In some ways, he reminds me of my late grandfather (I only ever knew one, as the other died before I was born). His smile was gentle, his voice soft (and sometimes hardly audible). Maybe age has taught him that the one that speaks the loudest is not always the most heard, whereas a person whose thoughts are sought after will have others straining to hear every enunciation.
Yesterday, my friends and I sat around the august Prof Dr Syed Hussein Alatas (thereafter known as SHA) in order to hear him speak on what brought about the inspiration for his book "Intellectuals in Developing Societies" (though apparently out of print, copies of it have been spotted at Borders Berjaya Times Square) and also to discuss some contents of the book (it being the first part of the a series of discussion on this book and others like it). The book has itself been translated into the two languages of the region, Indonesian Malay and Malaysian Malay. It was originally written in English and published in England, but it took Malaysia more than 30 years to finally recognise the importance of this work and to therefore translate it into the national language, and even then, it has sadly allowed it to go out of print (unless one can dig it out from some obscure warehouse/garage sale).
In this book, SHA writes about the appearance and existence of intellectuals within any society that prides itself in its progressiveness, as well as their function in such societies. Remember that this book was written in the 70s, which was a time of 'flower-power' and nascent period of cultural studies, when many institutions of higher learnings (and their byproducts) are underdoing changes in the curriculum and emphasis. When Malaysia was still a very young country and the PM was Tun Hussein Onn.
The gist of his argument is to differentiate the intellectuals from the intelligentsia. Just because you are well-educated (as in being well-read or well-qualified), have refined and cultured ways, speak many languages, is widely travel, and have an 'open' mind (and the latter case optional and subjected to debate), you do not automatically fall into the category of an intellectual. The one SHA terms an intellectual would be someone with profound and deep understanding of the philosophical conditions of humanity that surround his/her science and arts. Someone who can look at the bigger picture (while still paying attention to the details) and see what ails it. Perhaps an easier way of saying this is that an intellectual is someone who does not just work with existing data, but extrapolates from the data (and to collate all these extrapolations from various data) into a framework that helps him/her understand the greater issues and paradox of humanity, perhaps grappling with problems that seem to have no solution, or finding a solution that eludes even some of the most intelligent. The intelligentsia would be the sort of person I have just described above: one who might be a top-notch professional in his/her field, and possessing all the traits as suggested, but might not qualify for an intellectual. There is always some confusion in this two terms and I could do no better than to advocate that you read this book of the professor.
The book also talks about the bebals (where he gave a rather long list of, and from which he devoted an entire chapter to), which talks about a person incapable of contemplation or thoughtfulness, one who only follows the path of least resistance (even if the path is known to be inefficient and foolish)and someone who allows majority sentiments to dictate him/her, one who allows superstition and irrationality to dictate him/her as opposed to clear thinking.A bebal can be someone who is very good in his/her field of work/specialty, by could not apply holistic/intelligent thinking to every other aspect of his/her life. It could also be someone who does not understand the underpinning philosophy (reason/justification/functions) of his/her work and thus is only a blind follower of instructions, regulations and ideas without understanding why it is such as it is. He/she is afflicted with mental lassitude. When such conditions occur, he/she merely becomes an assembly worker within a conveyor belt of his/her career.
He also talks about the fool, one with difficulties to think through anything logically, one who is seemingly incapable of learning the art of learning (or maybe learning from mistakes), one who makes decisions that impact others but is unheedful of it and who does not recognise that he/she is a fool. He/she is reactive to situations and criticism but incapable of considered action. Or whose only form of considered action is to be reactive without heed to consequence.
Throughout the discussion we had with him, SHA gave many examples of what he considered to be foolish decisions made by authorities, as well as the lack holistic thinking when dealing with problems ranging from building highways and roads to combatting problems of traffic congestion, something of course that is not alien to us. He also mentions the problems of cultural lag in issues as wide as the planning and construction of society to the direction in which education has taken in this country. This was what he told me when I asked him why, inspite of the noble aim of the education philosophy of this country in its aim to create holistic individuals, have only succeeded in creating lopsided intelligentsia who while could be very good in their field, lack creative hindsigh and the ability to look at matters more philosophically. SHA did not say this, but if I were to expand from his arguments, I would say that it has to do with the strong emphasis on the material over the abstract. As SHA reiterated on what he had mentioned in his book more than 30 years ago, the inability of the country's planners to adjust to the intellectual framework that surrounds the development they have been so eager to wish on the country is that which has led to an unbalanced society, and hence unbalanced individuals. He explained that this is not only the case in developing societies, but has become more prominent even in developed societies like the America, where information overflow has led to over-saturation of the mind, and thus the inability to get back to the basics. This hints strongly on his disapproval on the direction which scholarship, monopolised by babyboomers academics, have taken, whom he felt were more interested in indoctrinating their students with their ideologies and ideas as opposed to leading them to basic questions. While I would disagree that this is the overall sense, since there are academics and students who are still interested in reading the origins of such ideas (though arguably a lot less than before, seeing the popularity of certain pseudo-intellectual polemic published and snapped out in this day and age) I agree that there is a cultural lag in still trying to make sense of the bombardment of information, and the fact that many are still trying to sieve knowledge from mere information.
