Intellectuals and intellectuals. The concepts of “intelligentsia” and “intellectual” Expand the content of the terms intelligentsia and intellectual

There are words and concepts especially dear to the Russian, Russian heart, for example: intellectual, intelligentsia. How many serious books have been written, how many strong drinks have been drunk during endless debates about, so to speak, place and role, vocation and purpose... True, in this case, all this is around not a concept, but a phenomenon called the intelligentsia, with many epithets from “rotten " to "spiritual".

We will turn to the concept itself and try to understand what, in fact, allows us to call a person an intellectual, or rather, what makes him such.

This is what the dictionaries say: intelligentsia (lat. intelligentia, intelligence) - the highest ability of understanding, cognitive power, from intelligences, intelligences- “smart, understanding, knowledgeable, thinking.” For Neoplatonist philosophers, this is the Supreme Mind that conceived our cosmos. Etymological dictionaries derive meaning from inter-, "between", + legere, “to choose, to highlight,” in other words, “to recognize” or “to be between, among, inside.” The semantic emphasis here is not on the possession of a certain amount of knowledge, but on the ability to understand and penetrate.

In the West, this term is believed to have appeared in the Middle Ages, and in Russia in the 18th or 19th centuries, since which time in many dictionaries it, oddly enough, is accompanied by the mark “Russian.” So we turn to our compatriot Academician Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev. In his article about the Russian intelligentsia, he wrote: “In my life experience, the intelligentsia includes only people who are free in their convictions, who are not dependent on economic, party, or state coercions, and who are not subject to ideological obligations. The basic principle of intelligence is intellectual freedom, freedom as a moral category. An intelligent person is not free only from his conscience and from his thoughts... Conscience is not only the guardian angel of human honor, it is the helmsman of his freedom, it makes sure that freedom does not turn into arbitrariness, but shows a person his true path in confusing circumstances of life, especially modern life."

The ability to understand and think freely and conscience, which guides this freedom. Two factors - intellectual and ethical. And if we follow the above etymology, then an intellectual is not a distant contemplator of eternal truths, he is “inside, between, among” what he distinguishes, sees - reasonable, good, fair, which is the basis of morality, and lives by it. This combination of theoretical and practical - moral is the foundation of the intelligentsia.

This probably determines the purpose of the intelligentsia: the one who distinguishes, who sees and therefore himself is an example of the moral, can and should lead. After all, you can’t follow the blind... Remember those who, not so long ago, were reference points for very, very many: our writers, poets, artists, scientists... It’s just a pity that were...

Not long ago to the concept intellectual one more thing added - intellectual, partly opposed to him and claiming to take his place. The first has received the status of outdated and even somewhat abusive, the second is pronounced with undisguised pride. The difference is that the “ethical component” was excluded from this second one, leaving only one cognitive ability, the intellect, so to speak, without complexes... And with this “component”, perhaps something very subtle and very important went away. That same beautiful noble spirit that cannot be replaced by either education or the ability to analyze and learn. Did it turn out well? Judge for yourself...

to the magazine "Man Without Borders"

The words “intelligentsia” and “intelligence” have a common origin from the Latin intelligentia - understanding, cognitive power, knowledge. The concepts designated by these words are not only close, but also differ in their content.

There is no single approach to the concept of “intelligentsia”. Some scientists believe that this is a social group uniting professionals, people of mental work. Others view the intelligentsia as a collection of the most intellectually, morally and aesthetically developed people. For them, the intelligentsia is a spiritual elite, not a social stratum.

Culturologist A.I. Arnoldov defines the intelligentsia as a sociocultural community, thereby combining both approaches. So, the intelligentsia is a sociocultural community, which includes people professionally engaged in mental work, development and dissemination of culture. And intelligence is a combination of a number of qualities and personality traits that an intellectual should possess.

In the West, the term “intellectuals” is more common, used as a synonym for the intelligentsia. In Western usage, the concept of “intellectual” has a mainly professional meaning. The characteristic features of an intellectual are education, competence, pragmatism and efficiency. And in the traditional Russian understanding, an intellectual is rather a spiritual, moral category. It is not for nothing that in the Encyclopedia Britannica the dictionary chapter on the concept of “intellectual” has a special subchapter - “Russian intellectual”.

It is generally accepted that the term “intelligentsia” was introduced into widespread use by the writer P.D. Boborykin (1836-1921) in the 60s. XIX century Then from Russian he moved to other languages. At the same time, the intelligentsia as a social phenomenon appeared much earlier. If we understand the intelligentsia as people of mental work, then it originated in the era of Ancient civilizations and received significant development in industrial and post-industrial societies. The roots of the domestic intelligentsia can be found in the activities of the clergy. And, as you know, it appeared in Ancient Rus'. However, the intelligentsia emerged as a socio-cultural layer with a clear value system in the 19th century. Of course, it did not arise suddenly, but grew gradually on the basis of the centuries-old spiritual traditions of our culture.

Views on the fundamental features of the intelligentsia and its social functions have changed during the historical development of Russian society. But it was precisely in the 19th - early 20th centuries. the foundation was laid for those ideas on which we still rely today.

