Editing Intellectual (section)

== Intellectual status class==
{{main|Intelligentsia}}

Socially, intellectuals constitute the [[intelligentsia]], a [[Status group|status class]] organised either by [[ideology]] (e.g., [[conservatism]], [[fascism]], [[socialism]], [[liberalism]], [[reactionary]], [[revolutionary]], [[Democracy|democratic]], [[communism]]), or by nationality (American intellectuals, French intellectuals, Ibero–American intellectuals, ''et al.''). The term ''intelligentsiya'' originated from [[Russian Empire|Tsarist Russia]] ({{circa|1860s}}–1870s), where it denotes the [[Social stratification|social stratum]] of those possessing intellectual formation (schooling, education), and who were Russian society's counterpart to the German ''[[Bildungsbürgertum]]'' and to the French ''bourgeoisie éclairée'', the [[Bourgeoisie|enlightened middle classes]] of those realms.<ref name="Williams1983">Williams, Raymond. ''Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society'' (1983)</ref>{{rp|169–71}}

In [[Marxist philosophy]], the [[social class]] function of the intellectuals (the [[intelligentsia]]) is to be the source of progressive ideas for the transformation of society: providing advice and counsel to the political leaders, interpreting the country's politics to the mass of the population (urban workers and peasants). In the pamphlet ''[[What Is to Be Done?]]'' (1902), [[Vladimir Lenin]] (1870–1924) said that [[Vanguardism|vanguard-party revolution]] required the participation of the intellectuals to explain the complexities of [[socialism|socialist]] ideology to the uneducated [[proletariat]] and the urban industrial workers in  order to integrate them to the revolution because "the history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only [[Trade union|trade-union]] consciousness" and will settle for the limited, socio-economic gains so achieved. In Russia as in [[Continental Europe]], socialist theory was the product of the "educated representatives of the propertied classes", of "revolutionary socialist intellectuals", such as were Karl Marx and [[Friedrich Engels]].<ref>Le Blanc, Paul. ''Revolution, Democracy, Socialism: Selected Writings of Lenin'' (Pluto Press, London: 2008)</ref>{{rp|31,137–8}}

The Hungarian Marxist philosopher [[György Lukács]] (1885–1971) identified the intelligentsia as the privileged social class who provide revolutionary leadership. By means of intelligible and accessible interpretation, the intellectuals explain to the workers and peasants the "Who?", the "How?" and the "Why?" of the social, economic and political ''[[status quo]]''—the ideological totality of society—and its practical, revolutionary application to the transformation of their society.

The Italian communist theoretician [[Antonio Gramsci]] (1891–1937) developed [[Karl Marx]]'s conception of the intelligentsia to include political leadership in the public sphere. That because "all knowledge is [[Existentialism|existentially]]-based", the intellectuals, who create and preserve knowledge, are "spokesmen for different social groups, and articulate particular social interests". That intellectuals occur in each social class and throughout the [[right-wing]], the [[Centrism|centre]] and the [[left-wing]] of the [[political spectrum]] and that as a social class the "intellectuals view themselves as autonomous from the [[ruling class]]" of their society.

Addressing their role as a social class, [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] said that intellectuals are the moral conscience of their age; that their moral and ethical responsibilities are to observe the socio-political moment, and to freely speak to their society, in accordance with their consciences.<ref>Scriven 1993</ref>{{rp|119}}

The British historian [[Norman Stone]] said that the intellectual [[social class]] misunderstand the reality of society and so are doomed to the errors of [[logical fallacy]], ideological stupidity, and poor planning hampered by ideology.<ref Name="Jennings"/> In her memoirs, the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] politician [[Margaret Thatcher]] wrote that the anti-monarchical [[French Revolution]] (1789–1799) was "a [[utopia]]n attempt to overthrow a traditional order [...] in the name of [[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen|abstract ideas]], formulated by vain intellectuals".<ref>{{cite book|title=The Downing Street Years|last=Thatcher|first=Margaret|author-link=Margaret Thatcher|date=1993|publisher=HarperCollins|location=London|isbn=0-8317-5448-6}}</ref>{{rp|753}}

