We all would like to communicate with cultured, enlightened, educated people that respect the boundaries of the space of the individual. Intelligent people are just such ideal interlocutors.
Translated from Latin, intelligence means cognitive power, ability, ability to understand. Those who have intelligence - intellectuals, are usually involved in mental work and are distinguished high culture. Signs of an intelligent person are:
- High level of education.
- Activities associated with creativity.
- Inclusion in the process of dissemination, preservation and rethinking of culture and values.
Not everyone agrees that the intelligentsia includes a purely educated stratum of the population, engaged in mental work. The opposition point of view understands intelligence primarily as the presence of a high moral culture.
Terminology
Based on the Oxford Dictionary definition, an intelligentsia is a group that strives to think for themselves. New hero culture - an individualist, one who can deny social norms and rules, in contrast to the old hero, who serves as the embodiment of these norms and rules. An intellectual is thus a nonconformist, a rebel.
Gasparov traces the history of the term "intelligentsia": at first it meant "people with a mind", then - "people with a conscience", later - " good people". The researcher also gives an original explanation of Yarkho about what “intelligent” means: this is a person who does not know much, but who has a need, a thirst to know.
Who is an intelligent person and how does he differ from an intellectual? If an intellectual is a person who has a certain special spiritual and moral portrait, then intellectuals are professionals in their field, “people with a mind”.
A high level of culture, tact, good breeding are the descendants of secularism, courtesy, philanthropy and grace. Good manners is not about “not putting your fingers in your nose”, but the ability to stay in society and be reasonable - conscious care for yourself and others.
Gasparov emphasizes that such an understanding of intelligence, which is associated with relationships between people, is currently relevant. This is not just about interpersonal interaction, but about one that has a special property - to see in another not social role but human, to treat another as a human being, equal and worthy of respect.
According to Gasparov, in the past, the intelligentsia performed a function that wedged into relations between the higher and the lower. This is something more than just intelligence, education, professionalism. The intelligentsia was required to revise the fundamental principles of society. Performing the function of society's self-awareness, intellectuals create an ideal, which is an attempt to experience reality from within the system.
This is the difference from the intellectuals, who, in response to the question of the self-consciousness of society, create sociology - objective knowledge, a view "from the outside." Intellectuals are engaged in schemes, clear and immutable, and the intelligentsia - in feeling, image, standard.
educating yourself
How to become an intelligent person? If intelligence is understood as a respectful attitude towards the individual, then the answer is simple: to observe the boundaries of someone else's psychological space, "not to burden oneself."
The fortitude of an intellectual, according to Lotman, allows him not to succumb to difficulties. The intellectuals will do everything that is necessary, that it is impossible not to do it at a critical moment. Intelligence is a high spiritual flight, and people who are capable of this flight accomplish real feats, because they are able to stand where others give in, because they have nothing to rely on.
An intellectual is a fighter, he cannot tolerate evil, he tries to eradicate it. The following qualities, according to Lotman and Tepikin, a researcher of intelligence, are inherent in intellectuals (the most characteristic, coinciding in two researchers):
- Kindness and tolerance.
- Incorruptibility and willingness to pay for it.
- Fortitude and fortitude.
- The ability to go into battle for her ideals (an intelligent girl, on a par with a man, will defend what she considers worthy and honest).
- Independence of thought.
- Fight against injustice.
The Russian philologist Likhachev noted the ease of communication of an intellectual, the complete absence of an intellectual. He singled out the following qualities closely related to intelligence:
- Self-esteem.
- The ability to think.
- A proper degree of modesty, an understanding of the limitations of one's knowledge.
- Openness, the ability to hear the other.
- Caution, you can not be quick to court.
- Delicacy.
- Caution regarding the affairs of others.
- Fortitude in upholding a just cause (an intelligent man does not knock on the table).
One should be wary of becoming a semi-intellectual, like anyone who imagines that he knows everything. These people make unforgivable mistakes - they don't ask, they don't consult, they don't listen. They are deaf, there are no questions for them, everything is clear and simple. Such imaginings are insufferable and cause rejection.
1. Put yourself in the place of another person.
2. Feel the connectedness of all people, their commonality, fundamental similarity.
3. Clearly distinguish between your own and someone else's territory. This means not to burden those around you with information of interest only to yourself, not to raise your voice above the average sound level in the room, not to get too close.
4. Try to understand the interlocutor, respect him, perhaps practice proving other people's points of view, but not condescendingly, but for real.
5. Be able to deny yourself, develop, deliberately creating a little discomfort and overcoming it gradually (carry a candy in your pocket, but do not eat it; engage in physical activity at the same time every day).
The intelligentsia as the conscience of the nation is gradually disappearing due to the emergence of a layer of professionals in power. Intellectuals will replace intellectuals in this field. But nothing can replace intelligence at work, among acquaintances and friends, on the street and in public institutions. A person must be intelligent in the sense of the ability to feel equal in interlocutors, to show a respectful attitude, because this is the only worthy form in communication between people. Author: Ekaterina Volkova
The intelligentsia is an estate, a certain social stratum, a social group, a special sphere of social relations. It is not only sociological and psychological concept, but also demographic (demographic group). There is a close relationship with ethics and aesthetics. IN in a certain sense conditionally, one can also talk about the subculture of the intelligentsia. However, the foundation of the intelligentsia is personal.
Analyzing the concepts of "intelligentsia" and "intellectual", we turned to the scientific works presented in the book "Russian Intelligentsia" (M.: Nauka, 1999). Other sources were also used, but mainly this particular book.
The words "intelligentsia", "intellectual" and "intelligent" were introduced into literary circulation in mid-nineteenth V. These words even then received almost contemporary meaning. Scientists note that the history of Russian culture is inextricably linked with the history of the Russian intelligentsia. Historically, such problems as freedom, power, knowledge, and the intellectual elite of society were associated with the intelligentsia. One of the essential distinguishing features of the intelligentsia is its social position. Since the 19th century the Russian intelligentsia definitely acts as a special social stratum or estate. The difference between an intellectual and persons of other social groups is not in the choice of political beliefs and not in any particular religion or its denial. In all these areas, there is complete freedom to choose from many possibilities. But in itself, the intellectual choice and the variety of these possibilities exist thanks to the intelligentsia. The development of society is a task that only the intelligentsia can handle. Here, however, it is meant that the intelligentsia is a real social stratum, it is often called an estate, a social group; it is a social entity, a social object. However, this real layer as a whole does not manifest itself, it cannot be observed with one's own eyes, it is "invisible", while the intellectuals appear one by one (individual, personality, individuality). The situation here is complex. Maybe the concepts of "intelligentsia" and "intellectual" exist, but the corresponding realities do not exist. And vice versa. These realities exist, live and operate, but scientists cannot finally formulate the concepts. Of course, the search for truth must be continued, but we must also proceed from the fact that the intelligentsia as a social stratum and the intellectual as an individual exist in reality.
The word and the corresponding concept of "intelligentsia" at first meant "people with a mind", then "people with a conscience", then simply "very good people". Now we say this: the intelligentsia is a reasonable, educated, mentally developed part of the population, and hence the derivative words: intelligent, intelligent, etc. Accordingly, it is precisely the individual concept of "intellectual" that is said about the personal basis of the intelligentsia. Personality traits of an intellectual: high level upbringing, culture, education, enlightenment, kindness, compassion, care for people, love for the fatherland and the desire to protect it. All this is given to man "from above" - by God. Of course, a person striving to become intelligent is capable of doing a lot for this, but everyone must remember: an intellectual is not the one who behaves intelligently, all the more so demonstrates it, but the one who cannot behave otherwise, because this is his essence. An intellectual by nature has intelligence, honor, dignity, kindness, but with all this, a conscious readiness to take care not only about himself, but also about others comes to the fore. Everything corresponds to freedom and will. Are there many such people in our country? Maybe there are some in the "elite" mentioned above? In any case, there is no need to talk about mass character.
