Scroll to top