Talk:Intelligentsia/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Old talk

once again i forgot to login before i was making changes.. anyway, question may go to me. Szopen

I have revised the initial subsection totally. Sorry to do, for all, who had contributed. I supposed, however, that the article had been too fragmentary. Linas 15:09, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

Thanks for that, the new section is great! It's better than the former one since it's much more detailed and internationalized. However, I'd still like the section about the ethymology of the word preserved. Halibutt 17:59, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

exactly. I don't know why you have removed that ethymology, Linas. Szopen 10:05, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Problems with this article

Hello,

I have a few criticisms regarding this article which I think warrant a major edit:

It seems that the origins of the word "Intellingentsia" is most commonly connected with Russian history, including the 19th century socialist movements and the Bolshevik revolution. It seems unfair that these events are barely mentioned in the article.
I'd suggest that we create a section that explains what Intelligentsia means, followed by several sub-sections describing significant events/details for specific countries -- Poland, Russia, maybe others.
I believe the more narrow definition of the word, as "liberal and patriotic intellectuals" (this may be expanded) deserves to be given up-front. Right now this political aspect of intelligentsia is in the Polish section.
(2nd paragraph) The term first appeared in Poland in the first half of 19th century. It was later accepted into Russian,[...]. Is that a fact? AFAIK most English-language sources list the word origins as Russian, not Polish. I certainly never heard about this Polish connection. Perhaps the author could provide some evidence to the contrary.
(3rd paragraph) [...] being divided mostly by national dependence [...]. What exactly is "national dependence"?
(4th paragraph) [...]changing intelligentsia into class of intellectuals[...]. This seems to contradict the definition, which states that "Intelligentsia" is a social class of intellectuals.
("Poland", 2nd paragraph): [...]The Polish intelligentsia specifically was considered the backbone of the modern Polish nation[...]. Considered by who? Any socialist will tell you that the working class is the backbone of any nation.
("Poland", last paragraph): [...]intelligentsia [are] people believing in their duties. It seems to follow that those who are not members of intelligentia don't believe in their duties. This somehow seems kind of arrogant to me.
Generally, I think most of the stuff under Poland applies to other contries as well.

--peestrus 23:46, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1) Indeed, there should be more info.

2) Agreed. Any Russian volunteers?

3) See number 2

4) The very word is of Latin origin intellego, -ere - to understand, to comprehend. It came to Polish language together with countless other latin words and expressions in the 17th century and had the basic meaning of "intelligence" (see also German Intelligenz or French intelligence). However, by late 18th and early 19th centuries the meaning was widened and started to denote a class of "thinkers" as well. On the contrary, the very word had never any conotations in Russian since prior to mid-19th century it didn't exist there at all, neither in the wider sense nor in the Intelligentsia meaning. The Russian equivalents of the word were (and still are) [ponyatlivost'] and probably also [soobrazitelnost'], with [inteligentsia] being used for the class of people only. The word might've become popular in the West thanks to the Russians, but it wasn't them who invented it. It must've been as foreign to them as it was to Poles - a hundred years earlier.

7) Well, not in here :), most of the prominent Polish socialists were members of the inteligentsia themselves. Maybe the backbone is not the best word here, but take a look at those who created Poland after WWI (including the socialists like Piłsudski, Sikorski, Daszynski, Moraczewski, Paderewski...) - 99% of them were inteligentsia, not workers or aristocrats.

9) Yup, perhaps it could be internationalized a bit. Halibutt 03:44, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Well it seems we all understand this word ("Intel-sia") slightly differently. I might make some changes from a Russian viewpoint, let me think about it.