It seems that it is unacceptable to speak, and even more so to introduce various arbitrary concepts into scientific circulation: “semi-intellectual”, “average intellectual”, etc. Sometimes in the literature there are references to the "simplified" concepts of the intelligentsia and the intelligentsia, but what is meant by this is not disclosed. Some, in order to criticize such simplifications, write: just look, the term “marginal intellectual” will soon be used. If simplified concepts are used, then “simplified people” will begin to enroll in the intelligentsia, lists of those wishing to be called intellectuals will be drawn up according to one or another principle: age, nationality, etc. And the ranks will line up ... I want to be an intellectual, your mother! But in any case, this is another social stratum: officials of various levels, other "workers" and, of course, "servants of the people." Normal people are already tired of being surprised and indignant when, day after day, for many years in a row, “masters of art”, called intellectuals, appear on television screens with the same program. This, in our opinion, is a "show-intellectuals" - a chantrap. No one can drive them off the TV screens. Money!
Under the influence of "proletarian culture", the place of the destroyed and expelled "old" Russian intelligentsia was taken by the "new" Soviet intelligentsia, selected according to the class principle and social origin: only people from the workers could create a full-fledged "proletarian culture" - hence the selection principle of higher education, selection of personnel in science, art, etc. All Soviet years, as K.V. Kondakov, the intelligentsia lived not by reason, not by will, but only by seduction and dreams. “Cruel reality,” according to K.V. Kondakova, - every time she mercilessly punished the intelligentsia, threw them into the mud, to the ground, the disappointments were so strong that it seemed that they would never recover from them. But time has passed... Is it possible to recover today? We'll have to wait, time will tell." However, the time has come. Suffice it to say about the attitude towards E.T. Gaidar. They set the marginals against him and hounded him. And they hid themselves. Not ashamed?
Intelligentsia- understanding, cognitive power; "smart - knowing - thinking - understanding" - in the modern public (ordinary) representation means social layer educated people professionally engaged in complex mental (predominantly intellectual) work. We emphasize again: understanding, knowledge, cognitive power, intelligence - these are the properties that are inherent in a certain category of people, cool people (no one has yet canceled the concept of “people of our cool”, “people not of our cool”). Accordingly, one can define social status intellectual." It is these attributes that, in fact, are decisive in the characterization of the “circle of people”, social group called the intelligentsia, and not their position among other classes of society.
I must say that the intelligentsia has many features, but even a combination of them, writes Yu.S. Stepanov does not complete definition. Maybe that is why the name "intellectual" is used to call people, respectively, social strata who do not have the right to do so. Is it possible to call technocrats and officials intelligentsia, even if they have diplomas or if they write books, speak at scientific meetings? - puts the question Yu.S. Stepanov. The answer, of course, is no. It is known that at one time the authorities persecuted the intelligentsia and officials played a leading role in this matter, mocked at the true intelligentsia, and then the same government and these same officials appropriated the name of the intellectual. It turns out like this: at first I hate an intellectual because of my inferiority, and then I want to become an intellectual in order to somehow compensate for my inferiority.
Enlightenment, writes M.L. Gasparov, - absolutely prerequisite intelligence. The current more and more frequent declarations that education does not guarantee intelligence and that you can find more intelligence in simple and unlearned people than in other professors, this, continues M.L. Gasparov, only means that the concept of intelligence has moved into the realm of pure morality. With this, in our opinion, one cannot hastily agree. Here should be the following "construction" of an intellectual: morality + conscience + intellect. From the concept of intelligence it is impossible to tear off everything that is connected with the intelligentsia: upbringing, culture, education, which is “glued” with enlightenment. Moreover, it is important to note that good manners is something that is absorbed by a person from infancy, with "mother's milk", it is "fixed" deep inside a person for life. Culture, education, enlightenment are not innate, but acquired qualities that have been formed in a person in the course of his life. But most importantly, in our opinion, it is morality and conscience. The main thing in a person that stands in the first place in him is morality.. That is why it is necessary to stake on the development of such a social stratum as the intelligentsia.
Today in our country the social stratum of the intelligentsia is "thickening". First, one must take into account the entire mass of those who call themselves intellectuals (almost all of this mass is mistaken). Secondly, today, wherever you look, everyone demands to consider himself an intellectual. K.B. Sokolov writes: “When a person says “I am an intellectual”, he, in fact, asserts something like this: I am a famous person belonging to the elite of society, I think with my head, because I am smart, educated, I am a finely organized person.” How not to have fun here and remember the words from the song: “Now I consider myself a city man ...” However, the poor fellow constantly “whines”: “My little village.”
Who is an intellectual? Does the intelligentsia really exist and what is it? We have already partially answered these questions, but there is a need to continue the reasoning.
An intelligent person becomes individually. The social stratum (or class) "intelligentsia" really exists, but the "entrance" to it and the "exit" from it always remain within the limits of individual behavior. This layer is made up of specific people, personalities. It seems to us that the formation of an intellectual can be compared with faith in God, a person also becomes a believer individually. There are no absolutely identical intellectuals. There are no absolutely identical believers. The believer, unlike the intellectual, decides for himself whether or not to enter the milieu of believers. The intelligentsia does not have its own "church" where they could "pray" and strengthen their estate.
The intelligentsia invented a myth about itself, writes K.B. Sokolov, kind, smart. Honest and principled. “Among all sorts of positions, ranks and states, the intelligentsia always performs the same task. She is always light, and only that which shines, or the one who shines, will perform an intelligent deed, an intelligent task. 1 Sokolov K.B. Myths about the intelligentsia and historical reality // Russian intelligentsia. History and destiny. M. 1999., S. 149-150. Using the specified scientific work of K.B. Sokolov, let us use his description and definitions.
The famous writer D. Granin continued the myth-making position, writes K.B. Sokolov. Here is what Granin points out: “Our metropolitan intelligentsia, especially provincial, generation after generation, in spite of everything, has retained the moral concepts of honor, and mercy, and a conscientious pile, and decency, and, finally, honesty. Her spiritual merits before history are indisputable... None of them has ever served as a support of power. Politics changed, rulers changed, but the intelligentsia always knew what to fight for.” Further K.B. Sokolov quotes D.S. Likhacheva, N.Ya. Eidelman, respectively, the following: "An intellectual can be recognized by the absence of aggressiveness, suspicion, an inferiority complex in him, but gentleness of behavior." And more about the intellectual: "For several generations, a type of relatively free, consciously ideological, active intellectual has developed." Already from the above definitions, writes K.B. Sokolov, it is clear that there is a typical myth, because such "angels in the flesh" never existed. And if there were such intellectuals, then in the form of singles, representing rather an exception from general rule. One can recall how some “intellectuals” behaved when the authorities persecuted A.D. Sakharov. And how did they take part when they literally hounded E.T. Gaidar. Of course, the intelligentsia has nothing to do with it, but who are these individual intellectuals? I do not know how many academicians there are in our country, but forty of them once signed a newspaper article against Andrei Sakharov.
Now in our country, writes V.V. Kozhinov in the specified book "Russian intelligentsia", various "academies" and "academicians" divorced an unprecedented multitude. I think that Shandybin would say: "I am an academician of the Academy of the Working Class."
Intellectual- this is one who is not completely absorbed in his own well-being, but does everything for the prosperity of his society and is ready to work to the best of his ability for its good. It seems that an intellectual is, first of all, labor, noble and grateful. An intellectual is one who brings real benefit to the fatherland by his work, this is work that is really felt by people, by the people. When determining whether a person is an intellectual or not, it is important to take into account his social origin: a gentleman from a cradle is a gentleman, a gentleman from serfs is a serf. It must be said that among those who consider themselves and call themselves intellectuals, serfs are the most. And they are not embarrassed that they are serfs, just to be called an intellectual.
