When I read Intellctuals and the Masses for the first time I couldn't help but notice that Carey seemed to abuse the masses as being illiterate idiots. He seemed to think that intellectuals should have a class of there own. The masses respond to forced kindness according to Carey, they are unknowable and unforgetable. Also with the demeening words to the masses he also includes woman saying that the intellectuals don't find them worthy. You see that Carey is quit frankly belittling the masses as nothing, well this is the first impression you get anyway.
When you begin to read on you discover that he somehow manages to also abuse the intellectuals, saying they are selfish and stuck in the past. They are seen as damaging to relations, I think Carey is saying that intellectuals and the masses aren't any better than the previous.
I think that Carey tries to show the readers both sides of the argument, he sits on the fence wanting to show both viewpoints. The reader may at first jump to the conclusion that he is on the side of the intellectuals but once read further I don't think this to be the case, I think he wants to give the readers something to think about to come up with their own idea. He says the prejudice between the masses and the intellectuals could resort to mass homicide, I think what he is doing is trying to reach out and put this into a new perspective. To resolve the issues both groups have with one another. He believes very much individualism which connects with my idea that he was sitting on the fence. If he believes in indiviual thinking then he can't take a particular side. I think the book is written well in the way that it isn't to hard for a normal person to read so you wouldn't have to be particularly intellectual to be able to understand it.
No comments:
Post a Comment