Intellectuals and Society

An intellectual’s work begins and ends with ideas, not the practical application of ideas to real world problems. These purveyors of ideas may be at all points of the political and ideological spectrum, although Sowell generally reserves his sharpest criticisms for those on the left. Certain common patterns in intellectuals, he argues, cut across specific political ideologies. Intellectuals, for example, show a marked preference for third parties, working outside the established power structures and applying what is presumed to be superior insight, to control the resources and decision making processes of the masses and their official leaders. This preference sometimes makes outwardly competing ideologies appear more alike than different. For example both National Socialism and Stalinism attempted to micro-manage the lives of their citizens; both implemented sweeping propaganda campaigns to reframe reality, and both resulted in leadership by an elite outside group. This, apparently, despite the fact that both movements were notoriously anti-intellectual.[5]

The work of intellectuals is ultimately not subject to external (real world) verifiability, as compared to those engaged in more practical pursuits with readily observable results. An intellectual, for example, can condemn a military operation for "excessive force" but has no accountability in regards to the actual outcome of that operation. By contrast, a military commander who fails to deploy sufficient force at the appropriate time can pay with his own life and that of his men. The acclaim given to intellectuals, despite their predictions having failed, is a prime example of the lack of ultimate accountability, Sowell maintains.[6]

Intellectuals usually have thorough knowledge in their areas of expertise. Outside these fields, however, they may be as uninformed as the average person. Too often, Sowell argues, this does not stop them from attempting to influence public opinion in areas where they are not fully qualified. Sowell lists several examples that he argues support his thesis.[7]

Sowell states that intellectuals often assume that their specialized knowledge qualifies them to guide others, as do experts in any field of endeavor, practical or otherwise. Sowell argues that what is crucial is their influence on the people who wield decision making power. The presumption of insight often creates a climate that influences the way events are reported by the media, and may make politicians hesitant to take certain approaches to problem-solving. Before World War II, for example, British intellectuals played a large role in the process of creating the opposition to re-armament, which proved to be a deadly mistake.[8]

Sowell suggests that intellectuals rely heavily on what he calls "verbal virtuosity" (clever phrasing, vague euphemisms, witty quotes, deceptive labeling, name-calling and sneering asides) to substitute for evidence, logic and analysis. Other tactics of "verbal virtuosity" include dismissing opposing ideas as simplistic, portraying those making opposing arguments as morally unworthy, invoking "rights" which have no legal basis, vague calls for "change", reliance on the abstract versus the concrete, and a constant "filtering of reality".[9]

The presumption of wisdom and/or virtue causes intellectuals to personalize situations where contending ideas are involved. This often results in: (a) the demonization of opponents, and (b) personal fulfillment serving as a substitute for debate and evidence. Sowell does not make it clear if intellectuals acquired these traits from politicians, or the other way around.[10]