The intelligentsia is a cool

This text should start in Joyce's style, without commas - since the topic, as it seems, is disgusting and hopeless. The author decided to maintain punctuation marks, but the second paragraph will consist of one sentence - to aggravate the already gloomy forebodings of the reader.

In Russia, there is little consensus on the issue, but in relation to the concept of “intelligentsia”, it seems, it has been achieved; It is clear that rotten, it is clear that it squeals, splashes saliva, wipes his pants, does not produce anything, does not find a place for himself; He does not know what else to do, where to put yourself, white -white and Bandera; Vasisuali Lokhankin, Pablo Okrat, Klim Samgin, unprincipled, that's all; Funny-it has been the same since the 1930s, when in any work the intellectual (pince-nez and beard) could only play an ornamental role; Then, in the 1960-1980s, he reached the peak of subjectivity-and again rolled along the inclined; Again, laughter, again - only an ornament for a macho, continuous desubjectivation, nothing, a functioning function; And in the tenth years, he also becomes a sharply negative hero; for the role of cowards, Judus of the movie chooses him; Neurasthenik, then the traitor, finally, the spy is an indirect justification that they were not in vain at one time; The main criminal in the series “Mosgaz”, as in the “Spider”, a whole scattering of villains in the series “Leningrad 46”, in dozens of like the mass viewer identifies precisely as “intellectuals”, which the authors achieve; They call a person intelligent, if he has nothing to praise for anything more; The expression "St. Petersburg intellectual" contributes only to the museumification of the concept; Sorokin laughs (the main intellectual in the “telluria” is simply UD), Pelevin is gloating - but everything is clear here; The word itself turned into a muffled meme (approximately like “thaw”); There are also “intellectuals in kitchens” - it sounds like “take a Christmas tree”; Even the intellectuals themselves are ashamed of self -name, masochist repeating “there is no more intelligentsia”; The expressions “you are an intelligent person, and smoke near the kindergarten” you will no longer hear - they send democratically, simply, without ceremonies.

All this is understandable, the intellectual is dead.

But why is contempt for him still so vividly? .. Why doesn't hatred for him subside? Why is there so many claims to this endlessly obsolete concept? And why is he again “to blame for everything”?

The intellectual is dead. But why is contempt for him still so vividly? Why doesn't hatred subside?

The intellectual after Auschwitz

The problem here, first of all, as Friedrich Hayek would say, with anthropomorphism of the concept: saying the “intelligentsia” today, represent, first of all, a familiar or acquaintances - and transfer a negative attitude to the whole group. It is clear that there are no saints here - but, in addition, there is still the very idea of ​​the “intelligentsia” - which, it seems, has forgotten about.

The concept of "intelligentsia" over the past seventy years has also transformed, has been sharpened. Once, for example, it was important to carry “good manners” or progress to the masses. Today the intellectual is for a long time no longer "the one who is in the hat." Not necessarily the one who speaks beautifully. Or who has a higher education. Who has read many books or who has a “cultural” profession. And, of course, not the one whom the state appointed by the intelligent. Perhaps one thing remained decisive from all past definitions of the intellectual - one who does not act for considerations, but for reasons of conscience. The ethical component in the definition of the intelligentsia today prevails - ideally - over everyone else. It can be assumed that this is a reaction to the phenomenon of totalitarianism in its different forms in the twentieth century; The new intelligence was built on contrasting the new unprecedented hell. Everything else does not matter - when humanity itself is at stake. It is worth citing a classic example from Hannah Arendt (“personal responsibility for dictatorship”). Only a small part of German society, Listt writes, in the 1930s was not subject to propaganda, neither culture, nor level of education, nor even “morality” (on automatism, without active questioning) did not play a decisive role here; With all these virtues, they just quickly found themselves in the idea of ​​"new domination." The only effective means against “onsosoria” was not so much cultural as psychological practice: the ability (some people turning into painful-saving!-necessity) to conduct an invisible dialogue with themselves (that is, with super-i, or conscience). This is the definition of the “intellectual after Auschwitz”: the one whose highest judge is not a boss, leader or state. This is categorically important not just for preserving the space of personality, self, self -care (in the spirit of Foucault, as in the "hermeneutics of the subject") - but for the preservation of humanity itself within the boundaries of humanity.

