The question for me when trying to think of the role of an intellectual within any given society, how to define it, how to judge its value or to judge an individual's success in measuring up to it, is that should the definition of an intellectual be limited to and defined by what a society expects an intellectual to be? So many roles we play are defined by societal expectations; in regards to how we behave in our occupations, how to act within a marriage in regards to our role as a husband or wife, as a parent, obligations toward our parents or other familial obligations, religious identification and societal expectations of expressions of piety and reverence, social or sporting activities, and so on. Even, and I would say especially politicians, have to live up to these expectations constantly and are typically mostly powerless to go beyond the prescribed definitions of their roles and are completely defined by those expectations. 

                Politicians have great power, one could say the greatest power to act within a societal framework to achieve their own goals, provided that they are also the goals of those who put them into office, whether it be the majority or an elite who have the resources to make politicians goals whatever they wish them to be. But beyond those narrower aims to benefit a group, to reform the system from within, to change the nature of a given society to become more just, to change in peoples hearts and minds the definitions of the goals or aspirations of that society, in these matters, some outside force is required to give societies that push, but if the outside force is completely defined as being what a society expects it to be, can it really be considered anything other than just another part of the system, or as put succinctly in "Matrix Reloaded"¹ , are they just another system of control? In the sense that should all else go wrong, are they there to be turned to so to keep the rest of the system from fundamentally changing, another part of the system the system itself creates to turn to, only seemingly redefining itself should the need arise? 

                Though both aspects can be argued of whether most so-called or self-described intellectuals are really outsiders, ideally I believe intellectuals' roles ought to be to reform societal systems as outsiders truly outside the expectations in which society expects; to try to find out or decide where the society is going or should be going as a whole, and attempt to move that society further in that direction. In this paper I will try to approach this question from the angles of the "outsider" intellectual versus the role of the "insider" intellectual, those who see their roles as completely changing the direction or nature of the system and those who prefer moving it further along is present course. Both are often ideologues in their own way, and both seek to move their societies in given directions.

                 Most intellectuals who are considered "artistic" intellectuals; authors, playwrights, songwriters, motion picture writers or directors, they often tend to see themselves as outsiders attempting to change or improve society through their works. However the more acclaimed one is, the more influentcial they are, the wealthier they become and the more they become the new mainstream voice of that society, one can question whether they are still truly outsiders, even amongst themselves. Can a director who suddenly gets millions of dollars from the major studios for his pictures really still claim to be an "independent" filmmaker? At what point does being successful mean "selling out"? The most assured way to get anyone to support a given system, simply have them become rich off of it, even from criticizing it, and all else will fall into place eventually. Extreme success or notoriety for oneself mitigates the desire in many to really upset the status quo if it would cost one one's role or voice, even if that role is railing against or challenging it. This I feel gives rise to a permanent "dissident" class who never expect themselves and are never expected by others to ever achieve real societal changes because being the moral voice of unheard reason (or angst) becomes their sense of identity, even as they turn it into permanent fiscal enterprises, entire publishing industries, and occupations. This could be argued has been done in the West in music and film, perpetual anti-establishmentism, so constant, prevalent, and expected as to render itself utterly meaningless because of its corporate profit-based nature, shrink-wrapped "revolutionary" thought, just add water and stir.

                 In both East and West Europe, there is a notion that the artistic intellectuals be challenging or opposed to regular politics rather than engaged in it, that the role of an intellectual is to transform society above the current debates and offered programs or choices. This I call a Contrarian view of the role of an intellectual, to criticize society. Pierre Bourdieu writes that "intellectuals who associate themselves with the social movement" against what he calls "the dominant politics, by revolutionary conservatives"², that they "shouldn't fall into the trap of offering a programme, but a structure for collective research, interdisciplinary and international, bringing together social scientists, activists, representatives of activists, etc."³  In Eastern Europe under Soviet times, dissidence was political in the sense that it was against a current government which suppressed debate, and therefore they should not interact with that system politically but to try transform it entirely. The mid-1970's, labeled the "dissident period" by Steven Saxonberg and Mark Thompson, is similarly apolitical except for its reaction against Communism, its dominant politics,  "in which the dissidents developed a strategy of building up a civil society - also know as "anti-politics" - which is the type of thinking we associate with anti-Communist dissidence."⁴

