There is a war on. Nothing is like it used to be; no-one is what he used to be. Everything is sinking into Nothingness; Matter into dust, Spirit into ghost. There is a war on. can anyone preserve his right mind? Can one, who we used to call intellectual, and who was always proud of his integrity, preserve his autonomy in this war? Even if he can, what is his heteronomy?

An intellectual is seen as a person who is able to comprehend and understand. One tends to believe that the intellectual is led by the principle of the mind, and not by the immediate emotions or given experience. An intellectual is considered a privileged person, for he is linked with the immaterial, spiritual, ideal. Thus the intellectual is in a way beyond reality, in his own spiritual sanctuary sheltered from the nightmares of daily events. It is for this reason that the naive are astonished when they recognize in him an ordinary, such an ordinary man, as if an intellectual himself were not a man amongst the people! The same astonishment is shared by those who are used to see in him, if not an immoral, at least a suspicious, obscure person of unclear intentions. Both groups are right inasmuch as they discern in him a peculiarity of each and every individual destiny. The life of an intellectual is a keen prototype of different possible lives. This is the case in times of peace and it is so in times of war. An intellectual is able to shape and articulate any possible theoretical standpoint and practical activities by his moral and spiritual attitude, by his Doing and Being. Unlike his unenlightened fellow-men, he should be conscious of the consequences of his spiritual and practical deeds. Therefore, he should be more responsible than others, at all times, and especially in war time. Regrettably, instead of being more responsible, he is sometimes only more perfidious. In war, he is only too often a real master in hiding his own real face, a master of masks. He is driven to is sometimes by misfortune, sometimes by his own nature. In both cases, he would like to remain invulnerable, unblemished, irreproachable. To this surprise, his own deeds betray him.

As in all other areas of life, so in times of war, we are what we do. In such a situation, an intellectual endeavours to remain what he is. He might not be able to be a leader, but at least he can resist being led. If cannot preserve his autonomy and integrity, then we have called him an intellectual in vain. In the midst of a nightmare, he warns himself that he ought to suppress collective insanity, least it should take over others. Between defeatism and a high-strung state of tension, he chooses moral dignity and intellectual autonomy. he flees from war cries, for he is aware that violence is an essential denial of life, creativity, individuality. He tries to preserve moderation and distance proving that his turmoils, power, his world, in short everything was and still is inside him, long before it started to happen around him. "My war is within me" - he persuades, even though he can hardly believe such stoicism himself. His world is falling apart. The war mind is a war against mind. No-one can remain untouched in the rage of war. The war becomes a monstrous "measure of all things". An intellectual who knows that no war is his war, is modified by war. He did not want or make it, but the war creates its own intellectuals. And those are the ones I am dealing with here.

(I am listening to a foreign radio station; a cultural program; I am listening to words whose meaning is fading away, words I forgot. Little wonder: for a moment I cannot recall the meaning of the word "tomato").

An intellectual is entitled, considering the nature of his vocation, to think. He is the only one who can competently talk about intellectuals. He is entitled to it by his capability of introspection, critical mind and innate skepticism. His caution, however, makes him a "coward" in the eyes of "people of action". Especially in the war, where only brute force and physical bravery are appreciated. Partisan ideologists never forgave Krleza for not participating physically in the war, even though this great writer and even greater polemicist wrote in the midst of occupied Zagreb his essay "Praise of Folly", one of the most biting lampoons addressed to Nazism or indeed any form of totalitarianism. An intellectual hesitates, for he tries to preserve the only thing he possesses, his spiritual substance. His heroism is above all spiritual. He only endeavours to make independent judgements and acts in accordance with his intellectual integrity. If he is true to his own conviction, he will say the same things in war time as in peace time. Such a person does not adapt to circumstances, but is led by his creative and moral imperative. Nevertheless, if he claims to be a pacifist, or even worse, neutral in the war conflicts, he becomes a target of all "warring factions". A warrior does not allow anyone to remain pure. Everyone has to be mobilized, everyone has to get his hands dirty for a radiant victory, so that he can not raise charges one day! Therefore, everybody is expected to "take sides", to clearly state his convictions, to irrevocably "choose". Everybody has to be "in the front line" in war.

