Intellectual elite and the authorities: attraction and repulsion

A heathen is not one who knows little, for there is nothing disgraceful on this account. A heathen is one who is in the dark about the limits of his "ignorance" and allows himself to assert positions he is incurious about. It is no use arguing with such a person as he turns a deaf ear to you.

I am not going to argue with Mr. Gurbanly (see http://www.turan.az/ext/news/2018/8/free/politics%20news/ru/74483.htm); it is useless. However, the point is that Mr. Gurbanly is not a private person; he holds official positions constantly and needs to articulate official points of view, not his own, even were he to have one. In this situation, an enlightened source or, if you prefer, an intellectual elite, should offer its own view.

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

Society needs an opposition capable of: uncovering the authorities" official blunders; proving its ability to perform official functions; and seeking to replace the current state without resorting to force.

In turn, the intellectual elite have an alternative vision on social issues and other ways of pursuing its objectives. Its criticism of power does not rule out collaboration with the authorities. Under collaboration, I do not mean an attempt to hide behind the authorities nor to gain advantages from them. I mean collaboration in the sense that no party crosses the line of its own legitimacy, on the one hand, or goes beyond the bounds of honor and dignity (civilian, professional, human) on the other.

Isn"t this idealism or even utopianism?

I don"t think so, though I"m conscious that under certain circumstance in our political reality the possibilities for collaboration are restricted, since under collaboration the authorities mean loyalty to the authorities and support for all its decisions.

If the political power is eager to exert absolute control over society; if, by politics is meant political maneuvering in response to unwelcome events, then sooner or later, possibly decades, this political power will find itself in complete social and political isolation. At this point, the intellectual elite should help the authorities and society avoid the inevitable political turmoil resulting from the complete breakdown between the authorities and society.

Doubts about collaboration between the authorities and the intellectual elite may arise. The 20th century illustrates that the most oppressive regimes, communism and fascism, were backed by the intellectual elite. Meanwhile, developments in the neighboring big country remind us that intellectuals in power often carry the cynical consciousness that regards society as an instrument of manipulation.

One needs to reckon with this; however, appropriate examples reaffirm that collaboration with the intellectual elite does not guarantee success because it may itself carry a politically despotic consciousness of either the right or the left. However, collaboration of this sort is the first necessary step in resolving public issues; the authorities and the intellectual elite cannot monopolize the public consciousness.

Democracy is a system hampering any monopoly on public consciousness: nobody can speak on behalf of everybody, passing over democratic institutions.

... is there an artery of world history?

Mr. Gurbanly says the following:

There are big powers, western countries whose aim is "to mix cultures" and "strengthen health," to create a single religion. With that end in view, we must "strengthen our instinct to preserve our values"(?!).

Note that simplifications of this sort (e.g., it is meant that "they" are going to consume us, and that it is "we" who are forced to defend ourselves) are not even admissible at the upper-classmen level, but granting that they have been uttered by senior officials, we must reiterate commonly known truths.

First, historical time must be considered in reasoning of this sort. "Primeval enemies" are in the realm of mythology, similar to "primeval friends". It is careless to make claims about it in the 21st century where notions such as "uncertainty", "probability", and "fuzzy multiplicities" became part of school curriculum.

Second, "they" and "we" are part of the colonial and post-colonial heritage period in the development of world history where gaining independence was accompanied by imparting "satanic" features to colonizers. In the contemporary world, such pathos inherent in "children"s leftism" (mythological rather than historical) tends to impede social development.

Third, our global century tells us not only about the intensification of interrelations between peoples and cultures, but also insists that historical involvement has become historical reality. Peoples have drawn together spatially, from population growth and migration rates; thus, no autonomous existence is possible today. Unified historical time called for synchronization of all cultural processes which, though recognized as still unachievable, nevertheless contributes to various problems caused by synchronization impediments.

The historical context above enables us to conclude that achievements of ancient oriental civilizations such as India and China are entering our domain, where antiquity is owned by everyone: ancient Greek democracy, Roman law, preservation of ancient Greek heritage by Moslem culture, the Renaissance, the Copernican revolution, and so on, into the post-industrial epoch of information technologies and the Internet. All these pertain to everyone.