                 Vaclav Havel, the Czech dissident turned President, challenged his fellow intellectuals to abandon the view that intellectuals ought to be permanent critics from the sidelines, and that his fellow former dissidents had a responsibility once the reforms came to fruition to work within the system. In a speech before a joint session of the US Congress in February 1990, he stated, "If the hope of the world lies in human consciousness, then it is obvious that intellectuals cannot go on forever avoiding their share of responsibility for the world and hiding their distaste for politics under an alleged need to be independent."⁵

                   For those raised under a totalitarian-type, dissent-suppressing government, it is easy to see everything in black and white, those who support the unjust undemocratic system, and those who align themselves against it. To work within such a system is to be tainted by it, corrupted by it. In such a light, as in Havel's famous example of what would be a grocer's political statement by simply refusing to put a Communist slogan sign in his store's window, even the slightest act of non-conformity could have been seen as challenging to such a system and making any who would dare provoke it in any way, all in the same boat politically-speaking. Such systems lead to polarization, not true political discussion, for it is not tolerated. There becomes only two groups, dissidents and conformists, the later being those who may or may not believe the lies, but as Havel wrote, "must behave as though they did, or must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfil the system, make the system, are the system."⁶

                 However, as Havel's turn of fortune showed, going from a political prisoner to the Presidency, once the system opens up to your desires to reform it, he could rightly say from inside his own point of view, that the role of intellectuals should be to work within the system, for it is no longer the system they sought to bring down, but must now try to work together to build a better system. The problem with this is when everything is polarized between those who support a system, and those whose primary means of definition is also related to that system, in opposition to it, once the system is gone, political discussions need to begin again from the ground up because the opponents of it often find they agree on little else besides how bad it was, with no alternative program or system they agree should take its place. United oppositions to oppressive regimes can often lead to fragmented, disillusioned and directionless societies without a strong alternative with dominant public support to replace it when it in fact it does fall.

                   From Havel's point of view, swept up by a power vacuum into a leadership role, he could rightly criticize his former dissident intellectuals for not being willing to work within the new system. When he gave speeches, he had the whole world's attention. Yet others left to work within the now fragmented formerly united opposition, parts of which took power, parts of which became the new opposition, and others still shut out of power completely, some of these others may have rightly thought their place was to maintain what Havel described as "an alleged need to be independent".⁷ If one questions whether the united oppositions to Communism are or were ever truly united by anything other than what I have called a Contrarian view, if one is to say yes they are or were united, one usually either substitutes united behind greater freedom of expression and democracy, or united behind liberal free market ideals, or both. Whoever gets power usually is able to put forth their idea as to what the revolution was really all about to the fore and get history to record it as the fact, at least until they lose power, if ever.

                 This brings one to another type of intellectual, should one regard intellectuals once they take power as still retaining the right to call themselves intellectuals, what Havel called his fellow intellectuals to become after the fall of Communism in his country; the in-government or pro-system intellectual. Those who work within the system to achieve their aims of transforming society. This definition, that people can still be called intellectuals who completely support the present system and/or the majority opinion, may go against those who have the "artistic" definition of intellectuals, being or representing those who are shut out of the system and are the voice of the minority which the system does not hear. Typically those who have such a more limited definition of intellectuals tend to think of them as primarily left or politically liberal. Conservatives, what Bourdieu referred to as becoming the dominant force in politics, with their numerous political think-tanks, also before assuming power completely fit the definition of "outsider" intellectuals, far more than the "artistic" intellectuals did when at the time, their governments were actually more supportive of "artistic" intellectuals views than conservative or neo-conservative views. Who is or is not a pro-government intellectual is defined externally to themselves by what group is currently in power, unless one wants to primarily change the system completely. Then all such "outsider" intellectuals can be seen as having common cause, though their aims once the system is ripe to be changed, can be seen as polar opposites of each other.

