kmiainfo: The Arab intellectual and cognitive distraction The Arab intellectual and cognitive distraction

The Arab intellectual and cognitive distraction

The Arab intellectual and cognitive distraction We are distracted by knowledge, we practice it as if we are satisfied with it as pleasure or adventure, or existential lust or narcissism, to prove the mirror self, and in a way that makes us not like planning for that knowledge, or transforming it into an act that enters into confrontation, in social strategies, politics and education, or in television programs and other means Social communication, the traffic system and public relations, and consumption technologies. Cognitive distraction has nothing to do with the production of hegemony, as it is content with placing knowledge in a holistic and exhibitionistic context, or even marginal, and not in a context that has its system, and its mechanisms, and it is related to existence by realizing the importance of that domination, and the feasibility of its act, especially since many “authorities” have always To adapt knowledge and invest it, as well as to devote it to feeding control, through the centralities of the social system, the religious system, and the educational system, and isolating it from the general “public”, in order to limit its infection with the symptoms of the so-called “revolutionary values” that may be organized through ideology, or that ideology Volunteering it - also - to be a discourse against, to control, and to humanize the mechanisms of knowledge adaptation, which can be converted to a neighboring authority, or even to hegemony, the phenomena of its control, repression and prisons are devoted to tyrannical groups, if they find in the authority of knowledge or in its subjugation an effective force to impose political and ideological centralization and partisanship, to place hegemony in a procedural context of disguise, to represent enlarged images of the spectator intellectual, orPromoting what Homi Babb called “the cultural vulnerability” in which contradictions coexist, or cross-fertilize and accept the opportunistic performance of the Makhzen intellectual, the government, the party and the group. The industry of “opposing thought,” as Edward Said called it, can raise questions about the ambiguous and intersecting relationship with the idea of ​​distraction, as an attempt to empty and commodify, and to position the intellectual in the face of need and change, and to deal with the realities of “the cultural difference,” including linguistic, gender, and identities. Far from his memory, the utopia of the idea of ​​a pure community, the central nation, the narratives of the right and the left, and the hypothetical ethnos of discourse that the revolutionary, communist, reactionary, nationalist, and religious circulates. These questions seem paradoxical in terms of their data, but they are subject to framing, in a way that makes the search for the “revolutionary intellectual” and even the “organic intellectual” justified, not to confront the centrality of “post-colonialism” and “the image of the dependent intellectual,” but to confront the needs of transformation, the needs of freedoms and rights, and to integrate culture Through development and revolution, that is, getting the intellectual out of distraction, to be an effective and oriented tool for change, or to maximize the action of the political opposition, and to look at reality from multiple angles, in which he shares through awareness and responsibility, and through the rush to search for new jobs for him, I mean the function of participation, communication, and renewal And what makes it more effective in confronting the institutions of hegemony, including the institutions of the government, or the institutions of religious groups, not with the intention of demanding secularization, but rather with the awareness of the need for the concepts of change and reform as realistic and critical representations of opposing thought, and the presumption of the usefulness of knowing the vectors of conflict, at the level of looking at the forces social and political, or at the level of determining their ability toExpanding the ranges of knowledge investment, employing it as a form of employing effective power, and legitimizing it in the context of change and confrontation. Governments are not innocent, but by virtue of their centrality they legitimize legal violence, educational violence, up to the hypothesis of cognitive violence, as that knowledge will be part of the system, and part of its ideological and codification of knowledge, language, politics, economics, social and public services, and when the intellectual seeks to change, he will inevitably collide with force, The power of the government and the group, and perhaps he will find himself far from possessing any free and effective cultural capital, to confront the vast monopolies of power of discourse, order and society. The sin of the intellectual and the cultural habitus Karl Marx’s passion for the idea of ​​changing the world, and he sought to base this passion on theoretical foundations and a dialectical materialist understanding of the world, in which Hegelian idealism clashed with Feuerbachian materialism, and in a way that put ideas on the ground, and permitted their use for the purposes of revolution and change, and for the purpose of confronting capitalism and the ugly class system, In order to allow the use of knowledge itself to be a support, support and veneration for the change project, which made Marxism the most widely used earthly philosophy to date in issues of revolution and change, after its modernization and removal of many of its dry crusts, and the removal of the memory of its ghosts in the manner of tussir. The industry of “opposing thought,” as Edward Said called it, can raise questions about the ambiguous and intersecting relationship with the idea of ​​distraction, as an attempt to empty and commodify, and to position the intellectual in the face of need and change, and to deal with the realities of “the cultural difference,” including linguistic, gender, and identities. But departing from Marxist usage, to horizons where nationalism, liberalism and social democracy are mixed, as the literature of the bourgeois parties in Europe