, , , , , ,

The Illusion of Objectivity: Politics in the Humanities

Examining Bakunin’s “God and the State” reveals the intellectual priesthood’s dominance, akin to clergy, isolating from societal realities. Savants’ scientific monopoly perpetuates power imbalances, shaping reverence for biographically elevated authors. This elite intellectualism affects art, obscuring collective creativity. Acknowledging biases in knowledge production is vital for a comprehensive, democratic understanding.


min read


A meticulous scrutiny of Bakunin’s seminal treatise, “God and the State,” assumes paramount relevance when contemplating its perspicacious delineation of the ascendancy of savants or erudites within the extant organizational framework. These cognoscenti, in their overweening dominion over scientific pursuits, transmogrify into an exclusive caste, eschewing the quotidian milieu and effectuating a semblance to the sacerdotal echelons, with scientific abstraction as their venerated deity. Lamentably, the relentless pursuit of such abstraction exacts a grievous toll upon the corporeal denizens ensnared within its ambit, bereft of the sagacity possessed by the savants. In this tragic tableau, the savants metamorphose into consecrated and sanctified sacrificers, emblematic of the pervasive lacunae in societal power structures.

This cogent comprehension unveils a ubiquitous proclivity in the contemporary epoch, where sprawling biographical tomes exalt and deify venerable scribes, thereby amplifying the archetype of the academic clergy. By disengaging and elevating these literati beyond the confines of their temporal and societal milieu, we inadvertently inculcate an exaggerated veneration for their personages, engendering an aura of awe around the purported omniscience of the biographer.

Significantly, such a cognitive paradigm contravenes the hallowed tenets of humanistic ideals—those of unbridled cogitation and unfettered inquiry. Despite asseverations of objectivity and political impartiality, these savants are recurrently co-opted into the service of the state, perpetuating the belief that their erudition can be conscripted for political ends sans their explicit acquiescence.

In this labyrinthine scenario, a coterie of adherents metamorphose into clientele, ardently seeking the specialized services proffered by these savants predicated upon the warranties espoused by their respective guilds. By virtue of their professional standing, individuals exploit and potentially procure these services. However, this systemic architecture precipitates a precarious predicament for humanists of ostensibly limited marketability—those whose intellectual wares are adjudged “soft” and whose expertise is routinely marginalized, courting a circumscribed audience predominantly comprised of cognate humanists, students, governmental and corporate luminaries, and members of the media. These patrons engage humanists not solely for their erudition but also to safeguard “the humanities,” culture, or literature within the societal tapestry.

One cannot but marvel at the entrenched dynamics of power within the crucible of knowledge production and diffusion, a realization crystallized upon contemplation of these observations. By virtue of their scientific hegemony and social isolation, the savants adopt the mantle of gatekeepers, arbitrating what is deemed venerable and deserving of reverence. Consequently, biographers perpetuate this veneration through laudatory panegyrics heaping accolades upon illustrious authors, thereby perpetuating and consolidating the existing hierarchical stratification within the intellectual realm.

As a practitioner of the visual arts, one finds it ineluctable to overlook the repercussions of this system upon the artistic domain. Are we not witnessing the nascent emergence of an artistic sacerdotal class wherein select artists are consecrated, extracted from their temporal and societal vicissitudes, and exalted to a quasi-divine pedestal? Does the unbridled adulation of artistic luminaries obfuscate the collective creative forces that conspire to mold art movements and cultural gestation?

In our peripatetic traverse through the intricate terrain of art criticism and appreciation, it behooves us to assiduously ponder these inquiries. The power dynamics and societal structures that inform our conceptualization of artistic eminence demand meticulous scrutiny. By cognizant acknowledgment of the latent perils intrinsic to the deification of individuals beyond their temporal and societal antecedents, we may foment a more nuanced and all-encompassing discourse that embraces the manifold facets of artistic expression and the diverse influences that conspire to manifest it.