At this time, a strong opinion emerged about what a Russian intellectual should be. An intellectual is not only an educated, thinking person, but also a moral person, that is, honest, decent, noble. He is guided by high ideals and selflessly serves them. An intellectual is critical of himself, the surrounding reality and is in opposition to power. He is distinguished by a sense of guilt before the people, sympathy for their difficult fate and the desire to change it for the better. The most important feature of an intellectual is awareness of his responsibility for the state of Russian society and its culture.

At the same time, many representatives of the intelligentsia did not or could not realize their lofty ideas and translate words into real deeds. This was due both to Russian reality itself and to the enormous tasks that the intelligentsia set for themselves.

In Soviet times, the attitude of the authorities towards the intelligentsia was ambivalent. On the one hand, they strongly supported the intelligentsia. Without her comprehensive activities, the successful development of Soviet society was simply unthinkable. On the other hand, they were wary of it and were convinced that the intelligentsia needed firm and constant leadership. The latter is explained by the fact that the critical mind inherent in intellectuals posed a threat to the official ideology. The ideas of socialism had to be taken on faith, rejecting the slightest doubt about the correctness of the chosen path.

In the 20-50s. many intellectuals were persecuted and repressed. In these and subsequent years, the creative activity of the Soviet intelligentsia was limited by strict censorship. Many intellectuals, starting in the 70s, were forced to emigrate from the USSR. However, the departure of representatives of the Russian intelligentsia from Russia, or the so-called “brain drain,” continues today.

In difficult conditions, most of the intelligentsia remained faithful to moral ideals and conscientiously served their profession, people and the Fatherland. Thus, the spiritual traditions of the Russian intelligentsia not only did not dry out, but were preserved and continued in Soviet times.

Today, some scientists and publicists believe that the Russian concept of “intellectual” is gradually losing its previous content and is narrowing to the Western concept of “intellectual”. In their opinion, this process is natural. The intelligentsia emerged in Russian society at a time when it lacked political rights and freedoms. Therefore, it was forced to take on the functions that in a democratic country are performed by political parties and a free press. At the same time, modern intellectuals, especially young ones, have become more rational and pragmatic. They are little attracted to spiritual and moral values ​​and high ideals.

These views are largely correct, but one cannot completely agree with them. As already mentioned, in the Russian cultural tradition the concept of “intelligentsia” has always had a broader meaning than in the West. Intellectuals are not only professionals engaged in mental work, but also comprehensively developed, moral individuals. Without this spiritual component, instead of the intelligentsia, what the famous writer A.I. Solzhenitsyn called “educated” inevitably appears.

Modern Russian society is based on democratic values, but in it, like in any other, there are many social and moral problems. Their decision depends on all people and, above all, on the intelligentsia.

Of course, the intelligentsia has changed. Today, its representatives are more determined than before to achieve professional success and material well-being. They assess reality more soberly and move more decisively towards their intended goal. These orientations and traits correspond to the spirit of the times and carry a positive charge. However, lowering the moral requirements for the intelligentsia and abandoning the high standard by which they should be guided will inevitably lead to negative consequences. Namely, to a further reduction in the level of spiritual needs of society and the triumph of a pragmatic and utilitarian approach to life.

The main task of an intellectual today is to do his job selflessly, honestly and with dignity. Showing not only competence, but also the best human qualities, an intellectual will be a moral example for others: a teacher for students, a doctor for the sick, an agricultural specialist for rural workers, and so on. Thus, he will be able to positively influence both the inner world of these people and the spiritual development of our society as a whole. Similar thoughts were expressed by many participants in the Second Congress of the Congress of the Russian Intelligentsia (M.S. Kagan, V.E. Triodin, A.S. Zapesotsky, etc.), held on December 2, 1999.

An intellectual must not only conscientiously perform his direct work, but also actively participate in the public life of an institution, city, or country. According to Professor V.E. Triodin, preaching with concrete action is the only thing that distinguishes a true intellectual. Only through a specific case can you find out how responsible, compassionate and merciful a person is.

The intelligentsia has always been heterogeneous in its composition. Today it includes humanitarian, scientific, engineering, artistic, medical, rural and other groups. Intellectuals have different worldviews and differ in their social status and income level.

University graduates working in their specialty formally join the ranks of the intelligentsia. However, are they all intelligent people? Unfortunately no. A real, and not an imaginary, intellectual is a person who has intelligence. At the same time, intelligence may be practically absent among some professionals engaged in mental work. Conversely, it may be present in people belonging to other social groups.

What qualities and traits does this multifaceted personality trait include? Intelligence is comprehensive education, independence of views and judgments, criticality of mind, tolerance of dissent, the ability to admire the beauty of nature, love of art.

The most important component of intelligence is moral qualities. This is respect for the human person and the cultures of other peoples, conscientiousness, kindness, decency, mercy, tact and delicacy.

An intelligent person values ​​and respects every person, regardless of their social status, nationality and level of education. He is simple and even in communication, does not impose his opinion on anyone, knows how to put himself in the position of another, and does not show rudeness, gloating or envy.

An intelligent person is one who has a rich internal culture and behaves with dignity in various life situations. According to Academician D.S. Likhachev, “intelligence is not only in knowledge, but in the ability to understand another. It manifests itself in a thousand and a thousand little things: in the ability to argue respectfully, in the ability to quietly (precisely imperceptibly) help another, to protect nature, even in the habit of behaving modestly at the table, not littering around you - not littering with cigarette butts or swearing, bad ideas (this is also trash, and whatnot!).”