It is not easy today to keep our nose out of world history; moreover, it is dangerous - loss of "the instinct to preserve our values" is fraught with the final fallout from world civilization.

Fourth, the conventional "we" ... is perceived by the common consciousness as something taken for granted. Yet, it harbors many submerged reefs that require a permanent reflection: "we" yesterday does not mean "we" today does not secure "we" tomorrow ... Whatever we consider should be examined through the main course of world history to preserve its specificity to only this main course. Otherwise, "we" risk remaining "folklore people" which may be attractive to others only because of its "exotic nature".

... "the past" that never leaves behind.

At first sight, history is the science of the past, and the past is what has already occurred and cannot be altered. Hence, history as the science of the past cannot be altered either. Unfortunately, it is not all that simple.

If you try to narrate what happened to you yesterday, then, depending upon the event"s significance for you in terms of the person you addressed, your emotional state, and other factors, you would set forth (design) one or another version from numerous possibilities.

If you try to narrate what happened not yesterday but ten, twenty, or fifty years ago, you would set forth one or another version from numerous possibilities depending upon the incident"s role in your life. Moreover, if you continue to progress, the past you are focusing on will progress as well; but if you stop, the past will also stop, either in the form of an inaccessible "paradise lost" or in the form of "the past be damned" because it is responsible for all your present troubles.

The same is true of history, especially when we consider the transition period where our present development depends upon forms we are designing to represent "the past".

If we look at our history comprehensively, as should professional historians, the intellectual elite, and indeed all conscious beings, in my view, we face two fundamentally different "histories", although no one openly declares this difference.

One such history, let"s call it "official history," is but an appendage to the official authorities" ideology. Despite official history"s appeal to Azerbaijan"s several thousand-year-old history, it was mythologized around 1969 such that its chronology became purely ornamental to a stationary sacred core. "History" of this sort is maintained by official institutions, by school and university textbooks, and by our senior officials, not without a selfish motive.

... Beyond doubt, Mr. Gurbanly is clear-eyed about the "instinct to preserve national values," for he is engaged solely in servicing this "official history" ...

The second history, I call "the history capable of progressing," bearing in mind that it raises more questions than it provides ready answers. In this history, our "past" is not a subject for self-indulgence or a weighty argument in a dispute with neighbors, but rather an attempt to identify which point in our past helped us move ahead and which point in our present prevents us from modernizing.

A Russian site asked a seemingly absurd question: "What past do we need to build our future?" On second thought, it appears there are periods when our present development depends upon our assessment of crucial events in the past.

... But if not crucial, just a tectonic slide or historical cataclysm? ...

Crucial historical events for the Russian consciousness proved to be February and October 1917 and 70 years of Soviet power. Crucial historical events for the Azerbaijani consciousness were May 1918 and April 1920 and the subsequent Soviet years.

Keep in mind that various approaches, conceptions and methods are applicable to our "history that goes on developing." To my way of thinking, a principal point is a 50-year period assessment covering 1870 to1920. We must look through the ages and evaluate earlier historical periods compared with subsequent years, as in the Soviet and post-Soviet periods.

Our involvement in the main course of world history lies in this period. For example, this period"s beginning is marked by Hasanbey Zardabi, who started our first newspaper, first secular school, first performance, first Azerbaijani participation in parliamentary work (Duma and Uprava) and a host of other things.

This "second" history (without quotation marks) saw a lot accomplished: serious articles and books; special sites that became more intense toward the 100th anniversary of the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic, etc. At the same time, much remains to be done, possibly the most important efforts.

First, the "second" history as unrelated to the ideology of the authorities frequently cannot shake off manifestations of nationalistic ideology.

Second, it is essential to provide a (highly charged and sensitive) critical analysis of the past ("unmerciful apprehension of the past", according to T. Adorno).