BTW, Russian is my first language, I appologize if I didn't make it clear upfront. Regarding the ethymology -- I'm aware of the the word's Latin roots, I was just surprized to hear it was used in that sense in Polish so early. No pun intended, I believe you :)

OK, regarding the backbone thing -- it sounds like Polish intelligentsia considered itself the backbone of Polish nation. No surprise there. What I'm saying other "social classes" probably had other opinions, no? How about aristocrats? Peasants? --peestrus 04:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I forgot to add that in Polish language the -cja suffix is also used to denote other social classes or groups - like for instance generalicja - the group of generals of the Polish Army. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 07:27, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Status or social class

I believe that intelligentsia form not a social class but a status class (as defined by Max Weber - see his Three-component theory of stratification. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:07, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure you read their definitions carefully? Mikkalai 08:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re

status class/social class. You are right, as long as, the reader knows that it's Max Weber's definition of status class. Words mean different things to different people.

Polish/Russian. I am curious to see evidence too, this is news to me. I can neither deny nor confirm it. Poland and Russia are very closely related.

- Not in this regard

I'd include several short biographies of prominent intelligents, an intelligent (noun) is what we call a member of the intelligentsia in Russia. Academecian, Andrei Sakharov is considered by all in Russia to be a model intelligent. I kind of like the Polish thing, so I'd include a short bio of one Polish intelligent. The distinguishing marks of intelligents were well-roundedness, an intelligent must be well read and know a little about everything, not just his specialization. That's what diffirentiates an intelligent from a specialist. Secondly intelligents acted as the conscience of the regime, criticizing rulers overtly through humor in their art and poetry. Thirdly intelligents had to have integrity, defend eachother from the regime. A kissing cousin of the intelligent would be the court jester, I think they played a similar role.

- Please do not mix intelligent and being a member of Intelligentsia. Those are two different terms.

LevKamensky

Coffee

Intelligentsia is not just a social class.

Ethymology

The term was coined by Karol Libelt in his "Philosophy and Critics", from where, through the political elites of Great Emigration, it became wider adopted in French language as intelligence. --Lysy ^(talk) 11:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

In what context and what meaning was the "inteligencja" word used in the diaries of this Russian pal? BTW, in 1844 also Polish philosopher Bronislaw Trentowski, who lived in Germany at that time but closely cooperated with Polish philosophers in Greater Polish Duchy. And Libelt lived in greater Poland, which was not part of Russian empire (Hence my edit). Szopen 17:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In making the difference between intelligent and non-intelligent people you do the work of Pol Pot. He believed that every man with glasses had to be executed, because glasses were a sign of enlightenment. And even if some unlucky sod out there really wants a Pol Po/Mao Zedong government, think again. it helps, I can assure you.

Removed

The following addition by an anon editor removed:

Coiner of the term 'intelligentsia' was named as the Polish philosopher Bronislaw Trentowski (source: http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/foundations/history/prehistory2.htm

4310 TRENTOWSKI, Ferd. Bronislaw von: Die Freimaurerei in ihrem Wesen und Unwesen.

Leipzig: Brockhaus 1873, 23, 393 page, Word: 1730).

I am wondering how widespread this version? And who the heck is Bronislaw Trentowski? `'mikka (t) 23:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and OR

An interesting article. I'm glad that so many people have collaborated in writing this, but there's still a long way to go.

This article is still very much NOT written from a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Much of it also is clearly original research (OR) and is more appropriate for an editorial in a newspaper than for a Wikipedia article. Here are just a few examples:

POV (not neutral point of view):

"Because the USSR was a very well read and well cultured nation"

"It would not be an understatement to say that powers that be want to erase the Soviet intelligentsia as a historical body from history books and the memories of people. But the Soviet Intelligent always was and always will be, from Polish court jester Stañczyk, to Russian bard Yulij Kim, to the American success coach Doc Love. The archetype is immortal."