says, put the forces that succeeded in their revolutionary and political movement in front of data in which they are similar to the old governments, i.e. striving to produce power, and control knowledge and law in order to be entrenched its regime, and in order to put its revolutionary and intellectual investment at the service of political and class investment, and because most of these forces have no history, they were positioned in practices and preparations that would soon be subjected to military coups, with the support of international intelligence, or fail in the elections, or remain subject to international and US sanctions in a way This is reflected negatively on its development and economic systems, and its management of politics, rights, culture, and societal security, and through a group of pressured and radical activities, some of which are included in the field of social and education, and some are included in ideology, and in the institutions of ideological parties and religious groups. These are necessarily disciplined institutions, subject to strict centralities, which made them fabricate a kind of transcendent habitus, which preserves the symbolism of place, order, capital, class and power, and under slogans that are nourished by romantic nostalgia, or by revolutionary knowledge that they do not use completely, and I think that the Arab political environment is more The environments have been subjected to such shocks, but its complexity lies in the “rotation of power”, as this rotation contributed to the production of despotic and military-centric governments, which practice their political and cultural violence in the manner of Max Weber, which made the Arab intellectual the most terrifying victim, as he is the bankrupt intellectual, and the revolutionary at the same time. And the dreamy, delusional, expelled, and exiled intellectual, at a time when those governments sought to justify the industry of central institutions, which manage culture and public services as part of their management of the system, and as part of protecting it from the illusions of the Marxist intellectual dreaming of change, and rebelling against “cultural tyranny” or from the religious intellectual who He dreams of superior institutions and populist citizens.Obedient believer. The sin of the Arab intellectual is not far from the inflation of this industry, not even from the history of ideological parties, for he is their ideal victim, their model of intimidation and subjugation, and their false projects, especially the projects of the “national fronts” that he is rushing to by virtue of his revolutionary impetus, but the variables of the post-2003 events in Iraq And the failure of the Arab Spring project made him realize belatedly the failure of those projects, and live through them an obsession with loss, the labyrinth, and the difficulty of dealing with mismanagement of the duality of knowledge and politics, as he does not know how to transform knowledge into power, nor practice politics as knowledge, especially since Arab politics is saturated with cruelty. Stubbornness and obedience, and by consuming many dogmatic slogans, in addition to the fact that many of the “images of the intellectual” remained cloudy and ghostly, living their deep and regressive alienation, and perhaps robbed many of them by dissimulating the prevailing model in the centralization of power, the party and the public, which was animated by popular and religious ideologies. What Bourdieu referred to about the concept of the committed intellectual, does not necessarily mean his possession of the counter and rational force, and his interest in “the sociology of education, art and culture.” Rather, it means his need to possess his critical tools in the face of power, and to formulate an oppositional discourse, and to transcend the knot of distraction with knowledge, to be critical of it. And to deal with it as a way to approach what is conceptual in major problems, to frame awareness and think about change, and to look at the concepts of freedom, liberalism and secularization, out of the need for appropriate environments that accept the circulation of these difficult concepts, especially since we are governed by deep dominances, closed patterns, and policies Its centrality is exercised by legitimizing material violence and symbolic violence, or by subordinating the civil and official cultural action to the control of the ownership of political capital. This is what makes the concept of habitus subject to the directives of power, in order to control its existence, mechanisms and manifestations, because it is not far from the structure as Strauss called it, nor from the field as Bourdieu called it, and both descriptions enter into the context of creating preparations for empowerment, and jobs, whose danger any central authority realizes Whether it is worldly or religious, and this is what makes the individual leaving his individuality, his freedom and his jobs difficult, so that he does not turn into the alienated individual, out of obedience, nor the habitus turns into an environment subject to rebellion according to the pattern of governance, and deceives the control of the social, educational and cultural system, as Khaldoun says. Al-Naqeeb, which also means controlling the tools of knowledge to be an active element in monitoring the environment of the individual and collective habitus, and exposing it to the influences of “distraction” and through platforms and media, to block pretexts, to satisfy the narcissistic self, to distract the mind, or to isolate from the approach to the deep ills in the environments of our Arab societies that live in slums of governance, economy, politics, religiosity and violence.(Ali Hassan Al-Fawaz Iraqi critic)

The Arab intellectual and cognitive distraction

We are distracted by knowledge, we practice it as if we are satisfied with it as pleasure or adventure, or existential lust or narcissism, to prove the mirror self, and in a way that makes us not like planning for that knowledge, or transforming it into an act that enters into confrontation, in social strategies, politics and education, or in television programs and other means Social communication, the traffic system and public relations, and consumption technologies.