If a person is not intelligent, but tries to look like one, then all his attempts are doomed to failure. If he does not possess the necessary internal qualities, this will certainly be revealed. At some point, the mask of integrity will be dropped, and those around you will see the true face of its owner. That is why D.S. Likhachev argued that it is impossible to pretend to be an intelligent person.

The named traits and qualities of an intelligent person together constitute an ideal, a model to which one must be guided. But this does not mean that people corresponding to this ideal do not exist. You can name many famous personalities who are real intellectuals. These are academicians A.D. Sakharov and D.S. Likhachev, culturologist Yu.M. Lotman, writers A.I. Solzhenitsyn and M. Karim, poet B.Sh. Okudzhava and musician M.L. Rostropovich, director of the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts I.A. Antonova, Dr. L.M. Roshal and many others.

Each of us personally knows at least a few people who can rightfully be called intelligent. They show the best human qualities in communicating with others and selflessly serve their work. Moreover, they do this not for reasons of personal gain, but because they cannot do otherwise. There are not very many such people, but first of all, thanks to them, the culture of society functions and develops.

An intellectual who lives in a real, and not a fictional, world with all its complexities and contradictions, often in some way does not correspond to the ideal of an intelligent person. However, this does not mean that this ideal should not be strived for as something unattainable. Every person has mistakes and shortcomings. It is important that he is aware of them and strives to correct them. Namely, this trait is characteristic of an intelligent person. He understands the full extent of his imperfection and strives to be better. And, as we know, there are no limits to perfection.

Progress in the fields of science, technology, art, education, agriculture and industry depends on the activities of the intelligentsia. With its energy, mental activity and moral qualities, it is called upon to contribute to improving the culture of the people, improving morals, and humanizing society. The intelligentsia in its traditional Russian understanding is our national treasure, which must be preserved and reproduced.

The content of the article

INTELLIGENTSIA(intelligentsia). There are two different approaches to defining the intelligentsia. Sociologists understand the intelligentsia as social group of people professionally engaged in mental work, development and spread of culture, usually with higher education. But there is another approach, the most popular in Russian social philosophy, according to which the intelligentsia includes those who can be considered moral standard of society. The second interpretation is narrower than the first.

The concept comes from the word of Latin origin intelligens, which meant “understanding, thinking, reasonable.” As is commonly believed, the word “intelligentsia” was introduced by the ancient Roman thinker Cicero.

Intelligentsia and intellectuals in foreign countries.

In modern developed countries, the concept of “intelligentsia” is used quite rarely. In the West, the term “intellectuals” is more popular, which denotes people who are professionally engaged in intellectual (mental) activities, without, as a rule, claiming to be the bearers of “highest ideals.” The basis for identifying such a group is the division of labor between mental and physical workers.

People professionally engaged in intellectual activities (teachers, artists, doctors, etc.) already existed in antiquity and the Middle Ages. But they became a large social group only in the modern era, when the number of people engaged in mental work increased sharply. Only from this time can we talk about a sociocultural community, whose representatives, through their professional intellectual activities (science, education, art, law, etc.) generate, reproduce and develop cultural values, contributing to the education and progress of society.

Since creative activity necessarily presupposes a critical attitude towards prevailing opinions, individuals always act as bearers of “critical potential.” It was the intellectuals who created new ideological doctrines (republicanism, nationalism, socialism) and propagated them, thereby ensuring the constant renewal of the system of social values.

Since in the era of scientific and technological revolution the value of knowledge and creative thinking sharply increases, in the modern world both the number of people involved in mental work and their importance in the life of society are growing. In a post-industrial society, intellectuals will become, according to some sociologists, the “new ruling class.”

In countries that are lagging behind in their development, the social group of intellectuals acquires special features. Understanding the backwardness of their country better than others, intellectuals become the main preachers of the values ​​of modernization. As a result, they develop a sense of their own exclusivity, a claim to “higher knowledge” that everyone else is deprived of. Such messianic traits are characteristic of intellectuals in all countries of catching-up development, but they received the most powerful development in Russia. It is this special type of intellectuals that is called the intelligentsia.

Russian intelligentsia.

Peter I can be considered the “father” of the Russian intelligentsia, who created the conditions for the penetration of Western enlightenment ideas into Russia. Initially, the production of spiritual values ​​was mainly carried out by people from the nobility. D.S. Likhachev calls the freethinking nobles of the late 18th century, such as Radishchev and Novikov, “the first typically Russian intellectuals.” In the 19th century, the bulk of this social group began to consist of people from non-noble strata of society (“raznochintsy”).