The concepts of "intelligentsia" and "intellectual" are very difficult to define, nevertheless, attempts are being made. However, a lot has been done in this regard.
intellectuals- these are people who are characterized by intelligence, upbringing, education; this is the most common concept. Everything else is added to this: kindness, compassion, etc. Many authors are very critical of the fact that intellectuals are people with a diploma in higher education. This is a fairly common view today. It is very convenient for counting the number of intellectuals by the presence of diplomas, but does not give anything to explain the phenomenon itself. Such a definition dissolves the intelligentsia in the mass of office workers. According to this definition, writes K.B. Sokolov, and KGB Chairman Yu.V. Andropov, and Academician A.D. Sakharov are both representatives of the "Soviet intelligentsia". According to the same definition, S.M. Mironov and Academician D.E. Ligachev are also both representatives of the “Russian intelligentsia”, or B.V. Gryzlov and the world famous scientist Professor E.T. Gaidar. This is the basis of personality.
I would like to say: if anyone wants to call himself an intellectual, to become one, then let him always remember that the most unacceptable thing for an intellectual is money and personal enrichment. Any tangible assets are incompatible with the concept of "intellectual". The intellectual has an aversion to wealth. However ... The intelligentsia (the one that already exists in our country) today strives for security, for well-being and no longer sees anything bad in a well-fed life. But here, as nowhere else, it must be borne in mind that this (strictly) is based on individual start. One intellectual, by virtue of his convictions, lives "fatly", and the other - poorly. It seems to be quite natural.
Maybe in our country the concept of an intellectual as a good person, smart, well-mannered, educated, honest, kind, attentive to people, sympathetic will be fixed? it must be a person of high morality and conscience.
Finding such people is not easy. They need to be selected, some criteria should be established.
Imagine elections for the sake of at least a little fun. Elections in our country are already ridiculous.
The choice of a good person can be made in our country only from those people that we have. From whom to choose? What we have, we have. Unfortunately, there are no others. Different categories of people may be selected: outcasts, officials, representatives of show business, football business, etc. The Sharikovs and Shandybins, "doctors of canine sciences" and "doctors of working sciences", will be among the selected ones.
Maybe nothing to stir up, all this in vain? After all, how many years we have been electing deputies, it is time to understand what elections are, how they are held. Perhaps the deputies themselves believe that by choosing them, the people are choosing the intelligentsia. Painfully often they call themselves intellectuals. They really think they are.
We still do not know exactly what morality is. We also do not know what conscience is. However, we are sure that these are lofty estimates and with their help a person can be presented quite highly.
As for the “poorly educated professors who “penetrate” into science and the intelligentsia”, about which M.L. Gasparov writes, this is a particularly “bitter” question. emphasizes M. L. Gasparov.Unfortunately, in last years such people have paved a “cunning” path into science and follow it confidently, without bumping into obstacles. They are drawn, for money, etc. a “wide high road” has been created, and therefore there is no need to “climb along rocky paths”. Everything is easy, everything is simple. And all this "shadow" falls on the true scientists, on the intelligentsia.
As is usually the case in times of drastic change in social life, reforms and restructuring, money, blat, tricks of businessmen, deceit, cunning, toadying, the ability to get into the soul, etc. float to the surface in the field of science. Parents write dissertations for their sons and daughters, husbands write dissertations for their wives, stupid mistresses make their way into science especially dirty and brazenly. To whom only dissertations are sold. All this makes crooks first candidates of science, then doctors of science, professors. Then they “spin” among true scientists, make their way into dissertation councils, speaking at some meeting, say about themselves “we are intellectuals”, “we are scientists”, promote themselves in every possible way, write books about themselves, publish them colorfully and themselves they are distributed. Look, I'm not as dumb as you think. In fact, these are crooks, squeezed into science. They are science scammers. They are distinguished by the fact that they are very primitive. They are not ashamed. They do not know conscience. Their morality is on social day". These "marginal professors", or, in other words, "marginal professors", are the lumpen in science. It is no coincidence that in science there are clashes between true scientists and "fake professors". Not only M.L. Gasparov, Yu.S. also speaks about this. Stepanov and I.V. Kondakov in the above-mentioned book “Russian intelligentsia. History and fate. "Professor scouts," as this book notes, are people "unable to move their brains." Today, we have various ignoramuses hiding behind the words "intellectual" or "professor", which, as emphasized in the same book, are "personalities without the slightest sign of intelligence, a scammer." These are “socially harmful and dangerous” people who create a criminal business in science, “monetary-criminal science”, and each of them is a socially ugly person who has nothing to do with morality and conscience.
As an edification to others, let us notice, repent.
Who does not know such "professor scouts"? They are among us. And you don't have to go far to find the guilty ones. We create them ourselves, turn a blind eye to these "spy professors", let them into science through the "leaky sieve" created by us. And we are paying for all this. When you deal with those who "penetrate" into science, help them, do not forget: if you throw a boomerang, it will certainly return to you and will certainly knock out your teeth. Don't ignore this boomerang law.
For some reason, no one writes about intelligent women. In the literature, everything is presented in a generalized form. However this problem cannot be ignored. There are many questions here.
Are the women ministers of our government intelligent or not? And women - deputies of the Duma? Apparently, they consider themselves intellectuals, perhaps "simplified", but still intellectuals. It seems that there are many women who belong to the class of intellectuals. These are representatives of science, culture, art, etc. Women, like men, declare themselves one by one. Here, as in other cases, the main thing is the individual basis, the personal problem.
“What is an intelligent person?
This is a restless conscience...
And - compassion for the fate of the people.
But that's not all. The intelligent knows
which is not an end in itself."
Vasily Shukshin.
"Friendship of Peoples", 1976'11, p. 286.
P.D. Boborykin was the first to introduce the concept of "intelligentsia"
"The intellectual forces of the workers and peasants
grow and grow stronger in the struggle to overthrow
bourgeoisie and its accomplices, intellectuals,
lackeys of capital, who imagine themselves the brain of the nation.
In fact, this is not a brain, but shit ... "
IN AND. Lenin.
Letter to A.M. Gorky from 15.
IX.1919 (PSS, vol. 51, p. 48)
INTELLIGENTSIA. hallmark intelligentsia is not all mental labor, but the most qualified types of mental labor ... Thus, the intelligentsia as a social stratum is a social group of people professionally engaged in the highest, most qualified types of mental labor.
S.N. Nadel. Modern capitalism and the middle strata. M., 1978, p. 203.
Intelligentsia (NFE, 2010)
INTELLIGENCE - the concept was introduced into scientific circulation in Russia in the 60s of the 19th century, in the 20s of the 20th century it entered the English-language dictionaries. Initially, the intelligentsia was called the educated, critically thinking part of society, whose social function was unambiguously associated with active opposition to the autocracy and protection of the interests of the people. Creativity of cultural and moral values (forms) and the priority of social ideals oriented towards universal equality and the interests of human development were recognized as a glorious feature of the consciousness of the intelligentsia.
Intelligentsia (Maslin, 2014)
INTELLIGENCE (lat. intelligens - understanding, thinking) - a layer of educated and thinking people performing functions that require a high degree of development of intelligence and professional education. One of the first to use the word "intelligentsia" in this sense was the Russian writer P. D. Boborykin, who called it "the highest educated stratum of society" (1866). In Russian, and then in Western European thought, this word quickly replaced the concept of "nihilist", introduced by I. S. Turgenev, and the concept of "thinking proletariat" ("educated proletariat"), known from Pisarev's articles.
Intelligentsia (Berdyaev, 1937)
It is necessary to know what constitutes that peculiar phenomenon, which in Russia is called "intelligentsia". Western people would fall into error if they identified the Russian intelligentsia with what in the West they call intellectuels. Intellectuels are people of intellectual work and creativity, primarily scientists, writers, artists, professors, teachers, etc. A completely different education is represented by the Russian intelligentsia, which could include people who are not engaged in intellectual work and in general are not particularly intelligent linen.
Intelligentsia (Reisberg, 2012)
INTELLIGENCE (lat. intelligens - thinking, reasonable) - a layer of people who gravitate towards creative work, possessing such signs as spirituality, internal culture, education, manners of civilized behavior, independence of thought, humanism, high moral and ethical qualities.
Raizberg B.A. Modern socioeconomic dictionary. M., 2012, p. 193.