OR (original research):

"But the temperament of a member of the intelligentsia is somewhat more social than that of an intellectual. Knowledge for a member of the intelligentsia is more a currency for high tone conversation than an end in itself."
"A spiritual person may say that a member of the intelligentsia is a contemporary incarnation of the court jester."
"It has become fashionable to say that the intelligentsia has become, or is becoming, extinct"

Moreover the article introduces sui generis the use of "intelligent" as a noun and a synonmy for "member of the intelligentsia." This is NOT standard English usage, as far as I know. If the author wishes to use "intelligent" in such a sense one of two things need to be done: 1) the author needs to show that this is an established usage in English or 2) the author needs to use a transcription of the Russian word and place it in italics to show that a foreign word is being used. Interlingua ^talk 03:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Bronisław Trentowski was Polish philospher,

http://www.asc-cybernetics.org/foundations/timeline.htm "Bronislaw Trentowski publishes Cybernetyka -- a vision of unified human activities guided by the transdisciplinary finesse of a manager who must be transdisciplinary owing to the inability of any single discipline to capture the range of knowledge requisite to such management. (1843) Sidenote: Bronislaw Trentowski, with Karol Libelt, is credited for introducing the term 'intelligentsia' (1844) "

hmmm.. I have no access to article here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/x5486w7604j788j3/ maybe it has something relevant..

http://219.141.235.75/shxs/s09_shx/zlk/huangping/Imagining%20Impossibilities.htm http://www.i-house.or.jp/jp/ProgramActivities/alfp/pdf/2001Report.pdf#search=%22trentowski%20libelt%20intelligentsia%22

As a term intelligentsia appeared first in the middle of the nineteenth century. It denoted "free professions". It was remembered V.G.Belinsky and Peter Boborykin first introduced the term of "intelligentsia" into Russian literature in 1846 and 1860, but Aleksander Gella finds that the first reference had been made by the Poles Bronislaw Trentowski and Karol Libelt in 1844. (A. Gella, 1976:12, 20; and 1987a. Cf., M.E. Malta, 1961:I.) Szopen 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Should the pronunciation of this word be added to the introductory paragraph?

Translation of "prosloyka"

The article says: "In the ideology of Bolsheviks, intelligentsia is not a real class; its status is described by the Russian word 'prosloyka', which is normally translated as 'stratum,' but in this context bears a deteriorative nuance."

The translation of "prosloyka" as "stratum" is essentially incorrect. This word, even though having the root "sloy" ("stratum" or "layer"), means "interlayer", "interlining", "intercalation", etc. It implies by its prefix and suffix that it is not a separate independent layer, but merely a layer which has the only function to separate other layers. This should be fixed but I'm not a native speaker and I don't know which word to choose.

Merge proposal

It was suggested to merge Russian intelligent written by a newbie into Intelligentsia. I have a mixed feeling about this article.

To begin with, the title and content are chauvinistic: in Imperial Russia and Soviet Union there were intelligents of all nationalities.
Besides "rissian", the proper title of the article is kinda "Idealized image of Russian intellegentsia (as it resembles Moral Code of the Communism Builder or Jesus Christ with university degree)
Unreferenced
Better get rid of the list of names: there are hundreds of them, and any selection is POVish.

`'mikkanarxi 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

About "shit of the nation"

Lenin actually talked about a specific(pro-imperialist in his view) part of the intelligentsia, not the intelligentsia as a whole(see http://www.dvgu.ru/forum/archive/1535/thread.html). I suggest that the article should be changed in order to reflect this. 81.172.134.32 00:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Lenin actually had a very nice habit to badmouthanybody who disagreed with him, and in most heavy and ugly way. So in a certain sense you a right: he talked not about intelligentsia as a whole, but about those from intelligentsia whom he hated. So what? Of course, intelligentsia was not a homogeneous class. But this was the whole point (mentioned in the wikipedia article): this class was unreliable from Bolshevik point of view. `'mikka 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Russian Context

Hi, I just put some basic information up to fill in the Imperial Russia section. It's pretty selective and I'll try to expand it as time allows. It isn't documented other than through references to other wiki articles, but most of it should be uncontroversial. I can provide references to particular parts if anything thinks they're called for.