The widespread use of the concept of “intelligentsia” in Russian culture began in the 1860s, when journalist P.D. Boborykin began to use it in the mass press. Boborykin himself announced that he borrowed this term from German culture, where it was used to designate that layer of society whose representatives are engaged in intellectual activity. Declaring himself the “godfather” of the new concept, Boborykin insisted on the special meaning he put into this term: he defined the intelligentsia as persons of “high mental and ethical culture,” and not as “knowledge workers.” In his opinion, the intelligentsia in Russia is a purely Russian moral and ethical phenomenon. In this understanding, the intelligentsia 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 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 faded into the background. The main features of the Russian intellectual began to be the features of social messianism: concern for the fate of one’s fatherland (civic responsibility); the desire for social criticism, for the fight against what hinders national development (the role of a bearer of social conscience); the ability to morally empathize with the “humiliated and offended” (a sense of moral involvement). Thanks to a group of Russian philosophers of the “Silver Age”, authors of the acclaimed collection Milestones. Collection of articles about the Russian intelligentsia(1909), the intelligentsia began to be defined primarily through opposition to official state power. At the same time, the concepts of “educated class” and “intelligentsia” were partially separated - 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 intellectuals opposed to the authorities, turned out to be a rather isolated social group in pre-revolutionary Russia. Intellectuals were viewed with suspicion not only by the official authorities, but also by the “ordinary people,” who did not distinguish intellectuals from “gentlemen.” The contrast between the claim to messianism and isolation from the people led to the cultivation of constant repentance and self-flagellation among Russian intellectuals.

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, etc.) considered the intelligentsia within the framework of the class approach, but disagreed on the question of which class/classes to classify it in. Some believed that the intelligentsia included people from different classes, but at the same time they did not form 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). Others attributed the intelligentsia to a very specific class. The most common variants were the assertion that the intelligentsia was part of the bourgeois class or the proletarian class. Finally, others generally singled out the intelligentsia as a special class.

Beginning in the 1920s, the composition of the Russian intelligentsia began to change dramatically. The core of this social group were young workers and peasants who gained access to education. The new government deliberately pursued a policy that made it easier for people from “working” backgrounds to obtain an education and made it more difficult for people of “non-labor” origin. As a result, with a sharp increase in the number of people with high education (if in the Russian Empire people with mental labor accounted for approximately 2-3%, then by the 1980s they made up more than a quarter of all workers in the USSR), there was a decrease in the quality of both their education and their general culture . The ethical component in the definition of the intelligentsia faded into the background; the “intelligentsia” began to be understood as all “knowledge workers” - the social “stratum”.

During the Soviet period, significant changes also occurred in the relationship between the intelligentsia and the authorities. The activities of the intelligentsia were brought under strict control. Soviet intellectuals were obliged to propagate the “only true” communist ideology (or, at a minimum, demonstrate loyalty to it).

Under conditions of ideological coercion, a characteristic feature of the lives of many Soviet intellectuals was alienation from political life and the desire to engage only in narrowly professional activities. Along with the officially recognized intelligentsia in the USSR, there remained a very small group of intellectuals who sought to defend the right to their independence and creative freedom from the ruling regime. They sought to destroy this oppositional part of the intelligentsia “as a class”: many were subjected to repression under far-fetched pretexts (one can recall the life of A. Akhmatova or I. Brodsky), all dissidents experienced pressure from censorship and restrictions on professional activities. In the 1960s, a dissident movement arose among Soviet intellectuals, which remained the only organized form of opposition in the USSR until the end of the 1980s.

Modern Russian intelligentsia.

Opposition sentiments, widespread among Soviet intellectuals, found an outlet in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when it was the intelligentsia that led the total criticism of the Soviet system, predetermining its moral condemnation and death. In Russia in the 1990s, the intelligentsia received freedom of expression, but many intellectuals faced a sharp decline in their standard of living, which caused their disappointment in liberal reforms and increased critical sentiment. On the other hand, many prominent intellectuals were able to make careers and continued to support liberal ideology and liberal politicians. Thus, the post-Soviet intelligentsia was split into groups with different, largely polar positions.

In this regard, there is a point of view according to which there is no longer any intelligentsia in the proper sense in modern Russia. Supporters of this position identify three periods in the evolution of the domestic intelligentsia. At the first stage (from Peter’s reforms to the reform of 1861), the intelligentsia was just being formed, claiming the role of a scientific adviser to the official authorities. The second period (1860s - 1920s) is the time of the real existence of the intelligentsia. It was during this period that the confrontation “power – intelligentsia – people” arose and the main characteristics of the intelligentsia were formed (service to the people, criticism of the existing government). After this period, the “phantom” existence of the intelligentsia followed and continues to this day: there is no longer any moral unity among educated people, but some Russian intellectuals still strive to fulfill the mission of enlightening the authorities.

In modern Russia, both approaches to defining the concept of “intelligentsia” are popular - both moral and ethical (in philosophical and cultural studies) and socio-professional (in sociology). The difficulty of using the concept of “intelligentsia” in its ethical interpretation is associated with the uncertainty of the criteria by which one can judge whether people belong to this social group. Many former criteria—for example, opposition to the government—have become somewhat meaningless, and ethical characteristics are too abstract to be used for empirical research. The increasingly frequent use of the concept of “intelligentsia” in the meaning of “persons of mental labor” shows that there is a rapprochement between the Russian intelligentsia and Western intellectuals.

In the late 1990s, “intellectual studies” emerged in Russian science as a special area of ​​interscientific humanities research. The Center for Intellectual Studies operates on the basis of Ivanovo State University, studying the intelligentsia as a phenomenon of Russian culture.

