Headlines seldom give a true or complete picture of an article's contents. In order to understand properly, readers ought to scan through the entire article.

For example, though my previous article was given the title 'Will the unwise who rule the world now listen?', it was "the chasm between intellectuals and the politicians or parties they hope to

influence" that provoked me to take up my pen.

Furthermore, only one or two paragraphs touched on the country's rulers: about 20 paragraphs referred to the problems facing the intellectual as he or she tries to reach out to a diverse population, that is, the public.

But that wasn't the only headline that belied the contents. For instance, when I read a columnist's article about 'Who, or what, is an intellectual?' I had expected a more complete description of the subject.

Instead, I found only what appears to be the traditional romantic view of the intellectual: "an outsider, living in self-imposed exile and on the margin of society".

Such a view, however, stimulated me to explore a bit further on the topic.

Dying species

It seemed to me, right off, that the view excludes those who work within "the system", such as the scientific intellectuals who strive to build a better world by, for example, showing how to reduce air pollution or slow down global warming.

It also appears to exclude social scientists who, working from within academia, seek to improve our lives with practical solutions to societal problems.

Moreover, it's well known that intellectuals who are outsiders and "living in self-imposed exile and on the margin of society" are a rare and dying species even in Western societies.

This phenomenon is due largely to structural, ideological, and cultural factors.

Structurally, the rapid expansion of the world's economy has resulted in a huge absorption of intellectuals by both private corporations and research foundations as well as government

institutions such as universities and other centres of higher learning.

Ideologically, the avant garde that struggled through the two World Wars had, by the 1980s, not only triumphed but even found themselves incorporated by the establishment and is

today, in some respects, THE establishment.

The victory of the capitalist West over the Soviet empire further signaled the end of the radical left, whose ideological exhaustion was predicted by intellectuals such as Daniel Bell, in his book on the "end of ideology."

Culturally, global capitalism has successfully seduced most of world to its pattern of consumption. The market alone can meet much of our needs and wants: we are lulled into a common search for the goods that enable us to dream and fantasize.

In such an environment, socio-cultural authority goes to the managers of popular consumption, be they in the mass media or entertainment business (it's often hard to distinguish between

the two).

The social authority of intellectuals, therefore, is often weakened or even unwanted.

Unattached intellectuals

Nevertheless, unattached intellectuals do exist, and they do become more relevant if and when society breaks down.

In such circumstances, there IS a role for Edward Said's intellectual, for someone who is, as quoted by the columnist, able to speak the truth, a courageous and angry individual for whom no worldly power is too big and imposing to be criticised and pointedly taken to task

Still, how large a role, or how much such a person can tangibly benefit society, remains to be seen. Here the question as to "who, or what, is an intellectual" takes on added significance.

Until recently, most social scientists have seen the intellectual largely as someone able to transcend his or her occupational concerns to focus on the core values of society. This, in fact, was what the Dreyfusards - the intellectuals who proclaimed Dreyfus' innocence - did.

Clemenceau was a cultural critic whose newspaper published Zola's 'J'accuse', a tract against Dreyfus' persecution. Claude Monet was, of course, the Father of French Impressionism.

Marcel Proust was a writer. Emil Duclaux was the Director of the Pasteur Institute.

All these personalities and others were able to transcend their specialties and claim their right, as thinking individuals, to speak for universal values and ideals such as truth and justice.

In doing so, they popularised the noun "intellectual," though not the word itself which had been commonly used as an adjective for at least the preceding 600 years.

Though not yet popular, the term intellectual as a noun had entered European usage by the 17th century. It was also used as such in English journals and in private conversations prior to the Dreyfus Affair. Marcel Proust's favourite art critic, John Ruskin, wrote in 1847 about "stand[ing] well with Lockhart and the intellectuals".

Engaged individual

Today, many social scientists would expand the term to include nearly every working person. As Gramsci pointed out, every occupation involves a certain amount of intellectual activity and

so to some extent all persons are intellectuals, though not all have in society the function of intellectuals.

Even if we are unwilling to be that inclusive, we should at least insist that the intellectual be an engaged individual, one who not only reflects but also acts on his ideas.

This means the intellectual is someone who not merely speaks to the public or for the public, but WITH the public. He or she must not merely side with "the dispossessed, the unrepresented

and the forgotten", but struggle physically alongside them.

That is why it is difficult to believe in the non-partisan political intellectual. As explained earlier, the contemporary intellectual is a weakened figure. He needs his peers, and most probably

a party, to carry out the activities in which he believes.

In other words, a committed political intellectual should not behave like an oracle making pronouncements to the lowly disenfranchised masses who he thinks are waiting breathless

for his pearls of wisdom. He should descend from his mountain and work with the masses.

Nevertheless, given the dearth of committed intellectuals, we should welcome even those who can do no more than demystify the political system that has subjugated the masses. Thus, any

withdrawal from the national debate by progressive writers is to be regretted.

Thinking along the same line, we should similarly accept those who address themselves not only to the public, but also to party leaders, and yes, to the ruler himself.

Given the limited access of the public to alternative information, and the authority's tendency to watch every word we say, it would be a tad too fastidious - and a waste of opportunity - not to let the ruler know what we think.

In short, if the message is pro-people, we shouldn't mind even if it is addressed "to the exclusive ears of the kings of the world."

Who knows - perhaps it was such a message, or repeated messages of a similar nature, that helped secure the release of the Reformasi Six.

L CHUAH is a self-proclaimed literature hog who is interested in applying a multi-disciplinary approach to world affairs.