                 What happened when Communism fell in East Europe is that many who came to power said the revolutions were against Socialism in general, and eliminated or vastly reduced all social programs aimed toward social justice and protection. These factions either came to be the dominant force, or at the very least, extremely influential secondary parties.⁸  Also notable is that when such pro-market extreme liberal reformers were not the dominant power in the new legislatures, because they represented the wealthier segments of society, they often had more funds and gained control over the local media, now freely bought and sold to the highest bidder.

                 These right-wing intellectuals in East Europe, and in other typically Western countries, like to point out that intellectuals can be pro-government, even currently in government, and still be called intellectuals. While few could argue Neo-conservative think-tanks with numerous writers and notable influential politically-connected former statesmen, were both "outsiders" and "intellectuals" before George W. Bush came to power, they often concentrated on working within the system rather than changing it, and eventually got enough power to change it from within. Now controlling the system, they are hardly likely to not support changing the system completely, unless to change it to one more to their favor should that become within reach. Havel's political opponent and former fellow dissident, the right-wing Prime Minister Vaclav Klaus, author of "Dismantling Socialism: An Interim Report" and "Why Am I a Conservative?", stated as quoted by Timothy Ash, "that in a free country as the Czech Republic had now become, the distinction between "dependent" and "independent" intellectuals no longer had any real importance. Some intellectuals were in politics, others not."⁹

                 But the question I put forth to begin this paper remains, are "intellectuals", those who are respected, listened-to or read writers, thinkers, or people whose ideas about society are widely known, are they ever really outsiders? If they have a place within a society, can eat, work, are not killed or starved to death, though they may sometimes be imprisoned, often respected by others within or outside that society, are they ever really an autonomous branch of a society? Are they not really just a part of the system? Even in the Communist societies where debate was often suppressed most actively, after Stalinism, what Havel called post-totalitarianism,¹⁰  dissidents still had places within society, apartments or some fashion of shelter, food, and other things which some Western societies would never provide for their critics. Being a dissident from the United States, this fact I can attest to well. Starvation and homeless are very much on the menu of how to deal with dissent. And though their views were supposedly against all that their societies stood for, they were not truly revolutionary, in that they often only mimicked what they perceived was right about the West, and those ideas were their goals. Those goals may have been unpopular with their present governments, but they were hardly operating in a vacuum. Once the cracks in the dam of suppressing such notions appeared, they were for awhile literally flooded from outside countries with reparations money, political and economic support and advice on how to restructure their governments, constitutions, businesses, and economies. Though they were defined by their own societies to be outsiders, to the outside world they were reputable, even heroic. And they had an accepted role within it both because by not killing them, starving them, it accepted them to a minimal degree, and because of its harshness and reaction to them, it gave them their primary definition or cause. Being a dissident was a sense of identity, a means of defining their place within that society or the world, if not literally a paying occupation, at least one within the confines of being a part of that society in an semi-accepted, leper sort of way.

                   By my definition of an intellectual ideally seeking to change a system completely, such dissidents were ideal intellectuals in that sense, but the change was not revolutionary in a wider sense. It was not a change to an unknown, nor globally-speaking unpopular, nor even ultimately unpopular in the end with their own leaderships who ideologically supposedly would have opposed such changes to the death against all else. The old leaderships instead became the wealthiest members of society, the new elite, the nouveau rich, far far wealthier then they ever might have imagined they could ever become or they probably would have switched long ago. It was change to what the world community stood waiting to accept their countries for becoming. 

                 I do not belittle the achievements Eastern European and Russian dissidents played in affecting such changes, nor how much their societies have grown rich in the sense of finally being able to openly debate for themselves the future of their societies. The bravery it took, the willingness to stand up for what they thought right and face certain recriminations or slow painful ostracism. Suppressive regimes now learn well from each other and have a vast collection of tools of the trade. But truly independent intellectuals are for real system changes to whatever has yet to be tried, ideas which would make those who rule this world nervous, what they would stop at nothing to suppress, not what the largest companies of the world are waiting in the wings to reward, or to what the most powerful countries are willing to back your causes, morally speaking when not financially.

