Global Intifada

In general, there are two types of intellectuals: those that acquiesce to power and those that challenge it. Those that acquiesce to power do so for a variety of reasons. Perhaps to promote their own self-worth, perhaps for monetary reasons since they are offered jobs, perhaps they do so for political power since they are appointed or elected to positions, perhaps they do so because they feel the need to defend one’s homeland, etc. Perhaps the strongest reason why intellectuals relate to power in a conservative manner is that academic institutions, in spite of declarations of academic freedoms, are still institutions - social constructs that are embedded in human relationships and, as such, limited in certain ways. A professor must be concerned with real life concerns such as grants, salaries, prestige, publishing works, and tenure. Academic institutions may deviate to a certain degree, but must to some extent, agree to the party line. One of the ways the state institutes its own views is by making the acceptance of federal funding conditional upon pro-government programs. All of these things serve as constraints on intellectuals and pressure them into generally supporting the underlying thesis that the state is justified in its existence and government is good, albeit ignorant or incompetent at times. Regardless of the motivation, the majority of intellectuals have a tendency to defend power elites, rather then challenge them. Moreover, if they engage in a critical analysis it is often of a particular group of elites, rather then a systemic critique of the structure of power itself. Systemic critics are few and often exist in the fringes of any given society. They may be celebrities in other states that are critical of their home country, but are often outcasts or pariahs in their own homeland.

Those intellectuals that acquiesce to power elites often do so by mystifying the intentions and history of the elite system. They do this by knowingly or unknowingly failing to criticize it. This can be done by either asking the wrong questions or no question at all. Even when criticizing a particular group or class of power elites, they often do so under the guise of defending an alternative utopian or idealized system (i.e. for the fatherland, for democracy, for freedom, for science, etc).  Social scientists are on the forefront of the class of intellectuals that participate in the public discourse by defending power elites. They assist in the construction of symbols, myths, and narratives of history. It is by understanding how the pro-power intellectuals operate that anti-power intellectuals can develop a counter-hegemony metanarrative.

The greatest way to challenge power is by attacking the idealized history on which it bases its symbols and mythology. The ultimate objective of the anti-power intellectual is to expose the true nature of the system for what it is - one that ultimately relies upon brute force to create an imbalance of power that then hides behind negotiations between parties with disparate power - in other words, the ultimate objective of the true intellectual is to demystify the power elite system and shine a light on its true nature so that people can see naked power. Such an intellectual’s greatest weapon is history and the interpretation of particular events that are used by the power elites to create symbols, myths, and often cult worship. These must be inverted by any means possible, either intellectually or physically. By subverting the metanarrative constructed by power elites, the process of demystification enables a casual observer to realize the truth of all political systems. The truth of all political systems is that they are fortuitous, not inevitable; malleable, not unalterable; sufficient, not mandatory; but most importantly, they are comprised of human beings who have volition and certain limited capabilities. When one combines the aggregate of the limited abilities of those in power and those that seek empowerment, systemic changes within a state are not only possible, but irresistible forces in history that can only be crushed through extreme measures.

The true revolutionary is first and foremost an intellectual who seeks to attack the ideological foundations of the power system itself. In seeking the destruction of the order he wishes to challenge, the intellectual must become a master of deconstructing narratives and enabling the people to create new narratives.  In particular, targets of the revolutionary intellectual include the main representations of power elites in the world today: flags, national event holidays, military parades, cult worship of particular leaders. Some symbols can be deconstructed by words alone while others can only be replaced. Some symbols cannot be deconstructed or replaced and must simply be physically minimalized or destroyed. By attacking the symbols, myths, and narratives of the power elites, when exposes how true power in its naked form operates. While it is true that the masses may be riled up by nationalistic fervor to defend these myths and symbols, the inherent honesty and desire for fairness within the people will eventually overcome it and seek the truth. Such persons are the ultimate target of the revolutionary intellectual. It is not the government nor the elites whose attention the revolutionary intellectual seeks to capture, it is the honest humble people who seek neither riches nor glory, but truth and justice. These are the people who are the true source of power, albeit latent, within any given society, and thus, they and only they can be the true source of revolution to dramatically alter that society.

The question for the Islamic revolutionary is to invoke a mass-movement to tear down the oppressive batini systems while also producing a system of mass-education to prevent jahiliyyah from implanting itself in social and political institutions in the event that a popular revolution is proven to be successful. The closest to a mass-movement the Muslim world has produced is those of the Islamist groups (Ikhwan al Muslimeen, Jamaat e Islami, Hizb e Tehrir). The closest to a mass-education movement the Muslim world has produced is those of Sufi tariqas and Tableeghi Jamaat. If one were able to provide the mass-movements with mass-education, the possibility for successful Islamic revolutions is much greater.

Share This