The quota intellectuals – should we really still think?

As in previous years, the German periodical «Cicero» nominated the five hundred «most important intellectuals» of the German language this year, with one lady among the first four: Peter Sloterdijk, Peter Handke, Jürgen Habermas, Elfriede Jelinek.

Now one could argue about whether Peter Sloterdijk is just as “important”, that is: imaginative and profound, as the doyen of the younger Frankfurt School – which Sloterdijk once declared dead – namely Jürgen Habermas. Seen on the world scale of intellectuality, there is no question. From an academic point of view, presumably none of the other great minds, neither on this side nor on the other side of the Atlantic, comes close to the social-philosophical veteran Habermas. But that’s probably not the point here.

agitated public opinion

What is it then? It is about the position as so-called Public Intellectual, that is the widespread group of the last knowledge universalists, whose image results from the fact that they write on all topics in a generally understandable way, provided that the readership has what is today “medium educational standard”. names.

Admittedly, it still remains somewhat of a mystery as to what resulted in the image of Peter Handke and Elfriede Jelinek, the two Nobel Prize winners from Austria, as an intellectual heavyweight. And the answer seems to be: They are not about producers of weighty arguments of a factual nature, but about agitators of public opinion, namely that which is so called by the journalistic professionals of the culture of debate.

We need the public intellectual without publicity addiction.

Decades ago, in 1966, at the conference of the so-called Group 47 in Princeton, Handke expressed a criticism with his drumbeat-like remarks on the “descriptive impotence” of the German-speaking literary greats reading and discussing there, which was directed against the claim that literature had a socio-critical function. In the essay that followed, “I am an inhabitant of the ivory tower”, he deepened his criticism: the much-vaunted realism of post-war literature was only one form of representation among others, a – as one would say today – a “reality construct”.

It was intellectual, clever, debunking the literary fashion of the time. Later, Handke got involved in the politics of the Balkan wars in an unfortunate way after he – together with his then lecturer Raimund Fellinger – received a had received the highest order.

Why is such a deviation worth mentioning? Because “being intellectual” for Germany’s educated public apparently has less and less to do with truth-seeking achievements that deepen democracy. Handke never apologized to the Bosniak victims of the war, he never once distanced himself from his pro-Serbian writings and claims – on the contrary, he always appealed to a deeper poetic truth, a realization of “looking”. Would the admission of wrongful convictions have damaged his image, which had assumed the character of a poet-priest?

Distorted view of reality

And Sloterdijk? He has undoubtedly been a leading voice since The Critique of Cynic Reason (1983). His attacks on Habermas could only benefit him. The “progressive” social criticism had long since become boring. Sloterdijk’s hyperpopulist argument, according to which the German state is the biggest thief of all because of excessive tax demands – it is a matter of “legally restrained state kleptocracy” – was just as little resented by the great thinker in the feature pages as his abstruse idea of ​​compulsory taxes through “gifts to the general public’ (his harshest critics were found among the ‘old-fashioned’ left). Sloterdijk’s reputation as an intellectual did not detract from the idea that in a polis that harmonizes public welfare with individual freedom, taxes would be paid on a voluntary basis.

And as far as Ms. Jelinek is concerned, it is still amazing that she is considered a great intellectual in broad literary circles. For decades she has never tired of scourging Austria as a country of Nazis, sexists, racists and corruptionists in a literary manner (i.e. unassailable). Ms. Jelinek does not spread lies, but like Handke, she distorts political realities, in her case through an emotionally stimulating montage technique, whereby this procedure is now hailed and immunized as “literary truth” by legions of German scholars, directors and theater critics.

These are just highlights of an informal profession to which I myself feel a part. The pointing is only intended to show that the audience may already be too accustomed to the various methods of scandalization, even asking for them. Such an imprint does not go well with the complex role of being a thinking person at the same time as a critical authority, a bringer of fresh ideas and a illuminator of questionable depths.

It starts with thinking. Does a public that has been brought up to constantly stimulate its intellectual situation still want people to “think”? Isn’t it more about being supplied with buzzwords – in the literal sense of the term – on a permanent basis? Nowadays, thinking always means scandalizing at the same time.

Hair-splitting and emotional shrillness

Meanwhile, as a result of the scandal, the criticism of social and political conditions literally becomes a questioning of the values ​​to be negotiated. Not long ago, actress Whoopi Goldberg of color – admittedly not exactly a prime intellectual – gave us an example of this when she boasted on a talk show that the Shoah was not an act of racism, as both parties , victims and perpetrators, were white. And that in the face of six million Jews who were gassed by the Nazis! Ms. Goldberg’s apology, which was handed in later, was probably also not committed to the intellectually insightful confession of one’s own stupidity, but to quota thinking.

Nonetheless, radical blacks saw the unspeakable statement as a bold articulation of a “fresh idea.” On the other hand, the horror of all moderate ears that could hear was dismissed by parts of diversity culture as an expression of that mantra-worried human rights faction that in reality worshiped a pro-Jewish sentiment. The half-life of human concerns and ethical attitudes is becoming shorter and shorter.

And finally the role of the intellectual as a figure who illuminates the hidden caverns and dark abysses of our community with the light of the unswerving spirit. If we disregard Mrs. Jelinek’s travesties of a shooting gallery society, then the role of the exaggerated intellectual – based on Thomas Bernhard’s characterization as an “exaggeration artist” – is obvious. In the past, Zeit commentators liked to remark as a bon mot that one should not make an elephant out of a mosquito. Today – to stay with the metaphor – mosquitoes are rhetorically inflated into elephants until popular anger boils and one does not know whether the civil war is to be prevented or the state of emergency is to be stimulated.

Just think of the intellectual struggle in all gender issues; to the “Wokeness” movement, which can hardly be surpassed when it comes to hair-splitting and emotional flamboyance, to which more and more up-to-date spirits are pandering. The storming of the strongholds of the generic masculine seems to have been largely successful and is still much too short-sighted. The most important works of world literature, namely the Bible and all literary classics, are still not gendered. But if they are, then there is still plenty to do: because the question of whether the dichotomy “female/male” still reflects the spirit of repression against everything “diverse” has hardly been asked, has it?

Against public addiction

One characteristic of the public intellectual has not been mentioned so far. It is about its decline through the inflation of its competence; he must succeed in occupying literally all high-profile topics. Here is Richard David Precht’s official list of issues that he claims to be able to deal with competently: Digitization, artificial intelligence, unconditional basic income, migration, European Union, education, animal ethics, the future of the automobile, biotechnology, especially reproductive medicine, the corona crisis, euthanasia .

There is still a lot missing, for example the third world war or – don’t mess around, make big! – the end of the world. If you take the topics mentioned together, a mastermind emerges, whose decidedly male gender could, however, be an obstacle.

Mind you, what has been said is not a polemic against the “public intellectual” per se. Because it is obvious that a pluralistic democracy with its lobbies, its corruption, its narrow national perspective and its intellectual white spots – topics that are hardly taken up by the quota-dependent mass media – requires intelligent voices that are not oriented towards the mainstream, but are oriented towards the expert comment.

Let’s hope that the dying species of the liberal, competent critic who weighs his judgment will be filled with more life again. We need the public intellectual without publicity addiction.

Peter Strasser is university professor i. R. He teaches philosophy at the Karl-Franzens-University Graz. Special number recently published: “A hell full of miracles. Late philosophizing» (2021).