The inherent perils of intellectual exclusivity find poignant illustration in Bakunin’s allegory of savants as a distinct caste analogous to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. By monopolizing the citadel of scientific expertise and ensconcing themselves in splendid isolation from the intricacies of society, these savants promulgate a hierarchical edifice conferring upon them mastery and dominion over the disseminative precincts of knowledge. This intellectual autocracy, often buttressed by educational institutions and systematized modalities of knowledge production, burgeons as a potent instrument of hegemony.

At the crux of this issue lies the dialectical tension between expertise and autonomy. As self-anointed experts, savants arrogate unto themselves exclusive dominion over scientific acumen, venerating it as their sacrosanct deity. Alas, this expertise frequently exacts a toll upon the living, reducing them to mere subjects of ethereal concepts and dispassionate analyses, thereby divorcing the profound intricacies and nuances inherent in tangible experiences.

Furthermore, the contemporary fixation with prolix biographies of venerable authors affords a revelatory vista into the inner workings of this intellectual sacerdotalism. By extricating and elevating these authors beyond the constraints of their temporal and societal crucibles, we hazard instigating an undue veneration for them, disregarding the interplay of cultural, historical, and societal forces that coalesce to sculpt their oeuvre. Biographers, assuming the mantle of veracious narrators and interpreters of genius, purvey their ostensible erudition to validate the elevation of specific luminaries.

These observations catalyze contemplation upon the philosophical substratum of objectivity and the illusory façade of detachment. Notwithstanding asseverations of objectivity and political agnosticism, humanists and academics remain ensnared in the snares of power structures, patronage, and ideological predilections. Even as they proclaim autonomy in inquiry, they invariably entangle themselves in systems that circumscribe their latitude of judgment and the ambit of their investigations.

In this tableau, acolytes of these cognoscenti metamorphose into clientele, fervently seeking succor in the knowledge dispensed by their respective guilds. This dependency upon experts for knowledge and validation begets a hierarchical relationship wherein supplicants relinquish their autonomy and critical faculties. Ergo, humanists whose expertise is adjudged “soft” or marginalized find themselves beleaguered in endeavours to garner a broader audience beyond a niche constituency of like-minded adherents. This, eloquently portrayed, illustrates the commodification of knowledge, wherein the vogue and marketability of intellectual pursuits emerge as decisive factors in determining their sway and influence.

Moreover, it behooves us to acknowledge that knowledge is intrinsically a politicized entity. Through discerning comprehension of the labyrinthine interconnections between power, ideology, and intellectual pursuits, we may adeptly discern the biases and motivations that underpin the production and reception of knowledge. This constitutes a potent admonition that objectivity remains an elusive ideal, and that the embracement of divergent perspectives, coupled with an assiduous engagement in critical analysis, remains indispensable for a more comprehensive apprehension of the veritable tapestry of existence.

The discerning exegesis of Bakunin’s insights enjoins upon us an interrogation of the underlying power dynamics and societal frameworks within the fiefdom of knowledge. As purveyors of artistic expression, it befalls upon us to scrutate these dynamics with a discerning eye, to propagate inclusivity, and to assail the bastions of intellectual elitism. Through this exigent undertaking, we can nurture a more robust and egalitarian intellectual milieu that embraces a cacophony of voices and engenders a profounder comprehension of the human condition and our collective existence.

Randall Collins, “The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change” (United States)
Thomas S. Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (United States)
Karin Knorr Cetina and Michael Mulkay, “The Politics of Knowledge” (Germany/United Kingdom)
Michel Foucault, “Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison” (France)
Tom Nichols, “Death of Expertise: Campaign Against Established Knowledge” (United States)
Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers, “The Power of Myth” (United States)
Chomsky & Herman, “Manufacturing Consent: Political Economy of Mass Media” (United States)
Donna Haraway, “Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature” (United States)
Guy Debord, “The Society of the Spectacle” (France)
Marshall McLuhan, “The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man” (Canada)