The intellectuals respond differently to the summons of war engagement. Some are "mobilized by force", which they readily accept in order to avoid stronger pressure. Some "volunteer" to avoid recruitment in the real army. There are those who pretend to be patriots, but in fact are only a sophisticated type of mercenary; those who join "the right side" hoping to capitalize on their and other people's misfortune by acquiring some "war loot". There is a large number of those guided by blind hatred, desire to denounce and revenge. Opposite them there is a moral person feeling the inner summons, raising his voice unable to bear suffering and injustice any more. Only such a person can express all the tragedy of a war and reach "the heart of darkness".

Intellectual devotion as a "duty" makes an intellectual similar to a soldier. Undoubtedly, every creative endeavour must contain patience, dedication, discipline and a certain degree of utilitarianism but when all these are harnessed to an aggressive commitment, then the result is inevitably pamphletism whose propaganda character is filled with pleas, martial cries, even an appeal to martyrdom. These works abound in the staccato rhythm of the march, the piercing sounds of trumpets and heroic shouting. The flag of victory flutters over them all. This intellectual outbursts of "sound and fury" is an understandable utterance of every intellectual "imprisoned" by war against his will, who basically merely wants to defend his elementary right to freedom. This freedom is freedom from compulsion, from imposed suffering and violent death, freedom which in war time demands simply to be liberated. It is, therefore, no wander that when a poet feels the inadequacy of his words he takes a gun to resist the destruction that is overshadowing human dignity. An intellectual does so both when he is a "combatant" and when he chooses "a cowardly stoicism". Amongst the latter, unfortunately, there are those who bravely summon others to battle from the rear, but there are still many more who prove with their attitude that it is possible to remain human in the midst of catastrophe.

(The writer of complete works that were read by no-one hisses at the government press conference headquarters at his fellow-writers. A symphatiser of totalitarianism would like to end the lost polemics by murdering his opponents).

The dogs of war gather together in no time. The intellectual ones are no exception. The loudest are various psychopaths, marginal types and failed artists. They lurk for an opportunity to step to the place of "acknowledged values" and to them "unreachable authorities" in wartime. In their "patriotic wrath" such intellectual bursts destroy everything in their way in order to inaugurate themselves as a new sacred values. These intellectual marginals are favourite children of all tyrannies. They are true believers of power, authority and violence. They readily become propagandists, warmongers, informers. In all that, their own colleagues are their favourite targets. Such "honourable intellectuals", "proclaimed patriots" and "state writers" are the first to betray "the just struggle" if they feel that their patron is losing the war. They unscrupulously change their "colours" in the midst of the "match" and they always somehow end up on the winning side, for whose cause they had always "fought". Basically, they hate intellectuals, above all, for they themselves never made it. They, however, are not hated by anybody. A "clown of the powerful" and "a laughing-stock of the wise" hardly deserve contempt.

They are often accompanied by those obsessed with accumulated, and frequently hidden hatred. Urged by the desire to revenge, such a herald of destruction becomes even proud of its hatred. Unsatisfied and unfulfilled by nature, such an intellectual is more successful as an incendiary that as a rescuer. He is dangerous, for he knows how to articulate his hatred, as he is capable of finding alibis for his crime. His knowledge does not stand in the way: it is not enough to know how to quote Kant's moral imperative to understand it; knowledge becomes only that which is grasped from within, whatever is comprehended in such a way that it becomes incorporated in our own moral attitudes, so that it becomes our innermost imperative. While a simple man can become "only" a killer in wartime, the intelligent one is so much more to blame, because he understands the consequences of his deeds and because he can degenerate into a planner of mass murders. Such a person claims that he behaves according to the "law of heart" and finds within himself the arguments for his statements. Especially when he hates. There is no fact or evidence that can deny his blind faith. He claims that EVIL is always in OTHERS, that DIFFERENCE means death, yet he does not see that he is the SAME as his enemy, in his hatred. In the night of idealized hatred "all cows are black".

(A famous thinker quickly goes round the demolished city, has lunch in the Holiday Inn Hotel, and on his way back home writes a touching story about a city deprived of everything, except love and death, for a high circulation newspaper. He believes he had to write it, for he is the "conscience of the world").