Cognitive distraction has nothing to do with the production of hegemony, as it is content with placing knowledge in a holistic and exhibitionistic context, or even marginal, and not in a context that has its system, and its mechanisms, and it is related to existence by realizing the importance of that domination, and the feasibility of its act, especially since many “authorities” have always To adapt knowledge and invest it, as well as to devote it to feeding control, through the centralities of the social system, the religious system, and the educational system, and isolating it from the general “public”, in order to limit its infection with the symptoms of the so-called “revolutionary values” that may be organized through ideology, or that ideology Volunteering it - also - to be a discourse against, to control, and to humanize the mechanisms of knowledge adaptation, which can be converted to a neighboring authority, or even to hegemony, the phenomena of its control, repression and prisons are devoted to tyrannical groups, if they find in the authority of knowledge or in its subjugation an effective force to impose political and ideological centralization and partisanship, to place hegemony in a procedural context of disguise, to represent enlarged images of the spectator intellectual, orPromoting what Homi Babb called “the cultural vulnerability” in which contradictions coexist, or cross-fertilize and accept the opportunistic performance of the Makhzen intellectual, the government, the party and the group.

The industry of “opposing thought,” as Edward Said called it, can raise questions about the ambiguous and intersecting relationship with the idea of ​​distraction, as an attempt to empty and commodify, and to position the intellectual in the face of need and change, and to deal with the realities of “the cultural difference,” including linguistic, gender, and identities. Far from his memory, the utopia of the idea of ​​a pure community, the central nation, the narratives of the right and the left, and the hypothetical ethnos of discourse that the revolutionary, communist, reactionary, nationalist, and religious circulates.

These questions seem paradoxical in terms of their data, but they are subject to framing, in a way that makes the search for the “revolutionary intellectual” and even the “organic intellectual” justified, not to confront the centrality of “post-colonialism” and “the image of the dependent intellectual,” but to confront the needs of transformation, the needs of freedoms and rights, and to integrate culture Through development and revolution, that is, getting the intellectual out of distraction, to be an effective and oriented tool for change, or to maximize the action of the political opposition, and to look at reality from multiple angles, in which he shares through awareness and responsibility, and through the rush to search for new jobs for him, I mean the function of participation, communication, and renewal And what makes it more effective in confronting the institutions of hegemony, including the institutions of the government, or the institutions of religious groups, not with the intention of demanding secularization, but rather with the awareness of the need for the concepts of change and reform as realistic and critical representations of opposing thought, and the presumption of the usefulness of knowing the vectors of conflict, at the level of looking at the forces social and political, or at the level of determining their ability toExpanding the ranges of knowledge investment, employing it as a form of employing effective power, and legitimizing it in the context of change and confrontation.

Governments are not innocent, but by virtue of their centrality they legitimize legal violence, educational violence, up to the hypothesis of cognitive violence, as that knowledge will be part of the system, and part of its ideological and codification of knowledge, language, politics, economics, social and public services, and when the intellectual seeks to change, he will inevitably collide with force, The power of the government and the group, and perhaps he will find himself far from possessing any free and effective cultural capital, to confront the vast monopolies of power of discourse, order and society.

The sin of the intellectual and the cultural habitus

Karl Marx’s passion for the idea of ​​changing the world, and he sought to base this passion on theoretical foundations and a dialectical materialist understanding of the world, in which Hegelian idealism clashed with Feuerbachian materialism, and in a way that put ideas on the ground, and permitted their use for the purposes of revolution and change, and for the purpose of confronting capitalism and the ugly class system, In order to allow the use of knowledge itself to be a support, support and veneration for the change project, which made Marxism the most widely used earthly philosophy to date in issues of revolution and change, after its modernization and removal of many of its dry crusts, and the removal of the memory of its ghosts in the manner of tussir.

The industry of “opposing thought,” as Edward Said called it, can raise questions about the ambiguous and intersecting relationship with the idea of ​​distraction, as an attempt to empty and commodify, and to position the intellectual in the face of need and change, and to deal with the realities of “the cultural difference,” including linguistic, gender, and identities.

