INTELLECTUALS AS LEADER S
691
Hans Magnus Enzensberger:
Of course, we ca n discuss at length who
should qualify as being a dissident. But it seems that this group of writers,
including R asputin and Bondarev, go t into trouble with the autho riti es
because of their fi xati on o n ecological qu esti ons. That was perhaps the
only point w here they really questi oned th e system , because in their terms
the ho ly Russian ea rth was being contaminated by radioac ti vity and the
chemi cal industry . In this respect, they put up a certain type of fi ght.
I would li ke to address Sidney Monas's qu esti on , whether one could
think of other gro ups today who have been equally humiliated . I could
think of many such groups who did n ot respond exactly in the same
way, but I think that is because a necessary conditi on for thi s hate indus–
try, whi ch I tri ed to desc ribe, is the conn ecti on w ith nati onalism. Take,
for exampl e, the Gypsies wh o were a ve ry humili ated and persecuted
group of people, o r th e red Indians fo r that matter, or even the J ewi sh
di aspo ra. N o ne o f th em crea ted an industry of textbooks fill ed w ith
hatred against some other gro up . Th ey didn 't do that because they we re
not in the process o f nati on-buildin g. N ow , to the extent that Israe l has
become a nati on , yo u also hea r emanating from the J ews there shrill
voices - much more so than eve r befo re in J ewish history, from what I
can ga th er.
Questioll :
Yesterday, Mr. Brodsky made a statement with whi ch I thi nk
most of us could sympathi ze. He sa id a w riter owes absolutely nothing to
society. That makes sense to us, because most o f us are departing from
the pos iti o n of soc ialist rea lism , havin g known the ho rrors and
medi oc rity that it can inflict o n us. My questi o n is to Mr. Enzensberge r.
Right now we see a different perspective. W e have the hate industry on
the one hand - where intell ectuals can actu ally become very dangerous in
propaga ting hatred - and I would add that on th e other hand we have
the kind o f hatred th at can come through in the wake of an intell ec–
tual's work , witho ut direc tly inciting people
to
hatred . H ate can flow in
the wo rk o f an intell ectual, as in th e case of Salman Rushdi e's w o rks,
which are suffused with all kinds o f hatred .
D oes an intell ec tual owe something to the soc iety? Sho uld intel–
lectuals be responsible in the sense of staying away from hatred - at least
not to propagate hatred? Or should we take the position that the intel–
lectual is absolutely free and owes n o thing to the society? In o ther
words, what is the responsibili ty of th e intell ectual?
Hans Magnus Enzensberger:
I tri ed to be ca reful
111
pointing out
that I was not raisin g th e moral qu es tion of hatred, beca use to argue
against hate as such - that hate is bad fo r you, therefo re don't hate - is a
