I was browsing through old forum archives and I noticed an interesting topic which I thought of expanding... (the old topic is here) The topic was on the lack of conservatives in educational circles. While reading the topic I realized that there're very few conservatives in many other circles... well, academia, obviously, as mentioned. My father spent years as a research scientist in universities and he can attest that scientific circles are liberal by 5 to 1 margin. Arts and literary community is overwhelmingly liberal, by my personal experience. Many conservatives like to complain that "elite media" is overwhelmingly liberal... with the exception of Wall Street Journal and Fox. Let's add entertainment in the mix (Hollywood, etc.)

The word that describes this group of people is intelligentsia, and the dictionary definition of them could be found here.

The question for debate is

What makes an intelligentsia liberal? Or is it the reverse process (liberals tend to become part of intelligentsia)?

Can we consider scientific, literary, artistic and entertainment circles "the vanguard of society" since they're the ones who most likely will be remembered by the future generations for their achievements?

I'm certain that there is a conservative/liberal split in academia. Venture into any economics or business department, and nine times out of ten, you will be hard presssed to find a liberal. Even in the most die-hard liberal bastions of academia, there is a great emphasis on moderation, rather than activism. I took a history course from a professor who earned his doctorate from UCLA. Quoting Chomsky or the Kolkos was a way to really set yourself up for attack. Most professors that I know are too busy publishing, going to conferences, and into furthering themselves professional wise.




I doubt that an intelligentsia necessarily has to be liberal. Some can be kind of aristocratic and actually very stodgy when it comes to economic or social issues. For every Chomsky, there is a Hitchens or someone like that who goes against the tide.

QUOTE

I believe so, they will be remembered as critics of how things were and proide a more balanced picture of what life was really like during our own time.

Thank you for the correction - I was going to make an exception for business and economics faculty, but never made it. I am sure there're other fields, too (e.g. Political Science? Engineering?) that have more conservatives than liberals, but I don't think that changes the general picture.

What makes an intelligentsia liberal? Or is it the reverse process (liberals tend to become part of intelligentsia)?

From one of the listed definitions:


Liberals tend to be in favor of change, conservatives tend to support the status quo. Therefore, intelligentsia will tend to be liberal--or at least the ones you hear about will be.

Can we consider scientific, literary, artistic and entertainment circles "the vanguard of society" since they're the ones who most likely will be remembered by the future generations for their achievements?

Yes, for pretty much the same reason. These circles will be the ones promoting change, therefore they will be the ones most likely to be creating the achievements.

What makes an intelligentsia liberal? Or is it the reverse process (liberals tend to become part of intelligentsia)?

Can we consider scientific, literary, artistic and entertainment circles "the vanguard of society" since they're the ones who most likely will be remembered by the future generations for their achievements?

1.) Again, I think the question ponders one side. I was an economics and math major in undergrad and I can attest that the majority of professors in those fields were more conservative, even at my liberal undergrad. There were some who were not (I had an openly communist economist once), but the majority were fairly conservative, at least on the market side of things.

I think there may be a distinction between people in fields that are applied in a "hard" way (such as engineering, math, business, economics) v. fields applied in a "soft" way (such as sociology, history and other liberal arts).

2.) Depends on what they produce. Current Hollywood is certainly not the "vanguard". Some research produced in today's universities are really getting ridiculous as PHD's delve into more obscure subjects to find a unique area to specialize in. This is especially true in the humanities. But, like everything, there are certain discoveries/achievements made in these areas that will propel the person to fame, if not fortune. Yet, these discoveries/achievements also happen in the private sector.

What makes an intelligentsia liberal? Or is it the reverse process (liberals tend to become part of intelligentsia)?

I agree with Hobbes here, this generally comes down to the definition of liberal vs. conservative. Liberals are generally progressive and have a mindset for new ideas and change. Conservatives favor the status quo over new ways of thinking.

Therefore, naturally intelligentsia would be more liberal (with some exceptions I would imagine).

I don't know if I necessarily agree with designating "hard" fields like math, economics, engineering, etc to be conservative domains. I would agree that fields like economics and business tend to be held by conservative thinkers, but professors in subjects like math, science and engineering tended to be more apolitical in my experience -- doing only what was necessary for grants and such.

Can we consider scientific, literary, artistic and entertainment circles "the vanguard of society" since they're the ones who most likely will be remembered by the future generations for their achievements?

I would say yes. It is these people that strive to invent, create and drive our society forward and thus are in a good position to make lasting achievements. While not everyone that is an artist or scientist is going to make a lasting contribution, they are in the best position to do so.

I would partially agree with Irwin here in saying that Hollywood does not fall into this category any longer. They rarely turn out anything of artistic worth these days (although there are notable exceptions), it is mostly just formulaic drivel for the masses.

Would like to point out an example contrary to this. That would be Milton Friedman. His theory of Monetarism was a change from the traditional and more conservative (not used politically here), view of macroeconomic policy of the Keynesian theory. Friedman did propose some revolutionary ideas, many of them generally accepted by both political parties in the US. Yet, he is often politically thought of as "conservative", yet his views were extremely non-traditional and new.

My first reaction when I saw this topic yesterday was it depended on what departments in universities you go to -- as has already been mentioned, business and economics has a higher level of conservatives. I would also imagine that computer science does as well -- but I have no information to back this up.

My second thought was that I believe there's a conservative intelligentsia but there are a lot of them in think tanks/advocacy groups. I believe that these think tanks are growing much faster for conservative issues and policies than for liberal ones and are more heavily funded and influential in political circles.



They'll be remembered, but so too will the politicians, many who stand in opposition to those circles.

nebraska29




This has been my experience as well -- a majority of this liberalism is very moderate which is frustrating to a more than moderately liberal person such as myself.

I considered this one too, but I would say that this group ranges from apolitical to liberal. The reason for this is the myriad of new issues in this field we are currently attempting to deal with such as:

- copyrights and file sharing
- restricting gov't spying on electronic communications
- keeping free speech intact on the internet
- keeping the internet tax free for sales
- open source / anti-large software corporation movement

I know that many people in this profession are very passionate about some of these issues and some of the biggest activists I know work to resolve them.

Over the next five to ten years I think we'll see a lot more legislative and judicial action in this area.