Suchergebnisse

Ponders the diverging roles played by intellectuals in the 1930s Spanish Civil War & the 1990s Balkan war, ie, intervention in Spain & nonintervention in Yugoslavia. It is hypothesized that the difference can be accounted for by developments in the 60 years of intellectual history separating the events. It is argued that historical memory, political commitment, & "common decency" were infringed on in those 60 years. J. Zendejas

The author defines the concept of an intellectual, & a public intellectual. This definition is created, in large measure, by contrasting the intellectual to other types of "knowers" such as prophets, scholars, scientists, experts, philosophers, & sophists. Each of these types embodies a different relationship between private knowledge or understanding & public action. The public intellectual is defined by a central paradox, by a compelling need to transform private contemplation into public practice. Yet, even as the public intellectual is dedicated to improving society, s/he is at the same time disdainful & even dismissive of it. This perspective of looking at society from the outside is an essentially modern characteristic; this should not surprise us because the public intellectual is an essentially modern figure. D. Knaff

Theories of political legitimacy & elite settlements provide a framework to study the relationship between intellectuals and political change to argue that the role played by Venezuelan intellectuals is one of the keys to explaining the demise of Punto Fijo democracy. The writings of Roman Catholic, Marxists & nationalist intellectuals during the Punto Fijo regime had cumulative effects of hostile currents discrediting the AD/COPEI party domination & the entire post -- 1958 democratic enterprise, but intellectual opposition failed to produce a consensus on a viable alternative to the existing political regime. The expression of citizen frustration at exclusion from meaningful participation in mainstream media stepped up criticism to minor changes implemented by government & response to the second failed coup attempt in 1992. The rise of Chavez's Bolivarian thought -- or Chavismo -- criticized political parties in favor of promises of a "social revolution." The intellectuals who backed Chavez harbored great resentment against the two parties, & attracted a new group of intellectuals who preached direct democracy as a desirable alternative to party control over government, but no consensus about which changes would improve the quality of economic & political life emerged from the 1990s debate. In the end, Chavez cited with the leftist, anti-system intellectuals to view representative institutions as designed to thwart the popular will & protect privilege, & to preach a democracy in which government would respond directly & rapidly to the will of the majority. References. J. Harwell