Also, I'd like to suggest a shift in emphasis (perhaps as part of a major edit??). As it's been explained to me in Russian, being an "intelligent" has more to do with worldview than livelihood. There's a piece of it that relates to high culture, involving familiarity with literature and music, but this wasn't always there for less privileged intelligentsia like the raznochintsy. Most importantly to my mind, being an intelligent involves a committment to grappling with universals (particularly social and ethical problems) as issues that matter on a personal and not merely abstract level, rather than the more rigid socio-economic meaning it took through translation into Marxist thought. Tackling what the 19th C. Russians called "accursed questions" is the main thing that separates the cultural group of "intelligentsia" from the social class of "intellectuals". There's lots of overlap between these two groups, but there are some differences that don't leap out at me reading what we have right now. I think this article should endeavor to more fully represent these differences, giving us two subtle shades of meaning rather than two partial synonyms. Jcmeador 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reluctantly I have to warn you about the risk of deletion of your contribution. First of all, please provide reliable sources for your text. Second, your text, while mentioning some debates, says very little about the definition of intelligentsia. Surely Russian intellectuals discussed many phylosophical. moral and political issues. But the primary purpose of this article is to define the term "intelligentsia", in particular, why the translation by the term "intellectual" does not exactly fit. `'mikka 21:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am Pole, and my understanding of the term is quite vague: but "intelligentsia" in my understanding it is indeed way of life, thinking etc not just job. You can be scavenger, worker in factory and still be part of intelligentsia. You can be university worker and still be not part of intelligentsia. Szopen (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

U.S.

The term is used in the U.S. (though interestingly not by the average lay person). I cited Ehrenreich as a person who uses the term (a respectable enough figure in American culture). Moreover, simply look up the term on google with "define:" in front of it. The term is used in the U.S. and is not exclusive to Eastern Europe. Signature ^brendel 04:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"define:" did you try to follow your advice youeselves? I didn't find nay reputable source. "Ehrenreich": used by a single person does not mean "used in the U.S.". This is your opinion, called "original research" in wikipedia. By the way what do you mean "used in the US?" And why it deserves a section? Of course it is used in the US: wikipedia in the US, after all. What we need is not an example of usage, but a statement that some researchers use it in certain way. MOrepver, your juggling with numbers is another piece of original research: you are putting together pieces of data from different sources and drawing some conclusions. `'Míkka 04:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I don't say that there is no "intelligentsia" in the United States. It is just this term is not commonly used. The common term is intellectuals. Yes, in google you can find "British intelligentsia", "Brazilian intelligentsia" , "Turkish intelligentsia", "Ethiopian intelligentsia" and of course "American intelligensia". The real problem is whether there is a commonly accepted scholarship to use this term. `'Míkka 04:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The term is used in the U.S., so why shouldn't there be a section? WP is not made from paper and since the term is used in the U.S. (though not very common), it should be included. I can understand why you would see the percentages as OR so I have removed them, but I still beleive a mention of the term in the U.S. ought to be included. Ehrenreich is a good enough source from proving that the term is used in reference to certain upper middle class professionals in the U.S. As of now a reader would be under the impression that the term is exlusive to Eastern Europe (not the case). As for "define:" - this will show you what the term means in the anglosphere and the U.S. I am trying to add the American understanding of the term so the article will no longer be Eastern European-centric.

As a compromise I have shortened the section and titled it "anglosphere" - the current section aims to readers a clue as to how this term is used in the English speaking world. Again, this isn't a term exlusive to Eastern Europe.

Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not limited to anglosphere. But yes, it is traditionally confined to Eastern European topics. Once again, the word "intellectuals" (which neatly fall under definition you provided of "creating and disseminating knowledge") is the most common term. By the way, please provide the exact quotation from Ehrenreich. `'Míkka 05:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll see about getting around to finding a quote. In the U.S. the term may be used as a synonym for intellectual - in the U.S. and many other anglospheric countries "intelligentsia" simply referes to the social class that consists of intellectuals. That fact ought to be mentioned in this article, because, no, the term is not exclusive to E. Europe. I disagree, however, with stating the assertion that professors are part of this class to be "speculation" - it is rather obvious fact. Nonetheless at least now the article no longer misleads readers that this term is completely E.E. specific. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

