Chomsky describes an intellectual as “one who is thinking about things, trying to work things out, maybe is trying to articulate and express that understanding to others and so on” (Znet, p. 1). An intellectual may be thinking about society or music or sports or any other subject. Such intellectuals often can be seen to resort to ordinary routine work due to lack of opportunities. But if an intellectual is given the time and opportunity to do extraordinary intellectual work of which he or she is capable, what would the responsibilities be? It is most likely that he or she would try to make others see the world in accordance with the power politics of the day. This is not however, the moral responsibility of an intellectual. The moral responsibility would be to seek the truth, work for it and help others to understand the truth (Chomsky, p. 1). But if this truth is going to antagonize people who are providing them with opportunities, intellectuals often try to avoid the conflict by dodging the moral responsibility. When intellectuals dared to seek the truth they faced danger as seen in the cases of Galileo. Descartes is said to have destroyed the final volume of his treatise on the world, when he learned of the fate of Galileo. An intellectual in pursuit of truth is most often considered an ‘irritant’, or a ‘rebel against all hidden and open pressure and manipulation’. The easier way for an intellectual to live is to serve the powerful and tell ‘Nobel Lies’ to serve the ruling interests. After all powerful people also need the intellectuals to carry out their plans.
One might wonder why the intellectual is such a special person. Many people may be well endowed physically or may have charisma, but it’s rare to find the profound intellectual. This makes it all the more important that intellectuals set the direction of the moral compass. The moral compass set by the intellectuals sets the direction for the common people. Without moral compassing, any group or country can fall into disarray.
In the 1940s, Dwight MacDonald wrote an article in the journal Politics, questioning to what extent the German and Japanese people were responsible for the atrocities committed by their governments and to what extent American and British people were responsible for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Rivers 1). Extending on this question, in 1967, Noam Chomsky published an essay in the New York Review of Books titled “The Responsibility of Intellectuals” (Rivers 1). This was the period during which the Vietnam War was taking place and people were raising questions as to the validity of America’s involvement in Vietnam. Chomsky raised a number of reflective questions questioning the responsibilities of intellectuals in Western capitalist democracies. According to Chomsky, intellectuals have a “responsibility… to speak the truth and to expose lies” and a duty “to see events in their historical perspective” (Rivers, p. 1). Vaclav Havel has said: “I too think the intellectual should constantly disturb, should bear witness to the misery of the world, should be provocative by being independent, should rebel against all hidden and open pressure and manipulations, should be the chief doubter of systems, of power and its incantations, should be a witness to their mendacity” (Ebrahim, p. 1). Hence, he concludes that intellectuals are misfits in society. But Havel does not explain why an intellectual need to bear this moral responsibility. He merely stated that an intellectual should act with moral responsibility. The explanation was provided by Naom Chomsky who wrote “Responsibility of Intellectuals” during the latter half of the 20th century and other works. According to Chomsky, “the responsibility of a writer as a moral agent is to try to bring the truth about matters of human significance to an audience that can do something about them” (Ebrahim 1).
Intellectuals generally tend to serve the elite people. Chomsky points out that the reason an intellectual can be held morally responsible only when he is serving in the interests of the plebeian peoples. Sometimes, intellectuals go against elite people due to personal ego, self-interests, personal guilt, etc. In that case, an opposite stand supporting the plebeians will not make them morally responsible. They would be rather the ‘dissenting priest’ says Chomsky (Chomsky, p. 1). They need to pursue the interests of the plebeian people as a primary cause in order to be held morally responsible. This view of Chomsky is based on the view of Hume: “Responsible or morally free actions are caused by our willings, whereas unfree actions are brought about by causes external to the agent” (Russell, p. 175). Hume and Smith have agreed that responsibility must be interpreted in terms of working of moral sentiment.
John MacMurray has interpreted the moral responsibility of an intellectual in terms of feelings. According to MacMurray, “A merely intellectual force is powerless against an emotional resistance…Unless the emotions and intellect are in harmony, rational action will be paralyzed”. (Freedom in the Modern World, pp. 46-48).
According to Hans Morgenthau the rule of “American exceptionalism” applies. It is a basis that the US is different from all other countries in the world and has a ‘transcendent purpose’ such as “the establishment of equality in freedom in America,” and indeed throughout the world, since “the arena within which the US must defend and promote its purpose has become worldwide.” Even John Stuart Mill in his classic essay, “A Few Words on Non-Intervention” has supported ‘exceptionalism’ by declaring that England is free to do whatever it wants to do because England is “novelty in the world,” an angelic power that seeks nothing for itself and acts only for the benefit of others. Thus, intellectuals in today’s world often follow ideals that conform to national interests.
The intellectuals in the United States in particular have a greater obligation towards working for the truth because the society is one that promotes freedom and enlightenment. The quest for truth has led the country to greater economic development and consequently to greater power. The sciences have actually begun to contribute materially to industrial development. Hence, there is all the more reason why intellectuals of this land in particular need to undertake the moral responsibility of pursuing the truth. In the context of the Iraq War, the moral responsibility of an intellectual would be to find out the true causes of the war and tell it to the public – with the interests of the public of Iraq and the public of United States at heart – not just because he belongs to a particular party or because it would make him popular. Chomsky’s argument that intellectuals have a responsibility to speak the truth is especially relevant in the context of America’s black poor. This moral responsibility is more on the shoulders of the educated minority black intellectuals who “have the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying behind the veil of distortion… ideology, and class interest through which the events of current history are presented to us.” The truth is that more than 10 million Americans suffer from poverty and live amongst dangers such as drugs, HIV and homicide (Rivers 1). But at the same time, there are powerful people who are intelligent. Conor Cruise O’Brien holds that the combination of power and intelligence can only damage the prospects for the exploration of truth. But this is not true. There have been intellectual leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. who was both an intellectual and a leader – he was a man of vision and fought for the equality of African Americans. “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed” are the words from this great intellectual who moved a nation. Another intellectual, Malcolm X had the courage to tell the nation: “No, I’m not an American. I’m one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism.” (Cone, p. 1). These are the kind of people who are needed today. They are intellectuals who can act with moral responsibility.
Works Cited
- Chomsky, Noam. The Responsibility of Intellectuals. The New York Review of Books, 1967. Web.
- Cone, H. James. Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare. Orbis Books. Maryknoll, NY. 1992. Page Number: 1
- MacMurray, John. Freedom in the Modern World. Humanity Publishers. 1990
- Rivers, Eugene Reverend. On the Responsibility of Intellectuals in the Age of Crack. Boston Review. 1993.
- Russell, Paul. Freedom and Moral Sentiment: Hume’s Way of Naturalizing Responsibility. Oxford University Press. 1995.
- Znet. Michael Albert and Noam Chomsky. Transcription of tapes. 1993.