Intellectual elite and power: drawing-in and pushing-away

A know-nothing is not that who knows little, and there is nothing wrong with this. An unknowing man is the one unaware of his «ignorance» but daring to judge things incurious about. It does not pay to argue with him, for he’ll never hear.

I’m not going to argue with Mr. Gurbanly, it makes no sense; however, the problem is that he is not a private person; he holds various official posts and forced to advance not his own view (even if he has it) but rather an official point of view of the authority. Under this circumstance an enlightened stratum of the society or, rather, the intellectual elite must voice its own point of view.

I’ll try to clarify my stand on the issue.

The society needs the opposition to publicly point out shortcomings; to insist that the opposition is in position to perform functions of the authority and replace the existing power legally, without resorting to military actions.

One must note that the intellectual elite takes a different view on public issues and is inclined to other methods of attaining its goals. Note that elite’s criticism of power does not preclude the collaboration with the authorities. Under the collaboration are meant attempts to hide behind the authorities, receive a favorable offer from the authorities. In other words, it is talked of collaboration where each party stops short at limits of its own legitimacy, on the one hand, and personal dignity (civilian, professional and human), on the other hand.

Is it idealism or even utopism?

I think that under real conditions (it is mostly related to our political reality) collaboration opportunities are restricted, for under the collaboration is meant the loyalty to the authority and support of all its decisions.

It should be remembered that if the political power is eager to exert a total control over the society; if it means the political maneuvering under «policy», sooner or later («later» may last for decades but it comes up sooner or later) it will be isolated both socially and politically. To my thinking, the intellectual elite should help the authorities and the society with avoiding political disturbances due to the divide between the authorities and the society.

Other doubts are cast upon the issue.

The 20 century experience is indicative that the most tyrannical regimes of this century (communism and fascism) found ideological support of the intellectual elite. The 21 century experience (suffice it to remember current developments in the large neighboring country) is illustrative that intellectuals in power are frequently bearers of cynicism that views the society as an instrument of manipulation. 

This is tough to swallow but examples of this sort say that the collaboration with the intellectual elite is not vote of confidence: the intellectual elite proper may bear a tyrannical consciousness of the right and left trend, etc. The point at issue is that the collaboration of this sort is the first step in resolving social issues; second, the power and the intellectual elite cannot monopolize the social consciousness.

The point to be emphasized is that the democracy is a system to prevent any monopoly upon the social consciousness: nobody is entitled to speak for all bypassing democratic institutions.   

… Is there a history backbone?

Mr. Gurbanly says the following:

There are «great powers» and «western countries» are pursuing «mixture of cultures», creation of «single religion», hence «we» must «strengthen instinct of preservation of our values» (?!).

All things considered, simplifications of this sort («they» who intend to absorb us; «we» who have to stand on the defensive) are impermissible even at a level of However, it is repeated by top officials, so we have to repeat common knowledge as well.

First, the reasoning of this sort ought to take into consideration the historical time. «Archenemies» are a mythology like «life-long friends». It’d be awkward to speak about in the 21 century where notions like «uncertainty», «probability», «blurred multitudes», etc. have been included into school curriculum.

Second, «they» and «we» are dead-hand of the colonial and post-colonial period in the world history development where gaining of independence was inevitably accompanied by adding pathos of «satanic» features to peoples that colonized them. The pathos of «children’s radicalism» is becoming a break on social development.

Third, the global century goes to show that interaction between the peoples and cultures tends to intensify and that the global century came as a result of history backbone to include various peoples and cultures.

   It is fair to say that achievements of ancient eastern civilizations (India, China, etc.) are common for everyone; ancient Greek democracy for everyone; Roman law for everyone; preservation of Moslem culture foe everyone; Renaissance for everyone; Copernicus overturn for everyone; post-industrial epoch for everyone; information technologies and Internet for everyone and the rest of it.

It’d be not only absurd and dangerous today to stay out of history risking to lose «instinct of preservation of values»; it means that conventional «we» have lost not the said «instinct…» but merely an instinct of self-preservation.

Fourth, conventional «we» is perceived as something that conceals numerous riddles and obscure issues …and have to reviewed inside this backbone of history and preserve its specificity through involvement of the history artery.

Otherwise, it remains to be «folklore people» (we’ll still put a pin in that) which is capable of bringing «its exotic character» to others’ notice.

Let’s try to make sense of our historical involvement in the world history backbone.

It has to be kept in mind that «we are inside the world history.

At first sight, the history is a science about the past while the past is what has already happened and cannot be changed. So the history is a science about the past. The situation is puzzling.

Let’s try to narrate several times about what had happened to you yesterday. Depending upon importance of the occurrence for you personally, for your dialogue partner; depending upon your emotional state, etc. you’d prefer this or other version out of numerous ones.

Practically, the same is true of the history, especially as it is talked about transition period; depending upon the past and its development in the present. Much depends on a narrator (his profession, qualification, etc.); upon his preference to mark this «transition period», «post-Soviet», «post-colonial», «gaining of independence» and so on.