Our 20th-21st centuries; our ongoing 21st century is proving to be very hard. To remedy the situation, it is imperative we rid ourselves of misconceptions and start developing normally.

Our history is not a panegyric for us to have a sense of grandeur about ourselves. Our history is a straight-out means of sorting ourselves out.

... "orientalism," forcibly and voluntarily.

It should be added that the term, "orientalism", became widespread thanks to a monograph by Edward W. Said, "Orientalism". His principal concept is that the orientalist "East" was invented by the West to symbolize European power over the East.

Additionally, "orientalism" in the West"s interpretation means that cultures of the East are beautiful, refined and subtle; however, these cultures, deficient in self-reflection, may also be considered somewhat "muted" cultures.

It would be wrong to argue with Said solely about his arrogance and Messianism because there are other things to bear in mind. In the end, Said"s book, widely read in the West, has given rise to numerous post-colonial "studies."

One can accuse the West"s discovery of the East in its orientalist aspect. But who can explain why many developing countries" cultures which we attribute to the "East" in their anti-western passion, tend voluntarily toward "orientalism" (does this random tautology not make a fair amount of sense)?

This fully applies to us as well: why do we regularly describe our culture worldwide as "oriental"?

Nobody argues that any nation must acquaint the world with its achievements through various biennials, international festivals, contests, and other celebrations. However, if any nation and any culture is to be engaged in self-revelation before the world, that culture should get itself discovered, not by engaging in propagandizing and bragging, which is nothing other than provincial boasting, but by demonstrating its ability to master modern languages and contemporary forms of culture while making no bones of its difficulties. Otherwise, cultures set themselves up for "orientalist" self-revelation.

Regrettably, the above applies to us as well, including not only the authorities but a considerable number of our intellectual elite.

For good measure, suffice it to refer to Uzeir Hadjibeyli, our national genius transformed into an icon which cannot exist in the changing world.

We have good reason to title Uzeir Hadjibeyli as a genius of the Azerbaijani culture. But in so doing, we should explain to the world what we mean.

I"d like to propose two issues; certainly, culturologists and musicologists may add and broaden the list.

First, "Arshin mal alan" and "Meshadi Ibad" are our most archetypical works that mirror our reveries and position us culturally in all times. To speak in images, I can boldly declare that we became Azerbaijanis after "Arshin mal alan" and "Meshadi Ibad", when, as based on Carl Jung"s theory, our collective unconscious property became incarnate in a literary text.

Second, as composer and cultural worker, U. Hadjibeyli built a bridge between our authentic, largely folk music and classical western music. It was hard work; he doubted, burned manuscripts, and erred when trying to translate the music into "Azeri". Yet, he was confident that the main direction of world culture concurred with that of world music; thus, we must master this musical language and related institutions, such as the symphonic orchestra, opera, conservatory, and chamber music. It was necessary to climb out of the folklore and the provinciality.

The term, "composer of genius" seems accurate to us, but we do not understand why the world remains deaf to our claims.

What are our conclusions?

We must explain to the world, and by "world" I mean the expert community, what we mean by "our genius."

As for "literary reflection," we must prove that Hadjibeyli"s creative heritage derives not from icons, museums or archives; it is, rather, from genuine classics that change together with the world in their various interpretations, including avant-garde ones, not only in music, but in theatre and cinema as well.

I"d like to draw the line here although the mirror of "orientalism" has not been exhausted.

Afterword, or, "it would be a good thing to get there"...

It is not necessary for the intellectual elite to be represented in the structures of power. It is not necessary for a top official to be an intellectual. But it is binding upon him to be aware of the limits to his knowledge; in other words, he should not speak of that which he is ignorant.

Otherwise, this might end in society"s merely marking time. At best...

And finally, I remember in "Alice in Wonderland" by Lewis Carroll, a dialogue unsophisticated but not without a touch of guile:

"Where should I go from here?

- Where would you like to go?

- I don"t care, anywhere at all.

- Then you may go anywhere. And you are sure to get to some place. "

Indeed, if in any case we shall get there, it would be a good idea ...

Rahman Badalov