When questioned as to whether there might be a need to adjust the Enlightenment traditions of the West to suit the peculiarities of our nation, I was a little disappointed that he did not address this question as thoroughly as he should, since most of the time were taken up in giving examples of what is considered as the insitutionalisation of moral depravity in the West. However he did give a rather good example of how the grandness of an intellectual idea can be contradicted by the living of his/her personal life. However, I will caution that this does not always detract from the nobility of the ideas. After all, cognitive dissonance to occur. And sometimes, simply, the person's philosophy might actually be a testimony of his personal beliefs, even if one might not see it as such from the way the ideas were put forth sophisticatedly. Case in point is Wittgenstein. Read him and read his biography and you will know what I mean. I suggest trying "Wittgenstein's Popper" as an introduction. While to a certain extend, it might be useful to keep in mind philosopher/intellectual's personal beliefs, there is such a time when we can gain and learn even when merely elucidating the person's philosophical arguments/ideas, realising then that the ideas are flawless and require continuous critique and refinement.
We also discussed the possibility of bebalisma as the reason for much superstition and supernatural beliefs in our society. While the discussion group is divided between over-rationalising and using rational/logic to explain supposedly 'supernatural' occurences, no real conclusion has been reached on this issue. SHA gave examples of some practises within the Malay culture one being the "minyak dagu" (oil retrieved from a fresh corpse) as an aphrodisiac charm and the use of dead babies to help in robberies or to ensure that one's husband does not stray. He cited examples of supposedly educated/rational individuals falling prey to such beliefs and superstition. He expounded on how the use of superstitious beliefs as a way of obtaining a child's obedience could end up producing bebalist adults. In responding to a question and comment on how one might deal with someone one perceives as one's intellectual inferior, SHA said that the way of doing so is not to act as if one is superior, but to build on that other's person's premise of reasoning, and perhaps to lead him/her to see his/her own thoughts more clearly.
While I could go on about the discussion we had, it is not my aim to report the thing as it happened, but to inject my editorial voice into this review to give my readers some idea as to what went on. There are of course too many stories and examples to give here (SHA is quite a story-teller, and some of the tales he related were pretty interesting). There are definitely some usefulness in getting the author of a book you are discussing to be present in the discussion, though there is probability of the person's present overshadowing the discussion. It of course depends a lot on the personality of the person present. Sometimes the discussion does not take off as well as you would want it to, because perhaps the discussants feel that they would rather hear the words from the horse's mouth rather than to debate on the ideas and its relevance, or its relation to an overall structure. However, I think it would be good to have sessions without the author so that we can distil our own perceptions and ideas of what the author says, because no author is infallible, and his/her intentions with regard to the book (and even the reasonings with regard to the book) can change in time.
There are many reading and literary circles around KL, but the aim of our circle here is to look more at the issues brought up by the work, regardless of whether it is a work of fiction or non-fiction, in order to contextualise the philosophy of our time and age. Where possible, we would invite the author to be present, though it is not that simple seeing that we are living in a backwater (it IS a backwater despite its facade of rapid modernisation and spanking new buildings and state-of-the-art toilets). But you have the words in the text, so use them, and the grey thing between your ears. (:
We will be doing a second discussion, to continue in areas of the book which had not been touched upon (though we have had the discussion from 8:40pm to close to midnight). For those of you living in Kuala Lumpur/will be around the area and are interested to participate, just drop me an email or drop me a note in the comment box. The discussions will be conducted in the mix of Malay and English, and you can participate and express yourself in any language you feel comfortable with, provided there is someone to translate for you should the majority around not understand. (:
In light of this review, you might want to read this article by Douglas Kellner entitled "Intellectuals, the New Public Spheres, and Techno-Politics"
A bientot!