                 When intellectuals are filling a role defined by that society, expected by that society, being what intellectuals are expected to be, doing what intellectuals are expected to do, they are intellectuals, but in the same sense as those who are in government and/or support 100% the current leaderships decisions can be called intellectuals. As Havel wrote of all non-active or passive dissenters, that they ARE the system, I propose such intellectuals are as well, what I call just another system of control, another fallback or safety switch. One can rightly say that is just semantics. Obviously if you are in a society, whatever your standing, you can be said to be a part of that society or else you are dead. In an increasingly global society, there is no going outside it to criticize it. For those who wish to change their society or the global society, the only real target to aim to change because it so completely defines your society within itself, to something else, they need a something else to mention to get anyone to go along with it, respect them, or even have a clue as to what they are talking about. Sometimes when times are desperate enough, people will ignore that they don't have a clue and listen to them anyway. 

                But the role of an intellectual, like the end goals for society as a whole, I believe ought to be ambiguous to a certain degree, not confined or limited by what is expected by a society for an intellectual to be, not a definite job description, but the realm of those who possess a never-ending drive to be or create something ELSE, something better, something not yet tried, open-ended. Something ambiguous enough and wide-open enough to make the powerful quake in their boots that the changes they might bring or advocate might not leave them still on top, for if there is ever to be found greater justice in the world, it always would mean power would be more shared and diluted than it is today. Those with the power now can easily support that hypocritically and rhetorically, greater democracy, more power to the individual to control their own governments and their own lives, they always will and always do say such things, but they are never so isolated and out of touch that they can't do the math of what it would mean to their power base if it actually was attempted or achieved. If intellectuals are working for anything other than making people see that hypocrisy and gulf between whatever their current system and leaders say and want people to believe, against what they actually are and do, and they are not rich, they are either severely underpaid or inept, because that task is no one else's job within any given society and not doing so would be priceless to some. Everyone else can only play their own parts, paid and allowed only to promote and propagate whatever system they live under from their places within it. If intellectuals are not filling that critical yet indefinable dynamically changing outsider role of always promoting and advancing systemic changes within their societies, they ought to be handsomely rewarded by the powers that be for not doing it or doing it purposely poorly. No one else can without first assuming their roles, taking up their fallen mantle. Sadly, it is still as yet solely in the intellectuals domain or charge, and they, everyone else's last line of defense against those with the power, the will, and the devastatingly well-honed rhetorical weaponry to make all others nothing more than puppets for life.
 

1)  2003 Village Roadshow Pictures, Matrix Reloaded, Warner Brothers, Hollywood

2)  1988 Bourdieu, Pierre. "Social Scientists, Economic Science and the Social Movement", Acts of Resistance, New York Press, New York, Pg. 52

3)  1988 Bourdieu, Pierre. "Social Scientists, Economic Science and the Social Movement", Acts of Resistance, New York Press, New York, Pg. 56

4)  2005 Saxonberg, Steven, Thompson, Mark. "Opposition and Dissidence in Transitions and Non-Transitions from Communism- A Comparison of East Europe to Asia and Cuba", Opposition and Dissidence in the State Socialist Countries of Eastern Europe, N/A, Pg. 9

5)  1990 Havel, Vaclav, Speech before Joint Session of Congress, Washington DC, Reprinted from...
  1995 Ash, Timothy Garton, "Prague: Intellectuals & Politicians" The New York Review, New York,
   Jan 12, Pg. 37 

6)  (orig. 1978) 1985 Havel, Vaclav, et al. "The Power of the Powerless", The Power of the Powerless, Palach Press, New York, Pg. 31

7)  (orig. 1978) 1985 Havel, Vaclav, et al. "The Power of the Powerless", The Power of the Powerless, Palach Press, New York, Pg. 31

8)  2003 Choe, Yonhyok, Loftsson, Elfar. "Elections and Party Systems", Political Representation and Participation in Transitional Democracies: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, Almqvist & Wiksell Int., Stockholm, Pg. 50

9)  1995 Ash, Timothy Garton, "Prague: Intellectuals & Politicians" The New York Review, New York,
   Jan 12, Pg. 35

10)  (orig. 1978) 1985 Havel, Vaclav, et al. "The Power of the Powerless", The Power of the Powerless, Palach Press, New York, Pg. 27