=== Latin America ===
The American academic [[Peter H. Smith]] describes the intellectuals of Latin America as people from an identifiable social class, who have been conditioned by that common experience and thus are inclined to share a set of [[Value (ethics)|common assumptions]] (values and ethics); that ninety-four per cent of intellectuals come either from the [[middle class]] or from the [[upper class]] and that only six per cent come from the [[working class]].
<ref>{{cite book|title=A view from Latin America|last=Smith|first=Peter H.|publisher=The New History|date=2017}}</ref>

Philosopher [[Steve Fuller (sociologist)|Steven Fuller]] said that because [[cultural capital]] confers [[power (social and political)|power]] and social status as a status group they must be autonomous in order to be credible as intellectuals:

{{Blockquote|It is relatively easy to demonstrate autonomy, if you come from a wealthy or [an] [[Aristocracy|aristocratic]] background. You simply need to disown your [[Social status|status]] and champion the poor and [the] downtrodden [...]. [A]utonomy is much harder to demonstrate if you come from a poor or [[Proletariat|proletarian]] background [...], [thus] calls to join the wealthy in common cause appear to betray one's class origins.
<ref>{{cite book|title=The Intellectual: The Positive Power of Negative Thinking|last=Fuller|first=Steve|author-link=Steve Fuller (sociologist)|date=2005|publisher=Icon|location=Cambridge}}</ref>{{rp|113–4}}}}

=== United States ===
[[File:Edwards Amasa Park.jpg|thumb|upright|The Congregational theologian [[Edwards Amasa Park]] proposed segregating the intellectuals from the public sphere of society in the United States.]]

The 19th-century U.S. [[Congregational church|Congregational]] theologian [[Edwards Amasa Park]] said: "We do wrong to our own minds, when we carry out scientific difficulties down to the arena of popular dissension".<ref name=Bender>{{cite book|title=Intellect and Public Life|last=Bender|first=Thomas|date=1993|publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press|location=Baltimore}}</ref>{{rp|12}} In his view, it was necessary for the sake of social, economic and political stability "to separate the serious, [[Social engineering (political science)|technical role]] of professionals from their responsibility [for] supplying [[Public policy|usable philosophies]] for the general public". This expresses a  dichotomy, derived from Plato, between public knowledge and private knowledge, "civic culture" and "professional culture", the [[Intellectualism|intellectual sphere of life]] and  the life of ordinary people in society.<ref name=Bender/>{{rp|12}}

In the United States, members of the intellectual status class have been [[demographic]]ally characterized as people who hold [[Liberalism|liberal]]-to-[[leftist]] political perspectives about [[Guns versus butter model|guns-or-butter]] [[fiscal policy]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549 |title=Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion – Pew Research Center for the People & the Press |publisher=People-press.org |date=9 July 2009|access-date=14 April 2010}}</ref>

In "The Intellectuals and Socialism" (1949), [[Friedrich Hayek]] wrote that "journalists, teachers, ministers, lecturers, publicists, radio commentators, writers of fiction, cartoonists, and artists" form an intellectual social class whose function is to communicate the complex and specialized knowledge of the [[scientist]] to the general public. He argued that intellectuals were attracted to [[socialism]] or [[social democracy]] because the socialists offered "broad visions; the spacious comprehension of the social order, as a whole, which a [[Planned economy|planned system]] promises" and that such broad-vision philosophies "succeeded in inspiring the imagination of the intellectuals" to change and improve their societies.<ref>"The Intellectuals and Socialism", ''The University of Chicago Law Review'' (Spring 1949)</ref> According to Hayek, intellectuals disproportionately support socialism for idealistic and utopian reasons that cannot be realized in practice.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf|title=Papers of Interest|work=Mises Institute|date=18 August 2014}}</ref>