Conscience of the world? In such a statement coming from an intellectual there is a trace of megalomania and definitely exaggeration. Anyway, I seriously doubt that an intellectual is a person who would "meddle into things that do not concern him", especially if he has no benefit from them. More frequently he is "a public servant" prone to various forms of intellectual prostitution and manipulation. If he is truly disturbed and if his conscience urges him to talk, how come he manages not to reveal so many things? But the war in Sudan is not "in fashion". Basically, he is concerned about the war in Bosnia insomuch as the media are: the theme is in the focus of the media interest; it sells well and that should be taken advantage of. A guest does not feel, nor is he linked with the real horrors of his wretched hosts. He is helped by overwhelming Balkan masochistic hospitality, whose basic rule is to make guests enjoy their stay, at all costs. The guest is always received in the nicest room, he is offered the best food, "dirty linen" is hidden from him, he is always right, he is seen off with smiles, even when the host does not feel like smiling. The whole ordeal is undergone in order to "make a good impression" on the guest. If he happens to be a perverted onlooker, such a guest will even gloat over the misfortunes of the sufferers. He confirms that what he bore witness to is horrible, but praising the heroic, intellectual and other types of resistance he unconsciously claims that there is something good and valid even in the horror, and that death is less horrendous that the dying person believes. Even when he feels deep solidarity with the victims of violence, he still remains a privileged onlooker. If he is not partial in his testimony he is being exposed from all sides to various accusations of "bias" and "ignorance". Therefore, he will with caution admit that his report is only a fragment of the total picture of general horror. He is aware that at least that way he can appeal and plea for a cessation of the total cataclysm. He can do this much; nothing more. History proved a long time ago that it does not take notice even if all the forlorn children of the world cried...

(Demolished country, shattered soul... I can think but very little. I hardly can expect anything, I plan nothing. Just a little bit of faith. God would be great even if he did not exist)

Many a man sees his chance in war to get "his place in history". In a moment of turbulent historic changes, every gesture is important by the mere fact that it is done in the period of important events, such a person tends to think. There are many intellectuals who think so. "I might not be significant for my works, but I might become important because I am fighting for the right cause", says one author. If he is lucky to survive on the winning side, he will exaggerate his "merits" resembling a good-natured half-wit who made us children laugh with his stories about his personal victories over "comrades Hitler and Mussolini". His example is followed by many who are vigilant lest their contribution is omitted from the files of historic merits. They believe that they are victims, impartial witnesses and future winners, all at the same time. They are supported by those intellectuals in their contradictory conviction, who embraced the "truth" of war ideology. The truth that becomes more important than their intellectual standpoint. In a war in which even common sense can be interpreted as hostile deed, one should not expect too much moderation and truth, but an intellectual should do at least this much: to refrain from empty statements and appeals to general destruction. He ought to resist a total destruction, especially if he feels he could profit from it. He should remain uncorrupted. He should stay away from war profits. One is unmasked in war, unprotected by one's social status and institutions, one is devoid of one's illusions. Everyone shows his real face in a marginal situation. Man's true nature is drastically laid bare in war. Intellectuals are no exception. Academic issues become concrete, specific issues. If he is forced to become a warrior, he does so only because he defends the elementary human values, because the basic right to life is above all "sublime" ideas, especially above the forces of destruction. When threatened, one takes sides. If he chooses cautious silence, an intellectual can still hope for a time when he will be able to articulate what exactly he experienced in an encounter with barren existence. When he speaks, he says again the things he can no longer be silent about. Not allowing himself to be depersonalized he has to be true to his intellectual integrity even in the midst of war. Therefore, his word should not console, nor deceive. However harsh, it has to be the word of freedom. His deeds should follow accordingly. In fighting for freedom he has to watch out not to become yet another fighter storming the bastion of "freedom" thought out by politicians and war leaders. To them "freedom" is just another kind of slavery. Thus, an intellectual has to fight another, metaphoric war. That one, too, means ruin and suffering.

Webmaster: Slobodan Markovic (twiddle@eunet.yu)

All rights reserved. Belgrade Circle Journal encourages the reproduction of material appearing on its pages, provided that the source and the author are cited, except in cases where this would constitute violation of copyright held by other organisations or individuals.