B"H

There are today, and always have been, two basic types of intellectuals. The one are the people whom I refer to as “the house intellectuals”. They are very bright, highly trained, and good at what they do. They are trustworthy people, stable personalities and can be relied upon to carry out their tasks diligently. They accept the current understandings, learn them well and unusually quickly and learn to apply them in very practical ways. They think innovatively within the context of the accepted understandings, but not truly creatively. They are very good at learning, understanding and remembering details, but they are not very good at conceiving of, or even apprehending, seminal concepts, although they are often quite good at parroting what is said about the comprehensive concepts that the second group of intellectuals do see, and often conceive of. They are, then, loyal to the intellectual establishment and identify with it. In turn, the establishment invests its trust in them to safeguard information and technology. They do not make waves. They offer their intellectual and technical services to the establishment in return for remuneration, prestige and the feeling of power and belonging that go along with being part of the group. Their comportment is usually distinguished, even elegant. Part of the services that they offer to the powers that be is the intimidation of the second type of intellectual which we will describe anon. Today the people commonly referred to “The Brahmins” in the scientific world are those who fall into this type of intellectual.

Then there is the second type of intellectuals. They are the type I refer to as “the scrappers”. They are the iconoclasts, the ones who do not accept the current mode of thinking simply because they are truly capable of conceiving of something that appears to them an improvement on the ‘what is’. These are the people whose modes of thought are in the creative to revolutionary range. They are a feisty bunch. They have to be. They have survived all of the intellectual intimidation tactics their society has brought to bear on its citizens. They are usually quite individualistic in the in their mode of dress. Upon walking into a room their comportment broadcasts to “the house intellectuals” that they choose to remain outsiders. Friction occurs on sight. Whereas “the house intellectuals” may be every bit as bright as “the scrappers”, they caved in to pressure and fell in line. “The scrappers” cannot, will not, do so. They see what is wrong with the accepted modes of thinking and their conviction does not allow them to make compromises with it. They are willing to pay the prices they will inevitably pay for remaining true to their own minds. The difference between “the house intellectuals” and “the scrappers” is probably not one of innate ability, or two, ten or fifty additional IQ points. The difference is a matter of character. “The scrappers” think creatively, not innovatively. In fact, “the house intellectuals” will use the ideas that “the scrappers” propound and apply them, thus producing innovations. “The scrappers” transcend that which is accepted, seemingly on general principle. They trust themselves. These are the people who conceive of the mega-concepts that, in a generation or two, will become the accepted modes of thinking, after they have been made politically correct and have been intellectually neutered by “the house intellectuals”, the latter being very keen to spot that which may be inimical to the system they are loyal to. “The house intellectuals” may be trusted to tweak (censor) the thinking of “the scrappers” such that their ideas are made useful to the establishment. “The scrappers” are not necessarily very good at thinking about details, they tend to be bored with detail, although some do enjoy and are good at work that requires attention to detail. In many cases their manic minds produce so many new ideas that they simply cannot stop and think about all of the ramifications and repercussions that their seminal ideas include and can lead to. Others will do this for them in the future, in the form of application of their, somewhat watered-down ideas and writing PhD theses. They then, are those who bring about what has been called ‘paradigm shifts’ in thinking, the extent and depth of which will be the subject of study for some time to come after they develop them. In the presence of “the scrappers one feels very uneasy. They cause intellectual quakes wherever they go. They stir people up. They question the very foundations of thought, of what we believe reality to be. They are the iconoclasts. They are the troublemakers. They are unruly children (still at age 90) asking “Why?” at all the wrong times. They point out embarrassing contradictions. They see that the king isn’t wearing any clothes and don’t have the savoir-faire to shut up about it. Where the first group, the “house intellectuals” represents propriety, correctness, stability, security and established order, the second group, “the scrappers” represent undermining the sources of our sustenance and the threat of chaos. Clearly, they are not liked very much, most especially not by their intellectual peers who are “the house intellectuals”.

What I’ve learned as I matured, and came to accept with serenity, is that both types of intellectuals are necessary in Human society and that both are working in concert toward to advance Human kind, this despite the friction that exists between them. This understanding does not make the side that I do not identify with any less a subjective ‘rub’. It does, however, allow me to value and celebrate its existence.

There must be intellectuals who are in conflict with the establishment and undermine it intellectually and there must be the intellectuals who accept and defend the establishment. “The scrappers” are the dynamite and the bulldozers of the intellectual world. They clear away debris, and break new ground but obviously all explosions and bulldozing has to be controlled and limited. “The house intellectuals” are protective of the establishment, but society would fossilize and become torpid if only their influence was exerted. “The house intellectuals” and “the scrappers” mitigate one another’s effects on society. They complement one another’s work and contribution, then. They also ameliorate the effects we have on intellectual development, the one too conservative, slow and uninspired, the other too rapid, extreme and careless. Progress, therefore, continues in a paced manner and in a manner that neither prevents change from occurring, nor “blows people’s minds” on a daily basis.

Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel