The heaviest issues of all people have with intellectualism is its personal nature. Talking on any topic intellectually will bring in an personal aspect thus creating the possibility of offence or unintentional harm.
Nationality, civic issues, religion, individual rights, economics – all and everything under the sun can very well be analysed intellectually.
And the moment it starts, a duality, for and against, rises up as it is not possible to speak about a matter analytically unless one picks up an aspect of it to deliberate.
Nationality for that matter can be spoken of or discussed about in completely secular way if and only a mere description and/or definition of the term is on the anvil.
However, to discuss at length one needs to pick up one or other aspects of nationality such as how it impacts an individual’s sense of belonging and identity in the world.
The moment this aspect is picked up the issue branches out in different directions looking for things like its relevance and need in an ever increasingly connected world.
The diversification of the concept brings in matters upon which sides can be picked up, leading to a debate.
And necessarily then debates are ongoing and everlasting because with certainty nothing can be settled on a purely intellectual level.
As the renowned French philosopher Albert Camus said, “An intellectual should first and foremost preserve his strength.” Implication is that there is an outpouring of energy in intellectual discourses which quite likely has an unsettling effect on total recipients thus creating in them an antipathy towards intellectualism.
This antipathy is particularly pronounced in the 21st century. The tools and gadgets plus the exposure afforded by the 21st century inventions and speed of cross-integration between countries and cultures has made it possible for people to work way beyond their original potential.
Merit and talent are of less importance than the ability to work together and network.
The majoritarian wave makes it highly difficult for any one who wants to aim at solitary creation with hopes in the background to earn social acceptance later purely on the basis of the content and worth of the work.
The new creative process seems to be inclined towards a collaborative method – getting more and more people involved in producing greater and greater numbers of immensely popular work.
This new process definitely has no need or place to tolerate the vagaries of intellectual temperament.
Like never before articulation, exposure and theatrical gestures have become the necessary perquisites of success even in creative fields.
These are times of outpouring with nothing held back which is only possible when people are working together.