A literature review: For a Scholarship with Commitment by Pierre Bourdieu

Ananya Azad।। The author Pierre Bourdieu argues in his article “For a Scholarship with Commitment” intellectuals, specially scholars should intervene in the political sphere and it can be effective for themselves, also the scholars should play in the different social movements at national and international level. He argues that researchers, artists and writers who plays a role in the world of politics are not primarily politicians, according to a model formed by Emile Zola of the Dreyfus Affair; but intellectuals or public intellectuals. Those who invest their values such as impartiality and honesty in politics without abandoning their duties and ability as a researcher are scholars and intellectuals.

Bourdieu argues scholars who are public intellectuals, often shocks the academy by violating ‘axiological neutrality’ and on the other hand, people of political and journalistic fields who thinks of the scholars as a threat to their monopoly. In general they shock the people who think of the scholars as a disturbance in their political life. Scholars often risks awaking all form of anti-intellectualism which is by so far dormant within cultural capitals like bankers, industrialists, politicians, journalists, and civil servants and even among intellectuals. Scholars must criticize both anti-intellectualism and intellectualism. They have to criticize the abuse of power and authority in the name of intellectual authority, or foremost they have to criticize intellectual authority as political weapon inside and outside of intellectual field. These qualities or as I should say according to the author ‘Critical reflexivity’ is the absolute precondition to be an active intellectual in politics. It is essential that all scholars must submit themselves to the critic of scholastic bias which the author called ‘campus radicalism’ which is to confused between the things of logic and the logic of things, revolutions in the order of words or texts and revolutions in the order of things, verbal sparring at academic conferences for interventions in the affairs of the city.

The author says after receiving these seemingly negative feedbacks, the certainty that intellectuals are essential to social struggle. We have to be against the idea of specific intellectuals because this specific intellectuals is the tool of the neoliberal ideology and neoliberal think tanks uses the specific intellectuals to do its/their job properly rather than collective intellectuals, and the autonomous collective intellectuals need to stand up against the misuse the concept of neoliberal think tanks which abuse these by having some specific intellectuals. The negative function is that it must work to create and spread defense against domination. Collective Intellectuals implies their dominance while criticizing lexicon of discourse which is globalization, flexibility, employability etc on mode of reason and specifically on the use of metaphors. The positive function is that the collective intellectuals contribute in political invention. As a result, the definition of critical thought is needed to be reconstructed. Collective intellectuals can play the most important role to reconstruct critical thought by helping to create ‘realistic utopias’. Other important tasks collective intellectuals can play are organizing joint research facility, connecting different working groups and assisting their dynamics. To fulfill the task of the collective intellectuals, a paradoxical doxa is needed. This doxa will accept some aspects of conservativeness by restoring economic relations in the previous manner but in other cases it will act as progressive by accepting reforms and revolutions to create a new world. The author argues that even if the scholars have a decision to make between neoliberal doxa and cosmopolitanism, they can choose to support new internationalism against fake universalism. This decision is based on the fact that fake universalism serves the interest of dominant while new internationalism is capable of handling air pollution, ozone layers, nonrenewable fuels or atom clouds which are more universal. To do so, the scholars must go against the boundaries they feel within, which depend on national traditions, scholarship, commitments etc. Instead they should create a combination of scholarship and commitment in the political field and scientific field.

In conclusion, the author believes that innovation in the world of politics is only possible if we can organize the collective work of researchers and artists. The scientists will play the primary role by invoking science of economy in the new constitution. Writers and artists will participate by creating new ideas. Sociologists on the other hand will analyze the unique role writers and artists can play in this new political system.

I believe that what the author tried to state in his paper is correct. Scholars should have a great influence on political field even if by definition they are not politicians. To work is to create, analyze ideas, and implement them in scientific methods. So that even if the political structure is unknown; we can get probable results and errors my applying those ideas and scientific methods. According to Foucault, “The intellectual is simply the person who uses his knowledge, his competence and his relation to truth in the field of political struggles”. (Foucault M. Truth and Power, p.128) A scholar must remain in a bias less environment to achieve the goals. He should also consider questioning his ideology, impartiality to remain a true scholar. Criticism is for the sharpness of the theory. Through criticism we can get to know what is right and what is wrong. As the author says, criticism is important not only for intellectuals but also for innovation in the world of politics. Even Foucault and Bourdieu take the idea that the classical sociology of intellectuals need to be reconstructed, converted into a twenty-first-century sociology of interventions. (Gil Eyal and Larissa Buchholz, From the Sociology of Intellectuals to the Sociology of Interventions, p.119)  So we can say that if the scholars are non bias, critical and able to use scientific methods- it can be more efficient than today.

Citation:

• Foucault M. 2000. Truth and Power. In Essential works of Michel Foucault, Vol. 3: Power, ed. P Rabinow, JD Faubion, pp. 111-33, New York: New Press
• Gil Eyal and Larissa Buchholz. April 13, 2010. From the Sociology of Intellectuals to the Sociology of Interventions, p.119, soc.annualreviewa.org