Intelligent (Lopukhov, 2013)
INTELLIGENT - a person professionally engaged in an intellectual type of activity, mainly complex creative work. The term was introduced in the 60s. XIX century by the writer P. Boborykin. Later, thanks to the spiritual influence of Russian writers and philosophers of the second half of XIX century, the concept of "intellectual" has expanded significantly. Despite its foreign origin, this word began to denote a specific Russian phenomenon and differ from the concept of "intellectual" adopted in the West.
Intelligentsia (Orlov, 2012)
INTELLIGENCE (lat. intelligens - understanding, thinking, reasonable) - a special social group of people professionally engaged in mental (mostly complex), creative work, which is the main source of income, as well as the development of culture and its dissemination among the population.
The term "intelligentsia" in the 1860s introduced by the writer P. D. Boborykin; moved from Russian to other languages. In the West, the term "intellectuals" is more common, and is also used as a synonym for the intelligentsia.
Intelligentsia (Podoprigora, 2013)
INTELLIGENCE [lat. intellegens - smart, understanding, knowledgeable; connoisseur, specialist] - a social stratum, which includes persons professionally engaged in mental work. The term "intelligentsia" was first introduced into use by the Russian writer P. Boborykin (in the 70s of the 19th century). Initially, the word "intelligentsia" denoted cultured, educated people with progressive views. In the future, it began to be attributed to persons of a certain nature of work, certain professions.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Term intelligentsia used in functional and social meanings.
- In the functional (original) sense, the word was used in Latin, indicating a wide range of mental activity.
- IN social significance the word began to be used from the middle or second half of the 19th century in relation to a social group of people with in a critical way thinking, a high degree of reflection, the ability to systematize knowledge and experience.
The functional meaning of the concept of "intelligentsia"
Derived from the Latin verb intellego :
1) perceive, perceive, notice, notice
2) to know, to know
3) think
4) to know a lot, to understand
Directly latin word intelligence includes a number of psychological concepts:
1) understanding, reason, cognitive power, ability to perceive
2) concept, representation, idea
3) perception, sensory knowledge
4) skill, art
As can be seen from the above, the original meaning of the concept is functional. It is about the activity of consciousness.
Used in this sense, it occurs even in XIX century, in a letter from N. P. Ogarev to Granovsky in 1850:
“Some subject with gigantic intelligence…”
In the same sense, one can read about the use of the word in Masonic circles. In the book “The Problem of Authorship and the Theory of Styles”, V. V. Vinogradov notes that the word intelligentsia is one of the words used in the language of Masonic literature of the second half of the 18th century:
... the word intelligentsia is often found in the handwritten heritage of the Mason Schwartz. It denotes here the highest state of man as an intelligent being, free from any gross, bodily matter, immortal and imperceptibly able to influence and act on all things. Later this word general meaning- "reasonableness, higher consciousness" - used A. Galich in his idealistic philosophical concept. The word intelligentsia in this sense was used by VF Odoevsky.
“Is the intelligentsia a separate, independent social group, or does each social group have its own special category of intelligentsia? It is not easy to answer this question, because the modern historical process gives rise to a variety of forms of various categories of intelligentsia.The discussion of this problem continues and is inextricably linked with the concepts: society, social group, culture.
In Russia
In Russian pre-revolutionary culture, in the interpretation of the concept of "intelligentsia", the criterion of engaging in mental labor receded into the background. The main features of the Russian intellectual were the features of social messianism: concern for the fate of their fatherland (civil responsibility); striving for social criticism to fight against what hinders national development(the role of the bearer of public conscience); the ability to morally empathize with the “humiliated and offended” (a sense of moral belonging). At the same time, the intelligentsia began to be defined primarily through the opposition of the official state power - the concepts of "educated class" and "intelligentsia" were partially divorced - not any educated person could be classified as an intelligentsia, but only one who criticized the "backward" government. The Russian intelligentsia, understood as a set of mental workers opposed to the authorities, found itself in pre-revolutionary Russia rather isolated social group. The intellectuals were viewed with suspicion not only by the official authorities, but also by the “common people”, who did not distinguish the intellectuals from the “gentlemen”. The contrast between the claim to be messianic and isolation from the people led to the cultivation among Russian intellectuals of constant repentance and self-flagellation.
A special topic of discussion at the beginning of the 20th century was the place of the intelligentsia in the social structure of society. Some insisted on non-class approach: the intelligentsia did not represent any special social group and did not belong to any class; being the elite of society, it rises above class interests and expresses universal ideals. Others viewed the intelligentsia in terms of class approach, but disagreed on the question of which class / classes it belongs to. Some believed that the intelligentsia included people from different classes, but at the same time they do not constitute a single social group, and we must not talk about the intelligentsia in general, but about various types intelligentsia (for example, bourgeois, proletarian, peasant and even lumpen intelligentsia). Others attributed the intelligentsia to some well-defined class. The most common options were the assertions that the intelligentsia is part of the bourgeois class or the proletarian class. Finally, still others singled out the intelligentsia as a separate class.
Known estimates, formulations and explanations
The word intelligent and Ushakov, and the academic dictionary define: "peculiar to an intellectual" with a negative connotation: "about the properties of the old, bourgeois intelligentsia" with its "lack of will, hesitation, doubts." Both Ushakov and the academic dictionary define the word intelligent: “inherent in an intellectual, intelligentsia” with a positive connotation: “educated, cultured”. “Cultural”, in turn, here clearly means not only the bearer of “enlightenment, education, erudition” (the definition of the word culture in the academic dictionary), but also “possessing certain skills of behavior in society, educated” (one of the definitions of the word cultural in that same dictionary). The antithesis to the word intelligent in the modern linguistic consciousness will be not so much an ignoramus as an ignoramus (and by the way, an intelligent is not a tradesman, but a boor). Each of us feels the difference, for example, between "intelligent appearance", "intelligent behavior" and "intelligent appearance", "intelligent behavior". With the second adjective, there is, as it were, a suspicion that, in fact, this appearance and this behavior are sham, and with the first adjective, they are genuine. I remember a typical case. About ten years ago, the critic Andrey Levkin published an article in the Rodnik magazine with a title that was supposed to be defiant: "Why I'm not an intellectual." V. P. Grigoriev, a linguist, said about this: “But to write:“ Why am I not intelligent, ”he did not have the courage” ...
From an article by M. Gasparov
There is a derogatory statement by V. I. Lenin about the intelligentsia helping the bourgeoisie:
see also
Write a review on the article "Intelligentsia"
Notes
Literature
- Milyukov P. N. intelligentsia and historical tradition// Intelligentsia in Russia. - St. Petersburg, 1910.
- Davydov Yu. N.// Where is Russia going? Community Development Alternatives. 1: International Symposium December 17-19, 1993 / Ed. ed. T. I. Zaslavskaya, L. A. Harutyunyan. - M.: Interpraks, 1994. - C. 244-245. - ISBN 5-85235-109-1
Links
Dictionaries and encyclopedias
- Ivanov-Razumnik. // gummer.info
- Gramsci A.
- Trotsky L.
- G. Fedotov
- Uvarov Pavel Borisovich
- Abstract of the article by A. Pollard. .
- //NG
- I. S. Kon.// "New World", 1968, No. 1. - S. 173-197
- .
- Kormer V. The Dual Consciousness of the Intelligentsia and Pseudo-Culture ( , published in under the pseudonym Altaev). - In the book: Kormer V. Mole of history. - M.: Time, 2009. - S. 211−252. - ISBN 978-5-9691-0427-3 ().
- Alex Tarn.
- Pomerants G. - lecture, June 21, 2001
- Bitkin S. It's not just about the hat. What should be a real intellectual // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2014. No. 58.
- Slusar V. H.// Modern intelligentsia: problems of social identification: collection scientific papers: in 3 tons / holes. ed. I. I. Osinsky. - Ulan-Ude: Publishing House of the Buryat State University, 2012. - T. 1. - S. 181-189.
- in "We speak Russian" on Ekho Moskvy (March 30, 2008)
- Filatova A.// Logos, 2005, No. 6. - S. 206-217.
- // Small Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 4 volumes - St. Petersburg. , 1907-1909.
- Intelligentsia // Encyclopedia "Round the World".