But departing from Marxist usage, to horizons where nationalism, liberalism and social democracy are mixed, as the literature of the bourgeois parties in Europe says, put the forces that succeeded in their revolutionary and political movement in front of data in which they are similar to the old governments, i.e. striving to produce power, and control knowledge and law in order to be entrenched its regime, and in order to put its revolutionary and intellectual investment at the service of political and class investment, and because most of these forces have no history, they were positioned in practices and preparations that would soon be subjected to military coups, with the support of international intelligence, or fail in the elections, or remain subject to international and US sanctions in a way This is reflected negatively on its development and economic systems, and its management of politics, rights, culture, and societal security, and through a group of pressured and radical activities, some of which are included in the field of social and education, and some are included in ideology, and in the institutions of ideological parties and religious groups.

These are necessarily disciplined institutions, subject to strict centralities, which made them fabricate a kind of transcendent habitus, which preserves the symbolism of place, order, capital, class and power, and under slogans that are nourished by romantic nostalgia, or by revolutionary knowledge that they do not use completely, and I think that the Arab political environment is more The environments have been subjected to such shocks, but its complexity lies in the “rotation of power”, as this rotation contributed to the production of despotic and military-centric governments, which practice their political and cultural violence in the manner of Max Weber, which made the Arab intellectual the most terrifying victim, as he is the bankrupt intellectual, and the revolutionary at the same time. And the dreamy, delusional, expelled, and exiled intellectual, at a time when those governments sought to justify the industry of central institutions, which manage culture and public services as part of their management of the system, and as part of protecting it from the illusions of the Marxist intellectual dreaming of change, and rebelling against “cultural tyranny” or from the religious intellectual who He dreams of superior institutions and populist citizens.Obedient believer.

The sin of the Arab intellectual is not far from the inflation of this industry, not even from the history of ideological parties, for he is their ideal victim, their model of intimidation and subjugation, and their false projects, especially the projects of the “national fronts” that he is rushing to by virtue of his revolutionary impetus, but the variables of the post-2003 events in Iraq And the failure of the Arab Spring project made him realize belatedly the failure of those projects, and live through them an obsession with loss, the labyrinth, and the difficulty of dealing with mismanagement of the duality of knowledge and politics, as he does not know how to transform knowledge into power, nor practice politics as knowledge, especially since Arab politics is saturated with cruelty. 

Stubbornness and obedience, and by consuming many dogmatic slogans, in addition to the fact that many of the “images of the intellectual” remained cloudy and ghostly, living their deep and regressive alienation, and perhaps robbed many of them by dissimulating the prevailing model in the centralization of power, the party and the public, which was animated by popular and religious ideologies.

What Bourdieu referred to about the concept of the committed intellectual, does not necessarily mean his possession of the counter and rational force, and his interest in “the sociology of education, art and culture.” Rather, it means his need to possess his critical tools in the face of power, and to formulate an oppositional discourse, and to transcend the knot of distraction with knowledge, to be critical of it. And to deal with it as a way to approach what is conceptual in major problems, to frame awareness and think about change, and to look at the concepts of freedom, liberalism and secularization, out of the need for appropriate environments that accept the circulation of these difficult concepts, especially since we are governed by deep dominances, closed patterns, and policies Its centrality is exercised by legitimizing material violence and symbolic violence, or by subordinating the civil and official cultural action to the control of the ownership of political capital.

This is what makes the concept of habitus subject to the directives of power, in order to control its existence, mechanisms and manifestations, because it is not far from the structure as Strauss called it, nor from the field as Bourdieu called it, and both descriptions enter into the context of creating preparations for empowerment, and jobs, whose danger any central authority realizes Whether it is worldly or religious, and this is what makes the individual leaving his individuality, his freedom and his jobs difficult, so that he does not turn into the alienated individual, out of obedience, nor the habitus turns into an environment subject to rebellion according to the pattern of governance, and deceives the control of the social, educational and cultural system, as Khaldoun says. 

Al-Naqeeb, which also means controlling the tools of knowledge to be an active element in monitoring the environment of the individual and collective habitus, and exposing it to the influences of “distraction” and through platforms and media, to block pretexts, to satisfy the narcissistic self, to distract the mind, or to isolate from the approach to the deep ills in the environments of our Arab societies that live in slums of governance, economy, politics, religiosity and violence.(Ali Hassan Al-Fawaz Iraqi critic)

Tags:

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post