Natalia Latova

Among the unique and amazing phenomena that our country - Russia - has given to the world, a special place is occupied by such a social phenomenon as the intelligentsia. Many smart heads in the West tried in vain to find templates to fit this phenomenon to them, but were forced to admit that they did not have such a thing - only in Russia. Therefore, in Western encyclopedias in the “intellectual” section there is always a subsection - “Russian intellectual”. And this despite the fact that for the third century now the Russian intelligentsia has been exerting the most serious influence both on Russian society as a whole and on the power-holding part of it (as they now say - on the power component).

During “perestroika” there was such a poet-parodist A. Ivanov, the host of the then popular TV show “Around Laughter”. So, he burst out in the Izvestia newspaper with a long article in which he argued that the intelligentsia does not exist and never has existed, and only intellectuals exist - people professionally engaged in mental work. Moreover, the article was written in a very harsh, I would even say, malicious spirit. Why did A. Ivanov become so angry with the intelligentsia and intellectuals? Is it because the main feature of an intelligent person is conscientiousness and sympathy, empathy for people, and those mocking parodies that A. Ivanov wrote did not in any way classify him in this category? And then, what kind of manner is this - to speak on behalf of the entire people, or even on behalf of all humanity! No, mind your own business and keep your mouth shut, at best, speak only on your own behalf and only about your interests. And then you will receive an honorable name - an intellectual (professional).

It must be said that the intelligentsia was not especially favored by any government in Russia - neither the tsarist nor the Soviet, and the current one does not favor it either. More precisely, the current government favors only the intelligentsia that constantly “shines” on TV screens, glorifying it (the government) and actively collaborating with it. Well, there are about 100 people. And the rest of the Russian intelligentsia quite fits the definition of “lousy”, since they are poor along with the people and now belong to their poorest stratum. And why? Yes, because until recently the authorities had no particular need for the intelligentsia, and here they are with their conscience and unwillingness to remain silent. Therefore, attack them! - “intelligentsia”, “professorship” and others like them!

And only recently, when foreign countries explained and the authorities realized that without innovation there would be no world power, did the need for the intelligentsia appear, because they are the ones who develop the arts and sciences, generate new ideas, etc. It turned out that it is not enough to build innovation centers; we also need personnel. Moreover, you can’t get by with “professionals” here, since they think only about their own benefit and crawl to those places where they pay more. And here we need fans who, for a much lower fee, would make world discoveries, make “breakthroughs”, etc., that is, we need the intelligentsia! You can, of course, invite “professionals” from abroad, but they won’t work for pennies, right?

What kind of phenomenon is this - the Russian intelligentsia, and what distinguishes it from intellectuals? Well, as for intellectuals, any Western sociologist (ours are confused) can easily explain that an intellectual is a person who is professionally engaged in mental work and has the appropriate education, training and intellectual level for this. That is, an intellectual is a concept related to a profession. Foreign intellectuals have never spoken and do not speak on behalf of their people, do not pretend to be called the “conscience of the nation,” etc., they go about their business for their own benefit and remain silent, as the poet-parodist A. Ivanov wanted. Another thing is the intelligentsia. This concept is purely Russian, and although at one time it was borrowed either from the Germans or from the Poles, in Russia it received a completely different content. And since life in Russia for the common people, to put it mildly, was not very good, this content included conscientiousness (which is generally inherent in a Russian person), sympathy for one’s people, no matter how bad they may seem to someone, and hence criticism of the authorities, which brought the people to this state.

The word “intelligentsia” in Latin means: understanding, cognitive power, knowledge, and an intellectual is smart, understanding, knowledgeable. This is a social layer of people primarily engaged in creative work, dissemination of culture, science, etc. Unlike an intellectual, an intellectual does not necessarily engage in mental work, especially now in Russia, where many intellectuals have lost their jobs and are forced to earn their “daily bread” not by profession. However, they remain intellectuals, because an intellectual is not a professional concept, but a moral and ethical one, it is a person who has the traits and qualities of “intelligence.”

Intelligence is a set of personal qualities, such as sensitivity, curiosity, responsibility, modesty, criticality, and independent thought. The intelligentsia in Russia exists because it has an objective social function - the function of the guardian of culture, criticism (analysis), generator of advanced ideas and strategic spiritual management of society. Therefore, its duty is to tell the truth, no matter how unpleasant and “inconvenient” it may be, and the authorities have a responsibility - to listen or not to listen, to accept or not to accept the fruits of the spiritual quest of the intelligentsia. In a certain sense, the intelligentsia is an “organ” of social consciousness.

In Russia, when there is an opportunity, an intellectual engages in intellectual work, and when there is no opportunity (as now), he takes on another job in order to exist and maintain freedom and independence of thought, his moral principles and life attitudes. First of all, this is tolerance for other people’s opinions, worldview, lifestyle, but intolerance for meanness, aggressiveness, and hypocrisy. The second important quality is constant analysis and introspection, assessment and reassessment of one’s views, conclusions and actions, the absence of ready-made recipes, the awareness of one’s own imperfection. An intellectual always works, constantly works on himself, choosing those areas of activity that he considers the most valuable from the point of view of the development of his personality and the benefit to others and the whole society (and not those that pay more). The need to pass on to people, in one form or another, the fruits of their labor is one of the most distinctive (and attractive) qualities of the Russian intelligentsia.

