52
PARTISAN REVIEW
faith in this ideal (even if the Stalinist model had to give way to other vari–
ants: Trotskyist, Maoist, Castroist, and so on). Yet one can identify this same
year, 1968, as the beginning of the end of its long reign. The "events" that
took place in Paris and elsewhere during May and June did not herald a new
age, as its protagonists then believed, but on the contrary turned out
to
be
the last hurrah of the old one, an
adieu.
They had, willy-nilly, loosened the
grip ofall utopias (whether "right or "left") on the minds of intellectuals. With
the help ofSolzhenitsyn's recently translated works, the communist ideal in
Europe (or at least in France) had become an intellectual anachronism,just
like fascism and nationalism.
And today? It seems that in order
to
discuss the ditlerent role of intel–
lectuals today one must first offer a defense of that very role. An intellectual,
one might say, is someone who judges the real by the measure of an ideal;
but if he renounces values, if he ignores the real, he abdicates that very re–
sponsibility. This temptation is not a new one: it is a bit like choosing the
vita
contemplativa
over the
vita activa.
To cite an ancient example, Tacitus's
Dialogue oj the Omtors
already sets out the opposition between the orator
engaged in the affairs of the city and the poet who "withdraws to abodes of
purity and innocence, and enjoys a holy resting-place." Tacitus's sympathies
lie with the latter, though, and one can always find good reasons for such an
instinct. Retreat is preferable in times of tyranny because dictators make
their decisions alone anyway; during democratic periods, vulgarity and
mediocrity reign because such is the common taste. Is it not better, then, to
withdraw to some ivory tower and dedicate oneself to the cult of art or that
of the senses? I n our time, and especially since 1968, individualism has
reigned , and contemplative retreat has consequently taken on a new form.
Writers and thinkers have given up judging others, preferring instead to ex–
plore the depths and recesses of the self. "Politics" has come to mean just the
politics of desire, and "revolt" that of the body. This renunciation has been
neutralized, however, by the prestige our consumer society accords creators.
Even when they tell us, "I have nothing to teach you," we take that as a
precept and want to imitate them.
So if one wishes intellectuals to have a role today one must first strug–
gle to maintain, or reestablish, a public life that means more than the protec–
tion of innumerable private lives. The situation of the modern intellectual is, in
this regard, completely different !i-om that of Bossuet's time. Long ago the
intellectual made himself out to be an interpreter of the Divine Word; today
he interprets "public opinion." The old-fashioned "cleric" dealt directly with
the powerful; today the typical intellectual does not advise the prince but
(when he has the choice) prefers to address society as a whole. The media
therefore plays an essential role today by permitting this contact between
