Once again, the Korean Peninsula is swept up in a crisis. North Korea has childishly provoked the world by announcing a satellite launch, possibly a cover for an intercontinental ballistic missile test. Its provocations came at a time when Seoul was hosting the Nuclear Security Summit and leaders from all
over the world are gathering to prevent nuclear terrorism. While North Korea is anxious to strengthen the Kim Jong-un regime through extreme measures, South Korea is boiling over too, with fierce competition for the upcoming elections. And the outcome of the elections will have serious repercussions for the path South Korea embarks on, either causing it to step into a severe storm or cruise along on a calm, blue ocean.
What, then, is the role of an intellectual in times of crisis like this? And what is the responsibility of a public intellectual? Recently, someone asked me, “Do you tweet?” “Nope,” I answered. “You should tweet,” she suggested quite seriously. “Then you can have a lot of followers and become quite popular on the Internet.” “Thank you, but I’m not interested,” I replied. Nothing is wrong with using twitter. It would be wrong, however, if an intellectual indulges in twitter simply because he wants to become an Internet celebrity or for personal political gain.
The problem is that we have quite a few Internet celebrities who seem to be consumed with increasing their popularity via tweeting. These Internet stars are not so much responsible public intellectuals but showmen or politicians who control and manipulate gullible people. In his book, “Representation of an Intellectual,” Edward Said discusses the role of an intellectual in the age of information and media. Said argues that in such an era, an intellectual must resist the lures of political power, money and populism. Said also points out that an intellectual should be aware of his limitations and acknowledge his personal prejudices.
Unfortunately, however, our Internet stars/intellectuals seem to immensely enjoy power, money and popularity. They seem to spend more time tweeting than conducting research. For them, even teaching in the classroom, giving a talk to the public or writing a book is simply the means of strengthening their influence and boosting their own popularity. These people also never want to acknowledge their limitations of knowledge or their biases. In extreme cases, they are exceedingly opinionated and self-righteous, seldom listening to others.
In his essay, “The Role of the Public Intellectual,” Alan Lightman writes that an intellectual “should be conscious of the movement, and especially the increasing degree of responsibilities.” Then he continues to say that an intellectual “has enormous power to influence and change, and he must wield that power with respect.” Alas! Our radical intellectuals seem to be neither conscious of the recent changes in the world, nor assuming the responsibilities requisite of public figures. Instead, they wield power unscrupulously and indiscreetly as a means of hanpuri (venting their spite and grudges).
Recently, “Literature and Thought” carried an interesting article on Allen Dunn’s lecture at SUNY/Buffalo, entitled “Whatever Happened to the Organic Intellectual?” According to Dunn, intellectuals who present themselves as a representative of the people tend to think of themselves as those who are superior to ordinary people. Dunn also argues that those intellectuals tend to perceive everything in light of social class and yet, human beings are complex and thus cannot be defined by class only.
Quoting from Jacques Ranciere, Dunn agrees that even subversive theory can ironically become a means of political oppression. That is why intellectuals should not impose their beliefs or political ideologies on others under the name of enlightenment. According to Dunn, ideal intellectuals in the 21st century are those who can think across boundaries, communicate with others, and promote ethical imagination. If there is neither communication nor ethical imagination, says Dunn, there is nothing left but “dead politics.”
If so, we are surely living in a country of “dead politics” where no communication, no boundary-crossing, or no ethical imagination seems possible. It does not seem to occur to our self-righteous radical intellectuals that “even subversive theory can easily become another means of political oppression” and that they may be wrong at times. Meanwhile, our conservative intellectuals, not realizing how grave the crisis is at the moment, are still indulged in power struggles.
Edward Said was a Palestinian and yet, he criticized both Western imperialism and Third World ultra-nationalism, including Islamic terrorism. He was an Arab, but he was a Christian as well. Through his complex life as a spiritual exile, Said showed us what an intellectual should do in times of crisis. A true intellectual should not belong to a political party or a political ideology. Instead, he should be a spiritual expatriate and critic, detached from the mainstream of political power, leaning neither to left nor to right, and never taking sides. And he should be bold enough to volunteer to be situated at the crossfire between the two extremes, while mediating the two antagonizing groups. At this critical moment, we urgently need conscientious intellectuals like Edward Said.
By Kim Seong-kon
Kim Seong-kon is a professor of English at Seoul National University and director of the Korea Literature Translation Institute. ― Ed.