Evidence suggests – it is spread at a level of everyday consciousness – that most «unbiased» are professional historians. However, in reality many professional historians write their texts on the basis of critical analysis of historical sources. However, this has not hampered them to remain contemporaries and design the historical past in line with their own viewsе.

More than one article and more than one monograph is required to thrash out the issue (it is a matter of not only professional historians and the intellectual elite but all the thinking public). The point is that as a matter of fact, we face two «histories» which differ from each other, though denied openly.

It should be remembered that an «official history» is as a matter of fact a sort of appendage to the ideology of the authorities. Though this history reaches out to thousand-old history of Azerbaijan, it has been mythologized around 1969, so the given dating is none other than a pure ornamentality («orientalism»). It’d be responsibility of official institutions, all school and college textbooks of Azerbaijan to discharge duty to the history.

… It must be acknowledged that Mr. Gurbanly is clear on the fact that when he deals with religion and «instinct for preservation of national values», he relies on «official history» …

The second history, the true «history», has its own conceptual center.

…Particular emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that this «center» will not be mythologized until our development considers it inside the historical process, the one that asks questions but not suggests no ready answers.

 I mean a fifty year period, from 1870 to 1929.

It will be remarked that this period marked our adaptation to the main directions of the world civilization. Suffice it to say that a figure of Hasanbey Zardabi stood in the beginning of this period. His activity covered our first newspaper, first secular school, first theatrical performance, Azerbaijanis’ participation in the parliament (Duma and Uprava), many other things.

The point to be emphasized is that the «second» history (this time, without quotation marks) is notable for many serious names, serious books, special sites that turned on the eve of ADR centenary. However, that’s not the half of the story.

First, non-appendage to the ideology of the authorities, it cannot frequently get rid of national ideology manifestations.

Second, staging a peculiar Copernicus overturn in the history understanding and viewing a critical analysis of the past as the main task couldn’t help being painful («pitiless apprehension of the past», according to Adorno).

Added to the above can be that our 19 and 20 centuries, as well as continuing 21 century remain to be utterly difficult. In must be borne in mind that we can develop normally through casting off false illusions.

… «Orientalism» involuntary and voluntary.

It should be noted that a term «orientalism» was widely spread due to a book by Edward Said «Orientalism». A Said’s main message was that a concept of «orientalist East» has essentially been invented by the West while «orientalism» was a symbol of the European authority over the East.

Besides, «orientalism» means what is beautiful, refined, etc. but without self-reflection, a sort of of «mute» cultures.

It is needless to dispute with Said’ approach. That was and is going to be (arrogance, messianism, etc.) but there is many other things, and in the end the Said’s book was widely spread exactly in West to form a part of numerous post-colonial «studies». We are in another bag now.

Charge all you want the West with its discovering the «East» from orientalist point of view but who can explain why do many cultures of developing countries rely on principles of «orientalism» (random tautology is not unreasonable)? Why do we regularly and persistently present our culture worldwide as «oriental»?

There is no debate that any people must acquaint the world with its achievements by means of various biennale, international festivals, contests and so on. First of all, every people and every culture ought to uncover itself to the world. Otherwise, they set themselves up for orientalist self-disclosure to the world.

Regretfully, it goes back to a culture which is enforced by the authorities and shared by a part of our intellectual elite.

Let’s look at Uzeyir Hajibeyli’s case.

We have good reason to title him as a genius of the Azerbaijani culture. In doing so, it’d be appropriate to substantiate what we mean.

I’d focus on two aspects of the matter (true, culture and music experts may supplement, deepen and amplify the list).

First, «Arshin mal alan» and «Meshadi Ibad» are our most archetypic works. They are our dreams and our cultural therapy at all times. It is an overstatement, and with it we became Azerbaijanis after «Arshin mal alan» and «Meshadi Ibad»: our collective unconscious turned into the literary text (in terms of K. Yung theory).

Second, it must be admitted that acting as a composer and a cultural figure Uzeyir Hajibeyli paved the way for our authentic music that basically continued to be folklore and classical music. It was a tough choice: he disputed, burned manuscripts (as was the case with music’s adaptation into «Azerbaijani»). The only thing he was confident proved to be the backbone of world culture development, so we must bring this musical language and musical institutions under cultivation (symphonic orchestra, opera, conservatory, etc.).

It is worth reminding that we invented a tag «composer of genius», and that’ll do; however, we cannot understand why it remains unheard across the world.

What can be concluded from my words? We must enlighten the world (having its own «rating») with what is meant under «our genius ». Yes, not only.

Another opportunity is our music, our theatre and our cinema which suggest that U. Hajibeyli’s creation is neither museum, nor archive but genuine classics that varies over time and is differently interpreted, including most bleeding edge art.

I put an end to this, although the mirror of "orientalism" is far from being exhausted by what I have said.

Afterword

It has to be kept in mind that the intellectual elite must not necessarily be represented in power. A top-tanking official is not meant to be an intellectual but he ought to know limits of ignorance and avoid reasoning upon what he does not know.

This might lead to the fact that the society would go around the circle, at beast.