Another distinctive quality is internal opposition to power. Not active political activity (it does not go well with intelligence), but rather an internal attitude towards the actions of the authorities and one’s participation in them. And we are not talking here about the denial of power in general, but about an initially wary position, which comes both from our history, which is not very rich in positive examples, and from a fundamental tendency to “question everything.” This is why people do not always understand the intelligentsia (we love Putin, but they criticize him!). Distrust of power comes from the intellectual’s constant internal desire for improvement, which is in no way part of the tasks of any government (it loves stability and reforms “from above” that are beneficial to it).

An intelligent person can always be distinguished by two external signs: the ability to listen to the interlocutor without interrupting, even if he does not agree with him, tolerance for points of view other than yours, even alternative ones; and by sympathy and empathy for one’s own people.

The authorities and “intellectuals” (the latter very angrily) reproach the intelligentsia for only criticizing and not doing anything. Well, in order to do something, you need the opportunity, and often you don’t have it (remember the joke - “Party - let me steer!”). Besides, this is simply not true. A real, genuine intellectual proceeds from the fact that in any case, under any government, you can and should work honestly in your place, and choose a place where you can benefit, first of all, not yourself - your loved one, but those around you. It is still possible to teach and treat people for a low salary; write for a small circle of readers without expecting a large fee; for little money to advance science and technology in the hope that in the end it will still be useful; etc.

There is another way - constructive opposition. You can once again offer the authorities a dialogue (sometimes this works out), become a mirror for them, showing the true state of affairs (remember “My light, mirror, tell me and report the whole truth...”). After all, the mirror does not give advice, it only reflects reality, and then think for yourself how to correct what is shown, and whether you want to correct anything at all (“Stability is the most valuable thing”). Currently, the Russian intelligentsia, realizing its responsibility and guilt before the people, is gradually moving from resistance to creation. She understands more and more that where it does not contradict conscience, it is possible and necessary to cooperate with authorities at different levels, while maintaining internal freedom and not slipping into servanthood (for it is said: “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening”).

Nowadays, in the media, in the speeches of “intellectuals” from sociology, heart-rending cries are heard from time to time: “The intelligentsia has disappeared! The intelligentsia is dead! The intelligentsia has been reborn!” and so on. You're lying, gentlemen! The intelligentsia is indestructible as long as the Russian people, the people of Russia, exist! And, fortunately, there are no shortage of intellectuals in Russia in the highest sense of the word. They were expelled from the country, killed, starved in camps, but their ranks multiplied, and it was they who brought our country to the forefront of scientific and technological progress, turned it into a leading world power, and successfully continue to maintain this high level. The intelligentsia in Russia is the spirit of the nation, a particularly valuable asset of the people, of the whole society. These are people of high mental and ethical culture, capable of rising above personal interests, thinking not only about themselves and their loved ones, but also about what does not directly concern them, but relates to the destinies and aspirations of their people.

Therefore, dear readers, if you feel like intellectuals, feel your intelligence, you don’t have to be ashamed of it in front of yourself. Do what you love, what you want, and not someone else, good luck to you and be happy!

Kvakin A.V. Intellectual elite - intellectuals/intelligentsia: Once again about
correlation of concepts

During the period of “glasnost” and “democratization,” domestic social scientists argued a lot about
methods, not taking into account the fact that behind the methods there is always a methodology as a set of more
general attitudes and value orientations. Not least of all, this happened because
that the very word “methodology” sounded dubious in the 1980s, because, first of all,
associated with “Marxist” methodology. It naturally followed from this that
the historian should engage in concrete research, and not “philosophizing.”

We were quite fascinated by the rigor, precision and formalization of both
as such. In his essay “On Pedantry,” Montaigne used an example of inappropriate predilection for
accurately described a man who “will never dare to say that he has a wound on his bottom
scab, until he can figure out in his vocabulary what, in fact, ass means and what scab means"
[Montaigne M. Experiments. Book 1-2. St. Petersburg, 1998. P. 168]. This reminds me of many of our
the controversies of that time. We constantly got bogged down in details due to the inability to say exactly what
is meant in one particular case or another. No wonder we admired the famous
Wittgenstein's aphorism: "what can be said at all can be said clearly, but
what is impossible to speak about, one should remain silent about." Today I join the words
Yu.I. Levin, who said already in the 1990s: “I consider this methodological rigorism
one of the most harmful phenomena in the entire history of philosophy: self-castration, even in the name of
ideological purity, cannot be fruitful" [Levin Yu.I. Truth in discourse //
Semiotics and computer science. Issue 34. M., 1994. P.128]. Yu.A. Today I owe to Schrader the idea of
the need, even in the most rigorous reasoning, to consciously abandon the unnecessary
rigorism and the benefits of thinking in terms of “vague concepts” even in relation to
quite strict things. Only then are intellectual innovations and
free joint search [Shrader Yu.A., “Science is a source of knowledge and superstitions // New
world. 1969. ? 10. P. 207-226; Shrader Yu.A. Complex systems and cosmological principles //
Systems Research-1975. Yearbook. M., 1976. P.149-171. Shrader Yu.A. Equality,
similarity, order. M., 1971. - 252 pp.]. However, today, unexpectedly for me, my
judgments of the period of “democratization” and “glasnost”, far from pretending to be some kind of
methodology, found themselves under fire from those who act as modern
a zealous rigorist methodologist. Thus, Professor of the Department of Political Science and Law
Ivanovo Energy University V.G. Ledyaev writes: “The reluctance of researchers
correlating the concept of intelligentsia with other concepts often leads to elementary
cases of synonymy, which the conceptologist must avoid. For example, A.V. Kvakin
actually defines the concept of intelligentsia as identical to the traditional concept
"elite" when he writes that "in the process of development, any social group creates its own
intelligentsia, representing the intellectual layer of this group." He
repeatedly uses the terms “elite” and “intelligentsia” interchangeably. Except
Moreover, he, in fact, does not consider it necessary to separate the concepts of “intelligentsia” and
“intellectual?, often using the construction “intelligentsia/intellectuals?” [Ledyaev V.G.
The concept of the intelligentsia: problems of conceptualization // Intelligentsia and the World. 2001. ? 1. S.
16].