From all past definitions of the intellectual, perhaps one thing remained the decisive one - "one who does not act for considerations, but for reasons of conscience."

The intellectual is not the one who has a hat, but the one who has a conscience.

There is such an illusion of the name of Joseph Brodsky: that the evil is always vulgar, that it is aesthetically terrible, as a rule, ethically terrible, so you just need to develop a taste, and he will tell you the right ethical solution. This formula, alas, is not universal - we will not recall the Arendt again, and why: before our eyes, there are a lot of examples of how people with taste were powerless to recognize political evil.

Intelligence - at least today, at least in Russia - there is an appeal to the most naked ethics in a person, and nothing more. “There are people who have a captain inside,” sang cresters; This is a comic image, but it must be remembered that in the authoritarian country, the majority of this “captain” outside - in the form of a parent, boss, and authorities. In an authoritarian country, most people prefer to advance their conscience-and therefore the solution of some existential issues, primarily about good and evil-to the state, thereby refusing to take responsibility, make a decision about themselves . The intellectual in the highest sense is the one who decides about himself.

Only a small part of German society, writes Arenid, in the 1930s was not subject to propaganda; The only effective tool was the ability to conduct an invisible dialogue with oneself. The intellectual in the highest sense is the one who decides about himself.

Another criterion for intelligence today can probably be considered a fundamental rejection of violence. The intellectual is a man of peace, dialogue and communication, he is always ready to negotiate - not with his own conscience, but with another, even with an ideological opponent. He is the only conscious pacifist and humanist. The expression “collective Okudzhava” - a network euphemism, denoting the intelligentsia - characterizes not so much Okudzhav himself as the power of hatred for him, preserved as many years after his death. Hawks from Glavpur despised him exactly for the same: the front -line soldier, fought, was wounded - but he made out of this experience hatred of war as such; I found an anti -corneal language that was unique for the USSR, anti -vanity (the same way was done half a century earlier than Leo Tolstoy). “Mr. General, glory to the killed, and living a woman needs him” is a sexist, of course, definition in the current times, but the essence is important. In 2014, observing the general militarization of consciousness, you asked yourself: is there any “language of the world” in Russia, rooted in culture and mass experience? And he understood with horror - no; All these official spells “peace”, songs and dances did not change mass psychology, did not instill new instincts-as, say, they made the Beatles in the West in the 1960s. And only one “funny” Okudzhava (along with the BG, Makarevich and Shevchuk as the successors of the tradition) left us the “language of the world”. Of course, here we will be remembered “Letter 42” , under which there is a signature, including Okudzhava, - well, we need to answer. The worst happened to the intelligentsia then what could happen: she first spoke “as power” and on behalf of power - and this was for her, we hope, an instructive lesson. In this regard, they still like to say that, they say, “what power, such an intelligentsia,” but the fact of the matter is that not. No other social group in Russia has neither the experience of freedom, nor the experience of the struggle for their rights, nor even the culture of doubts-after all, we had nothing similar to the Polish "solidarity" even in the 1980s.

The intellectual in Russia is a derivative of the authoritarian state. He is not from good, but from a thin one: he is always a reaction to such power.

Any struggle against the intelligentsia as a phenomenon does not matter whether this is a type of organized struggle or spontaneous, voluntary - and in the USSR, and today it is aimed at not eradicating the social group itself (it can be imitated, fake, as the current government likes to do), but the deprivation of its ethical basis. Whether it is ridiculed in cinema or series, attempts to overstrown (“creative”, “technical”, “Soviet”), as in the 1930s,-or, as in the 2000s, contrasts (“intellectual”-“intellectual”)-all these are attempts to emerge, deprive the concept of ethical rod. Hatred of intellectuals is not connected with social alien - contrary to general opinion - but with the fact that they act “stupidly”, contrary to “logic” - the same one that today has the appearance of “you need to feed children, so you have to lie”. For the same, Academician Sakharov was despised - at first “invented a bomb”, and then he began to “speak”, that is, he simply gripped, substituted, according to this pink -cheeked logic.