- Intelligentsia // Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language: in 4 volumes / ch. ed. B. M. Volin, D. N. Ushakov(v. 2-4); comp. G. O. Vinokur, B. A. Larin, S. I. Ozhegov, B. V. Tomashevsky, D. N. Ushakov; ed. D. N. Ushakova. - M. : GI "Soviet Encyclopedia" (vol. 1) : OGIZ (vol. 1) : GINS (vol. 2-4), 1935-1940.
- Intelligentsia- article from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
- Memetov V. S., Rastorguev V. N.// Great Russian Encyclopedia. M., 2008. T. 11.
- Intelligentsia // dictionary of social sciences
- Intelligentsia // encyclopedia of sociology
An excerpt characterizing the intelligentsia
“Well, Sokolov, they don’t quite leave!” They have a hospital here. Maybe you will be even better than ours,” said Pierre.
- Oh my God! O my death! Oh my God! the soldier groaned louder.
“Yes, I’ll ask them now,” said Pierre, and, rising, went to the door of the booth. While Pierre was approaching the door, the corporal who yesterday treated Pierre to a pipe approached with two soldiers. Both the corporal and the soldiers were in marching uniform, in knapsacks and shakos with buttoned scales that changed their familiar faces.
The corporal went to the door in order to close it by order of his superiors. Before release, it was necessary to count the prisoners.
- Caporal, que fera t on du malade? .. [Corporal, what to do with the patient? ..] - began Pierre; but at the moment he said this, he doubted whether this was the corporal he knew or another, Unknown person: the corporal was so unlike himself at that moment. In addition, at the moment Pierre was saying this, the crackling of drums was suddenly heard from both sides. The corporal frowned at Pierre's words and, uttering a meaningless curse, slammed the door. It became half dark in the booth; drums crackled sharply from both sides, drowning out the groans of the sick man.
“Here it is! .. Again it!” Pierre said to himself, and an involuntary chill ran down his back. In the changed face of the corporal, in the sound of his voice, in the exciting and deafening crackle of drums, Pierre recognized that mysterious, indifferent force that forced people to kill their own kind against their will, that force, the effect of which he saw during the execution. It was useless to be afraid, to try to avoid this force, to make requests or exhortations to people who served as its instruments, it was useless. Pierre knew this now. I had to wait and be patient. Pierre did not go up to the sick man again and did not look back at him. He, silently, frowning, stood at the door of the booth.
When the doors of the booth opened and the prisoners, like a herd of sheep, crushing each other, squeezed into the exit, Pierre made his way ahead of them and went up to the very captain who, according to the corporal, was ready to do everything for Pierre. The captain was also in marching uniform, and from his cold face also looked “it”, which Pierre recognized in the words of the corporal and in the crackle of drums.
- Filez, filez, [Come in, come in.] - the captain said, frowning severely and looking at the prisoners crowding past him. Pierre knew that his attempt would be in vain, but he approached him.
- Eh bien, qu "est ce qu" il y a? [Well, what else?] - looking around coldly, as if not recognizing, the officer said. Pierre said about the patient.
- Il pourra marcher, que diable! the captain said. - Filez, filez, [He'll go, damn it! Come in, come in] - he continued to sentence, without looking at Pierre.
- Mais non, il est a l "agonie ... [No, he is dying ...] - Pierre began.
– Voulez vous bien?! [Go to…] – the captain shouted with an evil frown.
Drum yes yes ladies, ladies, ladies, the drums crackled. And Pierre realized that a mysterious force had already completely taken possession of these people and that now it was useless to say anything else.
The captured officers were separated from the soldiers and ordered to go ahead. There were thirty officers, including Pierre, and three hundred soldiers.
The captured officers released from other booths were all strangers, were much better dressed than Pierre, and looked at him, in his shoes, with incredulity and aloofness. Not far from Pierre walked, apparently enjoying the general respect of his fellow prisoners, a fat major in a Kazan dressing gown, belted with a towel, with a plump, yellow, angry face. He held one hand with a pouch in his bosom, the other leaned on a chibouk. The major, puffing and puffing, grumbled and got angry at everyone because it seemed to him that he was being pushed and that everyone was in a hurry when there was nowhere to hurry, everyone was surprised at something when there was nothing surprising in anything. The other, a small, thin officer, was talking to everyone, making assumptions about where they were being led now and how far they would have time to go that day. An official, in boots and a commissariat uniform, was running around with different sides and looked out for the burned-out Moscow, loudly reporting his observations about what burned down and what this or that visible part of Moscow was like. The third officer, of Polish origin by accent, argued with the commissariat official, proving to him that he was mistaken in determining the quarters of Moscow.
What are you arguing about? the major said angrily. - Is it Nikola, Vlas, it's all the same; you see, everything has burned down, well, that’s the end of it ... Why are you pushing, is there really not enough road, ”he turned angrily to the one who was walking behind and was not pushing him at all.
- Hey, hey, hey, what have you done! - heard, however, now from one side, now from the other side the voices of the prisoners, looking around the conflagrations. - And then Zamoskvorechye, and Zubovo, and then in the Kremlin, look, half is missing ... Yes, I told you that all Zamoskvorechye, that’s how it is.
- Well, you know what burned down, well, what to talk about! the major said.
Passing through Khamovniki (one of the few unburnt quarters of Moscow) past the church, the entire crowd of prisoners suddenly huddled to one side, and exclamations of horror and disgust were heard.
- Look, you bastards! That is not Christ! Yes, dead, dead and there ... They smeared it with something.
Pierre also moved towards the church, which had something that caused exclamations, and vaguely saw something leaning against the fence of the church. From the words of his comrades, who saw him better, he learned that it was something like the corpse of a man, standing upright by the fence and smeared with soot in his face ...
– Marchez, sacre nom… Filez… trente mille diables… [Go! go! Damn! Devils!] - the escorts cursed, and french soldiers with new anger, they dispersed with cleavers a crowd of prisoners who were looking at a dead man.Along the lanes of Khamovniki, the prisoners walked alone with their escort and the wagons and wagons that belonged to the escorts and rode behind; but, having gone out to the grocery stores, they found themselves in the middle of a huge, closely moving artillery convoy, mixed with private wagons.
At the very bridge, everyone stopped, waiting for those who were riding in front to advance. From the bridge, the prisoners were opened behind and in front endless rows other moving convoys. To the right, where the Kaluga road curved past Neskuchny, disappearing into the distance, stretched endless ranks of troops and convoys. These were the troops of the Beauharnais corps that had come out first; Behind, along the embankment and across the Stone Bridge, Ney's troops and wagon trains stretched.
Davout's troops, to which the prisoners belonged, went through the Crimean ford and already partly entered Kaluga Street. But the carts were so stretched out that the last trains of Beauharnais had not yet left Moscow for Kaluzhskaya Street, and the head of Ney's troops was already leaving Bolshaya Ordynka.
Having passed the Crimean ford, the prisoners moved several steps and stopped, and again moved, and on all sides the carriages and people became more and more embarrassed. After walking for more than an hour those several hundred steps that separate the bridge from Kaluzhskaya Street, and having reached the square where Zamoskvoretsky Streets converge with Kaluzhskaya Street, the prisoners, squeezed into a heap, stopped and stood for several hours at this intersection. From all sides was heard the incessant, like the sound of the sea, the rumble of wheels, and the tramp of feet, and incessant angry cries and curses. Pierre stood pressed against the wall of the charred house, listening to this sound, which in his imagination merged with the sounds of the drum.
Several captured officers, in order to see better, climbed the wall of the burnt house, near which Pierre was standing.
- To the people! Eka to the people! .. And they piled on the guns! Look: furs ... - they said. “Look, you bastards, they robbed him… There, behind him, on a cart… After all, this is from an icon, by God!.. It must be the Germans. And our muzhik, by God!.. Ah, scoundrels! Here they are, the droshky - and they captured! .. Look, he sat down on the chests. Fathers! .. Fight! ..
- So it's in the face then, in the face! So you can't wait until evening. Look, look ... and this, of course, is Napoleon himself. You see, what horses! in monograms with a crown. This is a folding house. Dropped the bag, can't see. They fought again ... A woman with a child, and not bad. Yes, well, they will let you through... Look, there is no end. Russian girls, by God, girls! In the carriages, after all, how calmly they sat down!