Probably, one could ignore this judgment, citing the fact that my
the conclusions are taken out of the general context of the author’s evidence. However, classifying me as
this article by the Ivanovo author to "conceptologists", which, frankly speaking, I have never
strived, combined with quotation suspended above the emptiness of meaning, puts me in
the position of a famous literary character, whom another equally famous
the literary hero of the same work "besieged". Now I have to make excuses and
explain my point of view then and today. Back in 1907 in St.
St. Petersburg published a critical-sociological essay by E.I. Lozinsky "What is, finally,
intelligentsia?" The title of his work purported to sum up the discussion about the role
intelligentsia in society. But we can say with confidence that even today, almost 100 years later
years, this issue is still relevant. Modern discussions opened at the end of 1991
famous philologist A.M. Panchenko. In No. 50, then popular in intellectual circles
weekly "Moscow News" for 1991, he gave an interview with a pretentious
with the heading “I don’t want to be an intellectual.” According to A.M. Panchenko, “something is stopping him”
call Pushkin, L. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky intellectuals, as well as doctors, teachers,
engineers who, supposedly, in the Russian tradition “were not considered intellectuals.” By
opinion of A.M. Panchenko, we need to abandon the term “intelligentsia”, which
contrasts this layer with power, and move on to the global term “intellectuals”. A
So - all the troubles of our country are due to the fact that we call intellectuals “intelligentsia”.
And if we want (and in 1991 many wanted) to enter the global community, then
intellectuals are obliged to become intellectuals. Soon this topic was continued
numerous articles in other publications of the domestic intelligentsia for the domestic
intelligentsia. However, linguists note certain evaluative nuances when
content analysis of texts where the terms intelligentsia/intellectuals are used. So in
In German, the terms Intellektuelle, Intelligenz often have a positive connotation
"creative" or "critical". In English intellectuals and in French les
intellectuels reflect fewer values, because in these languages ​​there is no positive assessment in
words associated with these terms. At the same time, the attitude towards these layers in Western society
not much different from the domestic one. Thus, the Sydney writer Bernard Cohen came up with
to find out what “ordinary people” think about intellectuals in prosperous Australia
people." These are just some of the characteristics that Australians gave to people
intellectual work: “they are cut off from life”, “they sit in an ivory tower”,
“these are pale and thin clever people”, “they draw diagrams that have nothing to do with
reality", "all their ideas are schematic, they see everything only in white and
black light", "they live in a world understandable only to initiates", "they themselves do not really
know what they like”, “they speak a different language”, “they’re all crazy”, etc., etc.
[Moscow news. 1993. ? 14]. It turns out that the matter is not in terms, but in the essence of the phenomenon, and from
changes in the term, the attitude towards this category of people in society remains almost unchanged.

It has long been believed that the term "intelligentsia" was coined in 1866 by the popular
then Russian writer P.D. Boborykin. More precisely, the writer himself tried (and this is for him
managed to mislead the public for 100 years. He himself stated in 1909,
that he invented this term, because, in his opinion, the Russian intelligentsia is an ethical
Russian phenomenon [See: Boborykin P.D. “Rotten milestones” // In defense of the Intelligentsia. M.,
1909. P. 129 - 130]. This is a statement from P.D. Boborykin was adopted by the famous
publicist of the early twentieth century P.N. Sakulin, and with his light hand Boborykin was proclaimed
inventor of the term "intelligentsia", which was important for those who proceed from the presence
the most specific phenomenon - the Russian intelligentsia. In fact, the words
intellectuals, intellectuals, as well as Intellektuelle, Intelligenz, intellectuals, les intellectuels are
words of Latin origin from intelligens - understanding, thinking, reasonable.

This word appeared thousands of years ago, exists in many languages, and therefore the subject itself
"special Russian intelligentsia" is far-fetched. And conversations on this topic are ambitious
nationalistic character, or rather, Russophile [Degtyarev E.E., Egorov V.K.
Intelligentsia and power (the phenomenon of the Russian intelligentsia and problems of relationships
intelligentsia and authorities). M., 1993. S. 8 - 9]. And until 1866 this term existed,
was used in Russian, although it was most often written in Latin script, which was
usual for foreign language terms. Latin was the most commonly used language at the time.
language in Russian seminaries. And there were no difficulties in transliterating this term.

