« 1:30:05/150 | Main | How much for Christmas »
December 17, 2005
Intellectual terrorism
Riding back from taking the kids to school, I turned on the radio. France Inter was playing one of those political talk shows where they have one middle aged guy from right of center, one from left. The two have a moderated series of arguments with each other about political faits divers, curious happenings that pass for news because they're easy to discuss in vehement fashion.
The topic of French legislation and teaching history came up. In case you don't know, the French parliament occasionnally finds itself writing laws about what history must be. The exact fait divers I've forgotten, something like the French parliament voting that history teachers must insist upon the positive aspects of French colonization. That may seem strangely totalitarian out of context, like the law about no ostensible religious garments in public institutions.
What caught my ear was one of the guys accusing unspecified historians of terrorisme intellectuel. I wondered how one might define intellectual terrorism. The definition of intellectual is different at least in connotation from intellectuel, but perhaps, "of or relating to the intellect," is safely true for both (source: WordNet), where intellect is, "knowledge and intellectual ability," or, "the capacity for rational thought or inference or discrimination," (source: WordNet).
Wikipedia has a whole list of definitions for terrorism. Sidestepping the question of what a word means when there's so much discussion and disagreement about its very definition, let's choose one that's close, about terrorist offenses, from the European Union since the guy using it is a centrist in a pro-EU political climate:
Terrorist offences can be defined as offences intentionally committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people, with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic, or social structures of a country.
According to Wikipedia, the EU didn't manage to define the word terrorism itself. So let me try to patch this one together for intellectual terrorism:
Expressions of rational thought aimed against one or more countries, institutions, or people, with intent to intimidate or seriously alter political, economic, or social structures of a country.
That must not be right. By that definition, laws are intellectual terrorism. I can see why the EU had difficulty coming to agreement.
Posted by Mark at December 17, 2005 09:11 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mcraig.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1146
Comments
Calling something "intellectual terrorism" is verbal hyperbole, a figure of speech that is far overused in my opinion. It no longer has the effect of making people think (as you did patching together a meaning and seeing the issue from a new perspective), it just exaggerates language. The worst offenders in the US are sports "journalists" (more like editorialists) who refer to teams "destroying" one another, etc. But you also see it when people say they "hate" some food or somebody's opinion. To me hate is the ultimate negative feeling about something: I hate genocide and the geopolitical moves that lead to it happening, I hate the way the powerful subvert a republic and exploit its resources to their advantage, but I prefer not to eat some food, and I disagree with some people.
In my opinion, it was just meant to be a sound-bite or "phrase qui tue", one with no snappy comeback--because it is illogical. Your definition (and the one you started from) leaves off any hint of physical violence (real or threatened) that I think terrorism embodies. Intellectualism, by nature involves nothing physical, so it is an oxymoron. You have patched together an interesting definition, but I would call it "intellectual coercion." But I feel that is still an oxymoron because true intellectualism does not intend to intimidate or alter, it is just a statement of what is (or intellectuals may argue what should be, but then they are also activists).
When I read your definition I immediately thought of the Intelligent Design "theories" that have been pushed recently in the US (and finally struck down by a judge). However, it should begin with the word "purported" to be accurate (and no longer an oxymoron). And then I would say it defines "pseudo-intellectual coercion."
Posted by: Andy at December 23, 2005 09:40 AM