Again, a wave of general curiosity, as near the church in Khamovniki, pushed all the prisoners to the road, and Pierre, thanks to his growth over the heads of others, saw what had so attracted the curiosity of the prisoners. In three carriages, intermingled between the charging boxes, they rode, closely sitting on top of each other, discharged, in bright colors, rouged, something screaming with squeaky voices of a woman.
From the moment Pierre realized the appearance of a mysterious force, nothing seemed strange or scary to him: neither a corpse smeared with soot for fun, nor these women hurrying somewhere, nor the conflagration of Moscow. Everything that Pierre now saw made almost no impression on him - as if his soul, preparing for a difficult struggle, refused to accept impressions that could weaken it.
The train of women has passed. Behind him again trailed carts, soldiers, wagons, soldiers, decks, carriages, soldiers, boxes, soldiers, occasionally women.
Pierre did not see people separately, but saw their movement.
All these people, the horses seemed to be driven by some invisible force. All of them, during the hour during which Pierre watched them, floated out of different streets with the same desire to pass quickly; they all the same, colliding with others, began to get angry, fight; white teeth bared, eyebrows frowned, the same curses were thrown over and over, and on all faces there was the same youthfully resolute and cruelly cold expression, which struck Pierre in the morning at the sound of a drum on the corporal's face.
Already before evening, the escort commander gathered his team and, shouting and arguing, squeezed into the carts, and the prisoners, surrounded on all sides, went out onto the Kaluga road.
They walked very quickly, without resting, and stopped only when the sun had already begun to set. The carts moved one on top of the other, and people began to prepare for the night. Everyone seemed angry and unhappy. For a long time, curses, angry cries and fights were heard from different sides. The carriage, which was riding behind the escorts, advanced on the escorts' wagon and pierced it with a drawbar. Several soldiers from different directions ran to the wagon; some beat on the heads of the horses harnessed to the carriage, turning them, others fought among themselves, and Pierre saw that one German was seriously wounded in the head with a cleaver.
It seemed that all these people now experienced, when they stopped in the middle of the field in the cold twilight of an autumn evening, the same feeling of unpleasant awakening from the haste that gripped everyone upon leaving and impetuous movement somewhere. Stopping, everyone seemed to understand that it was still unknown where they were going, and that this movement would be a lot of hard and difficult.
The escorts treated the prisoners at this halt even worse than when they set out. At this halt, for the first time, the meat food of the captives was issued with horse meat.
From the officers to the last soldier, it was noticeable in everyone, as it were, a personal bitterness against each of the prisoners, which so unexpectedly replaced the previously friendly relations.
This exasperation intensified even more when, when counting the prisoners, it turned out that during the bustle, leaving Moscow, one Russian soldier, pretending to be sick from his stomach, fled. Pierre saw how a Frenchman beat a Russian soldier because he moved far from the road, and heard how the captain, his friend, reprimanded the non-commissioned officer for the escape of a Russian soldier and threatened him with a court. To the excuse of the non-commissioned officer that the soldier was sick and could not walk, the officer said that he was ordered to shoot those who would fall behind. Pierre felt that the fatal force that crushed him during the execution and which was invisible during captivity now again took possession of his existence. He was scared; but he felt how, in proportion to the efforts made by the fatal force to crush him, a force of life independent of it grew and grew stronger in his soul.
Pierre dined on rye flour soup with horse meat and talked with his comrades.
Neither Pierre nor any of his comrades spoke about what they saw in Moscow, nor about the rudeness of the treatment of the French, nor about the order to shoot, which was announced to them: everyone was, as if in rebuff to the deteriorating situation, especially lively and cheerful . They talked about personal memories, about funny scenes seen during the campaign, and hushed up conversations about the present situation.
The sun has long since set. Bright stars lit up somewhere in the sky; the red, fire-like glow of the rising full moon spread over the edge of the sky, and the huge red ball oscillated surprisingly in the grayish haze. It became light. The evening was already over, but the night had not yet begun. Pierre got up from his new comrades and went between the fires to the other side of the road, where, he was told, the captured soldiers were standing. He wanted to talk to them. On the road, a French sentry stopped him and ordered him to turn back.
Pierre returned, but not to the fire, to his comrades, but to the unharnessed wagon, which had no one. He crossed his legs and lowered his head, sat down on the cold ground at the wheel of the wagon and sat motionless for a long time, thinking. More than an hour has passed. Nobody bothered Pierre. Suddenly he burst out laughing with his thick, good-natured laugh so loudly that people from different directions looked around in surprise at this strange, obviously lonely laugh.
– Ha, ha, ha! Pierre laughed. And he said aloud to himself: “The soldier didn’t let me in.” Caught me, locked me up. I am being held captive. Who me? Me! Me, my immortal soul! Ha, ha, ha! .. Ha, ha, ha! .. - he laughed with tears in his eyes.
Some man got up and came up to see what this strange big man alone was laughing about. Pierre stopped laughing, got up, moved away from the curious and looked around him.
Previously, loudly noisy with the crackling of fires and the talk of people, the huge, endless bivouac subsided; the red fires of the fires went out and grew pale. High in the bright sky stood a full moon. Forests and fields, previously invisible outside the camp, now opened up in the distance. And even farther than these forests and fields could be seen a bright, oscillating, inviting endless distance. Pierre looked into the sky, into the depths of the departing, playing stars. “And all this is mine, and all this is in me, and all this is me! thought Pierre. “And they caught all this and put it in a booth, fenced off with boards!” He smiled and went to bed with his comrades.In the first days of October, another truce came to Kutuzov with a letter from Napoleon and an offer of peace, deceptively signified from Moscow, while Napoleon was already not far ahead of Kutuzov, on the old Kaluga road. Kutuzov answered this letter in the same way as the first one sent from Lauriston: he said that there could be no talk of peace.
Soon after this, from the partisan detachment of Dorokhov, who was walking to the left of Tarutin, a report was received that troops had appeared in Fominsky, that these troops consisted of Brusier's division, and that this division, separated from other troops, could easily be exterminated. Soldiers and officers again demanded activity. Staff generals, excited by the memory of the ease of victory at Tarutin, insisted on Kutuzov's execution of Dorokhov's proposal. Kutuzov did not consider any offensive necessary. The average came out, that which was to be accomplished; a small detachment was sent to Fominsky, which was supposed to attack Brussier.
By a strange chance, this appointment - the most difficult and most important, as it turned out later - was received by Dokhturov; that same modest, little Dokhturov, whom no one described to us as making battle plans, flying in front of regiments, throwing crosses at batteries, etc., who was considered and called indecisive and impenetrable, but the same Dokhturov, whom during all the Russian wars with the French, from Austerlitz and up to the thirteenth year, we find commanders wherever only the situation is difficult. In Austerlitz, he remains the last at the Augusta dam, gathering regiments, saving what is possible when everything is running and dying and not a single general is in the rearguard. He, sick with a fever, goes to Smolensk with twenty thousand to defend the city against the entire Napoleonic army. In Smolensk, he had barely dozed off at the Molokhov Gates, in a paroxysm of fever, he was awakened by the cannonade across Smolensk, and Smolensk held out all day. On the day of Borodino, when Bagration was killed and the troops of our left flank were killed in the ratio of 9 to 1 and the entire force of the French artillery was sent there, no one else was sent, namely the indecisive and impenetrable Dokhturov, and Kutuzov was in a hurry to correct his mistake when he sent there another. And the small, quiet Dokhturov goes there, and Borodino is the best glory of the Russian army. And many heroes are described to us in verse and prose, but almost not a word about Dokhturov.
Again Dokhturov is sent there to Fominsky and from there to Maly Yaroslavets, to the place where the last battle with the French took place, and to the place from which, obviously, the death of the French already begins, and again many geniuses and heroes describe to us during this period of the campaign , but not a word about Dokhturov, or very little, or doubtful. This silence about Dokhturov most obviously proves his merits.
