Dear Flabbergasted and Mansur, may I say, what a fascinating post and reply.Mansur wrote: ↑Fri Jun 25, 2021 9:45 pmI think there is no such thing in real life! No matter how much they philosophize and write smart books about it.Flabbergasted wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 12:12 pmIn order to survive, most intellectuals divided their lives into public and private spheres. As Vladimir Shlapentokh notes, “conformity in public deeds, opposition in private views” was a norm. Yuri Glazov has described the differences in public and private utterances as ‘behavioural bilingualism’.
Incidentally, this case, or state or situation, is true for virtually the entire intelligentsia, and for a very long time, and, I suppose, not just in the ‘former eastern bloc,’ and not just in the last years of the Soviet era.
Now, do we believe, really, that such a case exists, or has existed, or may exist at all? Is it possible for anybody to preach the official lies full job-time as it were (and with full intellectual readiness), more or less explicitly, and then go home and think the truth at home alone, or maybe tell it to one another with ‘his own kind?’ In my humble opinion, this is complete nonsense.
If someone is, say, some kind of journalist, they may lie 8-10 hours a day in the most varied ways, as none of the topics oblige them to do anything. That would be the ideal case, am I right? But people, in far the vast majority of cases, or maybe even more, must lie in a fairly directed manner.
And what can ordinary people do if the integrity of the intelligentsia has long since given up?
It would have been a much more interesting topic, say, to write about how, for example, the 'system' directed private beliefs and thoughts and to what extent it managed to keep it under control - and how this system, created with great and long effort and expertise, has saved itself into the ‘new era’.
I was interested to see what looks like a rebuttal by Mansur, which interested me as I seem to be a fairly competent practitioner of this so called 'behavioural billingualism' on a day to day basis.
Practical example wise, in teaching students I have to be cautious about to what extent I play devils advocate or give personal views as to cause and effect, if we're talking about history for example. That's professionalism to me. I conceal to a degree my true beliefs on a whole range of topics because a) they are not required and b) socially undesirable c) professional suicide
On a social level, I also practice a similar beahviour which, is far more challening and frustrating, but again, necessary for survival. To speak with 'no filter' would be to signal clearly that you are not 'one of us' and that is social suicide. I find social settings so much more challenging because adults have a more inelastic view of the world and are not well known for taking on new information outside of their frame of reference, which is mostly the media in some guise. With that said, deviation away from normal views (beyond the media specified limits) is actually quite friction inducing and can often have a very damaging effect on conversation, friendships and personal reputation (as has been noted here often).
Warmest regrards to both