re "professors" - you wrote not simply "part" you wrote "among most typical..." - this is your speculation. I agree that the article is quite poor about the modern usage of the term. I added one more case. In general I would strongly suggest to leave this topic to people who really know things. In particular, one must give various definitions provided by leading sociologists. For example, as you may see, Weber's understanding of "intelligentsia" differs from Marxist dogma (if you se it at all - a little quiz here :) `'Míkka 06:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I see, it was the "most typical" that you saw as speculation (apperantely my idea to use "among" in the beginning did not have its desired effect ;-)) I am aware of the differences in which Marx and Weber see class (control of prod. factors vs. lifestyle). I do agee with using "various definitions provided by leading sociologists" (though we should use modern class definitions that draw on Weber and Marx to give a contemporary overview as well). Your addition does help in covering some of the broader usage. If I run acorss the term being used by a reputalbe source I will make an addition. Regards, Signature ^brendel 23:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Etymology vs. concept creation

Etymology and history of concept creation are different fields. While concept creation should be described inside of the article, information inside of parentheses are about word etymology, not about concept creation. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I read your research here and, while it may be treated as completely relevant encyclopedic research in the sense of concept creation, it is original research in the sense of etymology. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Etymology is defined by etymological dictionaries and encyclopedia is citing those definitions. Two relevant dictionaries of English language (Webster [1] and etymonline [2]) are defining word "intelligentsia" as word which came from Russian language. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

So, please, before you change page again, find relevant etymological dictionary of English language which says that the word is from Polish language. And, please, add references, don't remove them. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ref improved to OED3e (2e:89 update). OED is the etymological dictionary of English, OED lists the word as transmitted to English in 1907 from the Russian. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually OED lists the word as transmitted from Latin to Polish, from Polish to Russian, from Russian to English. That's what this means: Early 20th century: from Russian intelligentsiya, from Polish inteligencja, from Latin intelligentia(...) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intelligentsia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.197.94.101 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible Ref Improve sources suggested by OED3

1907 M. BARING Year in Russia vii. 77: in re revolutionaries suspect massacre of educated bourgeoisie
1910 Landmarks Russian Lit. iii. 68: review of Chekov
1914 Round Table Dec. 115: Russia side discussion
1916 H. G. WELLS Mr. Britling I. ii. 62: Russia an irresponsible idealist middle class
1921 A. HUXLEY Let. 31 May (1969) 197: Describing expatriot Briton intellectuals
1922 C. E. M. JOAD Highbrows vi. 224: attacking anti-war intellectuals
1922 C. SIDGWICK Victorian xxviii. 211: Revolutionary context
1924 GALSWORTHY White Monkey I. ix,: Distinguishing intellectuals from intelligentsia
1940 WODEHOUSE Eggs, Beans & Crumpets 75: Intelligentsia as dependent upon rich friends
1949 I. T. SANDERS Balkan Village i. 7: technical and cultural intellectuals in a small village
1956 R. REDFIELD Peasant Society & Culture ii. 61: Class analysis of cultural and administrative intermediaries: probably a key academic source
1971 H. SETON-WATSON in A. Bullock 20th Cent. 139/1: revolutionary power based on culture gap between commoners and elite: probably a key academic source old Hugh; Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Broader usage

Removed line:

The usage of the term is typically reserved for reference to public figures in the arts, culture, and social sciences. It is rarely, if ever, applied towards disciplines such as natural science, applied science, medicine, mathematics, and engineering.

as it is an uncited assertion. Feel free to add it back with a reference.... Random2001 (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretentious

Could this article be any more pretentious ? 99.48.144.168 (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia

This article is very poorly written. I suggest that it would benefit greatly from a complete rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.66.125 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

disappointment

I agree with the suggestion above. Take for example the following point :\

""[the] intelligentsia is not the 'brain of the nation', it is the 'feces of the nation'".[17]"

In the link, these exact words are not even used.

The passage reads:

"The intellectual forces of the workers and peasants are growing and getting stronger in their fight to overthrow the bourgeoisie and their accomplices, the educated classes, the lackeys of capital, who consider themselves the brains of the nation. In fact they are not its brains but its shit"

He's referring to the bourgeois intelligentsia and not the organic intellectuals to borrow a term from Gramsci.