Naturally, for a person who does not understand the movement of the machine, at the sight of its operation, it seems that the most important part of this machine is that chip that accidentally fell into it and, interfering with its movement, is rattling in it. A person who does not know the structure of the machine cannot understand that not this spoiling and interfering chip, but that small transmission gear that turns inaudibly is one of the most essential parts of the machine.
On October 10, on the very day Dokhturov walked halfway to Fominsky and stopped in the village of Aristovo, preparing to execute the given order exactly, the entire French army, in its convulsive movement, reached the position of Murat, as it seemed, in order to give the battle, suddenly, for no reason, turned to the left onto the new Kaluga road and began to enter Fominsky, in which only Brussier had previously stood. Dokhturov under command at that time had, in addition to Dorokhov, two small detachments of Figner and Seslavin.
On the evening of October 11, Seslavin arrived in Aristovo to the authorities with a captured French guard. The prisoner said that the troops that had now entered Fominsky were the vanguard of the entire large army, that Napoleon was right there, that the entire army had already left Moscow for the fifth day. That same evening, a courtyard man who came from Borovsk told how he saw the entry of a huge army into the city. Cossacks from the Dorokhov detachment reported that they saw the French guards walking along the road to Borovsk. From all this news, it became obvious that where they thought to find one division, there was now the entire French army, marching from Moscow in an unexpected direction - along the old Kaluga road. Dokhturov did not want to do anything, because it was not clear to him now what his duty was. He was ordered to attack Fominsky. But in Fominsky there used to be only Brussier, now there was all french army. Yermolov wanted to do as he pleased, but Dokhturov insisted that he needed to have an order from his Serene Highness. It was decided to send a report to headquarters.
For this, an intelligent officer, Bolkhovitinov, was chosen, who, in addition to a written report, was supposed to tell the whole story in words. At twelve o'clock in the morning, Bolkhovitinov, having received an envelope and a verbal order, galloped, accompanied by a Cossack, with spare horses to the main headquarters.The night was dark, warm, autumnal. It has been raining for the fourth day. Having changed horses twice and galloping thirty versts along a muddy, viscous road in an hour and a half, Bolkhovitinov was at Letashevka at two o'clock in the morning. Climbing down at the hut, on the wattle fence of which there was a sign: "General Staff", and leaving the horse, he entered the dark passage.
- The general on duty soon! Very important! he said to someone who was getting up and snuffling in the darkness of the passage.
Story
Word intelligentsia appeared in Russian in the first half of the 19th century. Included in foreign dictionaries marked "Russian". The well-known theorist and historian of the intelligentsia Vitaly Tepikin (b. 1978) in his book "Intelligentsia: Cultural Context" states:
"The primary source of the concept of "intelligentsia" can be considered Greek word knowledge - consciousness, understanding in their highest degree. Over time, the Greek concept gave rise to the word intelligentia in Roman culture, which carried a somewhat different semantic load, without subtleties - a good degree of understanding, consciousness. The word was used by the playwright-comedian Terentius (190-159 BC). And already later in Latin the meaning of the concept was interpreted by the ability of understanding (mental ability).
In the Middle Ages, the concept acquired a theological character and was interpreted as the Mind of God, the Divine Mind. It was assumed that they created the diversity of the world. Approximately in this way, Hegel also feels the intelligentsia, concluding in his "Philosophy of Right": "The spirit is<...>intelligentsia".
In an approximation to modern interpretations the word was used by the Russian prose writer, critic and publicist P.D. Boborykin. In 1875, he gave the term in the philosophical sense - "reasonable comprehension of reality." He was also aware of the intelligentsia in a social sense, namely, as "the most educated stratum of society." This definition is from the author's article entitled "Russian intelligentsia", in which, by the way, P.D. Boborykin declared himself " godfather"concepts. The author, it should be noted, was somewhat cunning about his role as the discoverer of the term, although he even thought about it earlier. In 1870, in the novel Solid Virtues, Boborykin writes: "The intelligentsia should be understood as the highest educated stratum of society as at the present moment and earlier, throughout the nineteenth century. and even in the last third of the 18th century." In the eyes of the protagonist of the novel, the Russian intelligentsia should rush to the people - in this they find their vocation and moral justification. However, already in 1836, V.A. Zhukovsky resorted to the word "intelligentsia" in his diaries - where he wrote about the St. Petersburg nobility, which, in his opinion, “represents the entire Russian European intelligentsia.” It is possible, however, that Boborykin did not know about the statements of his colleague. Zhukovsky, revealed not only the first use of the debatable term by him, but noticed and proved its almost modern interpretation by the poet: for example, belonging to a certain socio-cultural environment, European education, and even a moral (!) way of thinking and behavior... It turns out that Zhukovsky's circle already had quite a specific idea of such a social group as the intelligentsia. And in the 1860s, the concept was only rethought and received more circulation in society. "
Intelligentsia and intellectuals in various countries
In many languages of the world, the concept of "intelligentsia" is used quite rarely. In the West, the term "intellectuals" is more popular ( intellectuals), which refers to people professionally engaged in intellectual (mental) activities, without, as a rule, claiming to be the bearers of "higher ideals". The basis for the allocation of such a group is the division of labor between workers of mental and physical labor.
People professionally engaged in intellectual activities (teachers, doctors, etc.) already existed in antiquity and in the Middle Ages. But they became a large social group only in the era of modern times, when the number of people engaged in mental work increased sharply. Only since that time can we talk about a sociocultural community whose representatives, through their professional intellectual activity (science, education, art, law, etc.), generate, reproduce and develop cultural values contributing to the enlightenment and progress of society.
Since creative activity necessarily presupposes a critical attitude to the prevailing opinions, the persons of intellectual labor always act as carriers of the "critical potential". It was the intellectuals who created new ideological doctrines(republicanism, nationalism, socialism) and promoted them, thereby ensuring a constant renewal of the system of social values.
Love for one's people is a fundamental and almost recognizable feature of the intelligentsia. Almost - because part of the intelligentsia still disliked the people, caused her disbelief in the "village" spiritual potential. And relations between the intelligentsia and the people were built contradictory. On the one hand, she went to self-denial (that trait that we derive in the 7th sign of the intelligentsia and introduce into the author's definition): she fought for the abolition of serfdom, for social justice, while sacrificing position, freedom, and life. The people seemed to receive and feel the support. On the other hand, the tsarist government seemed more understandable to the simple peasant than the slogans of the intelligentsia. The "going to the people" of the 1860s was not crowned with success, at least the intelligentsia did not succeed in uniting with the masses. After the assassination of Emperor Alexander II, the idea failed altogether. Narodnaya Volya did not guess with " popular will". A. Volynsky, thinking about that intelligentsia in fresh wake in his articles, found her one-sided political ideas, too distorted moral ideals. V. Rozanov was of the same opinion. The fighters for the liberation of the people - from free-thinking writers to direct figures - were convicted of delusions, dangerous propaganda and savage morality. This intelligentsia was distinguished by its intolerance towards those and that which contradicted its views. It was characterized not so much by the concentration of knowledge and achievements of mankind, spiritual wealth, but, we believe, by a fanatical desire to change the world order. Change radically. Besides, sacrificing yourself. The end was noble, but the means... They were really cruel. And in modern understanding intelligentsia do not fit. But the inconsistency of this social group still persists.
The love of the people of the intelligentsia can be explained by the reason for the exit of many of its representatives from the masses in our time, with the relative availability of education. However, individual Russian minds and talents went this way back in the 18th century, XIX centuries. The fate of Lomonosov immediately comes to mind. This is one of the pioneers. Now there are many scientists, writers, artists who have folk roots, who both feed the intelligentsia and draw it to the people - with their way of life, customs, and original cultural heritage.