The same Foucault in the three -volume “Intellectuals and Power”, nor in other works, it seems, never uses the words “intelligentsia”. Yes, and why is it to him (and others) - there is simply no practical need for this. Ethical consensus in the European society of the 1970s is a given. In Russia, ethical consensus was never achieved; The public agreement on good and evil has not yet been concluded-neither in the 1990s, nor later, although there were prerequisites for this-therefore, each time you have to start everything again. The intellectual in Russia is a really product, a derivative of an authoritarian state. He is not from good, but from a thin one: he is always a reaction to such a state, such power. The deficiency of individual conscience in the majority is compensated by increased conscience in individual representatives, and this is not a reason for admiration, but simply a sad mathematical pattern.

Against this background, the conversations that “the intelligentsia has died” is meaningless: the intelligentsia exists in Russia as a safety element of the system itself from a complete moral collapse - but thereby, it turns out, endlessly prolongs the life of the system itself; Such is the Mephistopheles paradox. While the general principle - violence in relation to personality - will not change in Russia, a type reminiscent of an unresolved problem will constantly be reproduced. There is no cultural gap between the sixties and the current intelligentsia - the general conditions, in principle, have not changed - and the book of Gleb Morus about dissidents therefore looks so relevant.

Irrationalism of the right is so attractive because it replaces everything already decided for us - history, geography, race, culture.

Intelligent International

The attitude to migrants today is the most important ethics marker. The decision of Angel Merkel to invite victims of the war in Syria to Germany - unbearably ethical ; She did so contrary to any political logic and even self -preservation. This causes the animal, irrational hatred of Russian propaganda - they prophesies her collapse in any fantastic versions; But in this hatred, again, there is a fair amount of personal : Merkel with his behavior destroys the usual idea of ​​“pragmatic behavior” - that is, “inevitable and justified cynicism of politics”, as is understood in Russia.

Populism as a rhetorical technique, from Le Pen to AFD (“Alternative for Germany”), in just a couple of years acquired the form of an international psychological and social phenomenon; And although everything is not so scary , the peak of it may have to be just for 2017 - there will be elections in France and Germany. Populism is only pretending to be politics, it is a “policy for politically minors”; But so far it is only good for him. It is very difficult to deal with populism - the new plague of the 21st century, since it appeals to the irrational, to the worst instincts of man. “Return to traditional values” is simply an excuse for violence, an attempt to legitimize cruelty as a political and human norm. Irrationalism of the right is so attractive because it frees a person from independent decision -making about himself - replacing it , as if already accepted in advance, decided for us - the very “history, geography, race, culture”.

This gloomy irrationality in the spirit of de Mestra needs - obviously - to contrast a certain new rationality, which European politicians from among the generation of 1968 are trying to formulate varying degrees of success - but this rationality does not work more. The spiritualization of the idea of ​​liberalism is required; We need a new myth of freedom, about tolerance, about universalism as an overwhelming, but it is just not.

It is not at all a shame to be an intelligent, and this is not so funny at all - and a lot depends on him again; In any case, it is better than being a militarist, xenophobe, chauvinist, racist - all this does not require effort over himself, but to be an intellectual - requires.

On the way of this irrationalism today is only a person of universal ethics - there is no one else. The lack of borders, the general rhetoric and general threats for the first time unite the intelligentsia in America, Europe, and Russia on top of any boundaries. In social networks, the idea of ​​a new resistance is already hovering (“Each of the next 1459 days of Trump will be the day of our resistance,” as Angela Davis said ), an intellectual international - against the International named after de Mestra.

You can put forward such a hypothesis: the main ideological conflict in the XXI century will be held for the first time on top of states and ideologies - along the boundaries of ethics; Ethics becomes politics, ethical now means a political one, and a striking thing is clarified: the intellectual - in this main quality - again becomes a political actor. Being the only alternative to the world "Alternative for Germany."

Thus, the intelligentsia has a chance to change something. At the same time, involvement in the social group today does not give any, even symbolic, preferences - this is just self -identification, the personal business of everyone. The intelligentsia ceased to be a warm place - excellent; To be an intellectual today is how to be a punk in 1978. It would be a banality to mention that the intellectual described here is rather an unattainable ideal (which, however, it should be) and that, perhaps, such will appear even after us, as Oleg Kashin wrote once . However, maybe it would be more important to urgently return the normality to this concept, and the only purpose of this article is that we cease to be afraid of the name itself. It is not at all a shame to be an intelligent, and this is not so funny at all - and a lot depends on him again; In any case, it is better than being a militarist, xenophobe, chauvinist, racist - because all this does not require effort over himself, but to be an intellectual requires. This is great. The intellectual is the Cool .