Moreover, internalization, that is, the transformation of external relations into a structure
individual action and consciousness, regarding this term occurred long before
Boborykina. All this was perfectly shown by the authors of the collective monograph “Russian
intelligentsia. History and fate" (M., 1999. P. 20, 37, etc.). It is possible that he was right
outstanding Russian philosopher G.P. Fedotov, who in the article “The Tragedy of the Intelligentsia” in
1926 noted: “: Turning to the “canon” of the Russian intelligentsia, we are immediately convinced
that he is not able to give us a ready-made, “canonical definition.” Each new
the generation of intelligentsia defines itself in its own way, renouncing its ancestors and starting -
for 10 years - a new era" [Fedotov G.P. The tragedy of the intelligentsia // About Russia and Russian
philosophical culture. Philosophers of the Russian post-October diaspora. M., 1990. P. 405].

However, the search for “our own definition” of the intelligentsia/intellectuals continues not
only in Russian social science, but also abroad, because it is correct to define the concept -
this means almost unraveling its nature. Polish sociologist Jan Szepanski revealed more
60 different definitions and interpretations of the terms intelligentsia/intellectuals
(the authorship of such a spelling of the term, or, in the words of V.G. Ledyaev, “construction”,
belongs to him and was only borrowed by me). They
Three categories of definitions of this term have been identified: Firstly, according to the role of critical
intellectuals and creative intelligentsia in the creation and protection of the highest and unchangeable
values ​​of truth, beauty, goodness and justice. Secondly, by its role in popularization
ideas, the creation of myths and ideologies, and those criticizing social order. Third,
as a special social layer playing a decisive role in the development of culture based on
defining features - higher or secondary specialized education and non-physical
the nature of the work. Jan Shepanski himself tried to give a comprehensive definition
intelligentsia/intellectuals to include various groups: “We distinguish in
intelligentsia - the category of intellectuals who create aesthetic values; scientists,
creating intelligent systems; specialists of various types using
theoretical knowledge to solve specific problems; ideologists who create and
disseminate life philosophy and political ideology; verbal technicians,
who spread foreign ideas, comment on and criticize the work of other people
and public institutions of other societies"[ Szczepanski J. Die Intelligenz in der gegenwartigen
Gesellschaft. Frankfurt/M., 1966, s. 236]. At the same time, in my opinion, the definition remains correct
L.P. The cricket intelligentsia as a specific subject of spiritual production,
the social nature of which depends on the role in the social organization of labor [Sverchkova
L.P. The subject of spiritual production: methodological analysis. L., 1988. P. 65]. Exactly this
gives us grounds to assert that “in the process of development, any social group creates
own intelligentsia, representing the intellectual layer of a given
groups" [Kvakin A.V. Modern problems of studying the history of the intelligentsia // Problems
Methodologies of the history of the intelligentsia: search for new approaches. Ivanovo, 1995. p. 8].

This function of the intelligentsia as a social group ensures cohesion and homogeneity
social life, the integration of the individual into existing social relations, it
creates the unity of all social groups, as it involves organization and education
consciousness, special development of ideological relations of people. Thus,
intelligentsia is a layer of people of any society who, within social groups
specially engaged in developing ideological connections [See: Mamardashvili M.K. Like me
I understand philosophy. M., 1990. S. 334 - 336]. At the same time, the intelligentsia/intellectuals do not
represent a single whole. In my opinion, one can agree with the opinion
modern Russian researcher A.N. Sevastyanov, who highlighted in
intelligentsia/intellectuals three layers of a kind of cone, the upper few
part of which is occupied by ideologists, the middle part by propagandists, and the bottom, most
the wide part is the performers [Sevastyanov A.N. National capitalism. M., 1995. P. 135].

At the same time, the conventional “upper part” is probably closest in content to the concept
"spiritual elite", which, according to A.S. Akhiezer, is a “special type
social elite", this is "a social group striving, at least in tendency,
creatively and skillfully cultivate the highest cultural values, generalize experience
world history, stimulate the interpenetration of the highest achievements of national
and world culture: She communicates with the bulk of the people through the intelligentsia, who
interprets the ideas of the spiritual elite for mass consumption, investing in them something different,
sometimes the exact opposite meaning" [Akhiezer A.S. Russia: criticism of historical experience
(Sociocultural dynamics of Russia). Novosibirsk, 1998. S. 162 - 163]. With this interpretation
This is not about replacing the concepts of “intelligentsia/intellectuals” and “spiritual elite”, as
asserts V.G. Ledyaev, but about their interaction and possible integration. Attentively
reading the article by V.G. Ledyaeva, you involuntarily pay attention to the fact that, acting as
a rigorist methodologist, the author only rejects other people’s approaches, sometimes joining someone else’s
criticism of other people's approaches, but without making even basic attempts to contribute one's own
own contribution to the development of the concept of “intelligentsia/intellectuals”. True, with
the final conclusion of the article by V.G. Ledyaev we can unconditionally agree: ":Often
researchers simply speak different languages ​​without understanding their opponents, which is more
all affects the study of the problems of the intelligentsia, the depth and validity of
obtained results and conclusions. Therefore, although the conversation about the concept of the intelligentsia
many intellectual scholars do not think it is productive, it needs to be continued"
[Ledyaev V.G. Decree. Op. With. 17].