Western intellectuals cannot, of course, be completely denied love of the people or respect for the people. But their reverent attitude towards the people cannot be called their fundamental feature. It, this feeling, can make itself felt among units of the intellectual community of the West, in which, by and large, it is every man for himself. No mutual help. No mutual support. The pragmatism of a sharp mind is aimed at personal self-affirmation, primacy, material well-being. Intellectuals are people of intellectual labor. All! Nothing extra. Intelligentsia - spiritual and moral group. It is no coincidence that in Encyclopædia Britannica the dictionary entry for the term "intellectual" comes with the subsection "Russian intellectual". In the West, the concept of "intelligentsia" is not accepted, but in the Western scientific world it is understood as Russian phenomenon something close to intellectualism. In some ways, it is in the component of mental work.
From Vitaly Tepikin's book "Intelligentsia: Cultural Context"
Russian intelligentsia
The "father" of the Russian intelligentsia can be considered Peter I, who created the conditions for the penetration of the ideas of Western enlightenment into Russia. Initially, the production of spiritual values was mainly carried out by people from the nobility. "The first typically Russian intellectuals" D. S. Likhachev calls free-thinking nobles of the late 18th century, such as Radishchev and Novikov. In the 19th century, the bulk of this social group began to be made up of people from non-noble strata of society (“raznochintsy”).
The mass use of the concept of "intelligentsia" in Russian culture began in the 1860s, when the journalist P. D. Boborykin began to use it in the mass press. Boborykin himself announced that he had borrowed the term from German culture, where it was used to designate the stratum of society whose representatives are engaged in intellectual activity. Declaring himself the "godfather" of the new concept, Boborykin insisted on the special meaning he attached to this term: he defined the intelligentsia as persons of "high mental and ethical culture", and not as "mental workers". In his opinion, the intelligentsia in Russia is a purely Russian moral and ethical phenomenon. The intelligentsia in this sense includes people of different professional groups, belonging to different political movements, but having a common spiritual and moral basis. It was with this special meaning that the word "intelligentsia" then returned back to the West, where it began to be considered specifically Russian (intelligentsia).
In Russian pre-revolutionary culture, in the interpretation of the concept of "intelligentsia", the criterion of engaging in mental labor receded into the background. The main features of the Russian intellectual were the features of social messianism: preoccupation with the fate of his fatherland (civil responsibility); the desire for social criticism, to fight against what hinders national development (the role of the bearer of public conscience); the ability to morally empathize with the “humiliated and offended” (a sense of moral belonging). Thanks to a group of Russian philosophers of the “Silver Age”, the authors of the sensational collection “Milestones. Collection of articles about the Russian intelligentsia ”(), the intelligentsia began to be defined primarily through opposition to the official state power. At the same time, the concepts of "educated class" and "intelligentsia" were partially divorced - not any educated person could be classified as an intelligentsia, but only one who criticized the "backward" government. A critical attitude towards the tsarist government predetermined the sympathy of the Russian intelligentsia for liberal and socialist ideas.
The Russian intelligentsia, understood as a set of mental laborers opposed to the authorities, turned out to be a rather isolated social group in pre-revolutionary Russia. The intellectuals were viewed with suspicion not only by the official authorities, but also by the “common people”, who did not distinguish the intellectuals from the “gentlemen”. The contrast between the claim to be messianic and isolation from the people led to the cultivation among Russian intellectuals of constant repentance and self-flagellation.
A special topic of discussion at the beginning of the 20th century was the place of the intelligentsia in the social structure of society. Some insisted on a non-class approach: the intelligentsia did not represent any special social group and did not belong to any class; being the elite of society, it rises above class interests and expresses universal ideals (N. A. Berdyaev, M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, R. V. Ivanov-Razumnik). Others (N. I. Bukharin, A. S. Izgoev and others) considered the intelligentsia within the framework of the class approach, but disagreed on the question of which class / classes it belongs to. Some believed that the intelligentsia included people from different classes, but at the same time they did not constitute a single social group, and we should not talk about the intelligentsia in general, but about different types of intelligentsia (for example, bourgeois, proletarian, peasant and even lumpen intelligentsia). Others attributed the intelligentsia to some well-defined class. The most common options were the assertions that the intelligentsia is part of the bourgeois class or the proletarian class. Finally, still others singled out the intelligentsia as a separate class.
In the 1930s, a new, already immense, expansion of the "intelligentsia" took place: according to state calculations and submissive public consciousness millions of civil servants were included in it, or rather, all the intelligentsia were enlisted as employees; By all strict regulations, the intelligentsia was driven into the official class, and the very word "intelligentsia" was abandoned, it was mentioned almost exclusively as abusive. (Even free professions through "creative unions" were brought to a state of service.) Since then, the intelligentsia has been in this sharply increased volume, distorted sense and diminished consciousness. When, since the end of the war, the word "intelligentsia" was partly restored in its rights, now it is also with the capture of the many millions of petty-bourgeois employees who perform any clerical or semi-mental work.
Party and state leadership, ruling class, in the pre-war years they did not allow themselves to be confused with either "employees" (they remained "workers"), and even more so with some kind of rotten "intelligentsia", they distinctly fenced off like a "proletarian" bone. But after the war, and especially in the 50s, even more so in the 60s, when the "proletarian" terminology withered, more and more changing to "Soviet", and on the other hand, the leading figures of the intelligentsia were increasingly allowed to lead positions, according to the technological needs of all types of government, the ruling class also allowed itself to be called "intelligentsia" (this is reflected in today's definition of intelligentsia in the TSB), and the "intelligentsia" obediently accepted this extension.
How monstrously it seemed before the revolution to call a priest an intellectual, so naturally a party agitator and political instructor is now called an intellectual. So, having never received a clear definition of the intelligentsia, we seem to have ceased to need it. This word is now understood in our country as the entire educated stratum, all those who have received an education above the seventh grade of school. According to Dahl's dictionary, to form, in contrast to to enlighten, means: to give only an external gloss.
Although we have a rather third quality gloss, in the spirit of the Russian language it will be true in meaning: this educated layer, everything that is self-proclaimed or recklessly called now "intelligentsia", is called educated.
The Russian intelligentsia was a transplant: Western intellectuals transplanted into Russian barracks soil. The specificity of the Russian intelligentsia was created by the specificity of the Russian state power. In backward Russia, power was undivided and amorphous, it required not intellectual specialists, but generalists: under Peter - people like Tatishchev or Nartov, under the Bolsheviks - such commissars, who were easily transferred from the Cheka to the NKPS, in the intervals - Nikolaev and Alexander generals who were appointed to command finance, and no one was surprised. The mirror of such Russian power turned out to be the Russian opposition of all trades, the role of which had to be assumed by the intelligentsia. “The Tale of a Prosperous Village” by B. Vakhtin begins approximately like this (I quote from memory): “When Empress Elizaveta Petrovna canceled in Rus' death penalty and thus laid the foundation for the Russian intelligentsia…” That is, when the opposition to state power ceased to be physically destroyed and began, for better or worse, to accumulate and look for a pool in society more comfortable for such an accumulation. Such a pool turned out to be that enlightened and semi-enlightened layer of society, from which the intelligentsia later developed as a specifically Russian phenomenon. It might not have become so specific if Russian social melioration had a reliable drainage system that protected the pool from overflow, and its surroundings from a revolutionary flood. But neither Elizaveta Petrovna nor her successors in different reasons didn't care...
We have seen how the criterion of the classical era, conscience, gives way to two others, the old and the new: on the one hand, it is enlightenment, on the other hand, it is intelligence as the ability to feel an equal in one's neighbor and treat him with respect. If only the concept of "intellectual" did not self-identify, blurring, with the concept of "just good man”, (Why is it already uncomfortable to say “I am an intellectual”? Because it is the same as saying “I am a good person.”) Self-satisfaction is dangerous.
Notes
Links
- Intelligentsia in the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language Ushakov
- Gramsci A. Formation of the intelligentsia
- L. Trotsky On the intelligentsia
- Uvarov P.B. Children of Chaos: a historical phenomenon of the intelligentsia *
- Konstantin Arest-Yakubovich "On the issue of the crisis of the Russian intelligentsia"
- Abstract of the article by A. Pollard. The origin of the word "intelligentsia" and its derivatives.
- I. S. Kon. Reflections on the American Intelligentsia.
- Russian intelligentsia and Western intellectualism. Materials of the international conference. Compiled by B. A. Uspensky.
