Authority Figures: Only Intellectuals Can Define Who Qualifies, Facing Semi-Intellectuals and the Underlying Power Dynamics.

An intellectual is a person endowed with intelligence who produces, disseminates, and critically examines ideas, with or without concrete impact on public, philosophical, or scientific debates. An intellectual is not defined solely by a high level of education or a prestigious profession, but by their ability to develop critical and original thought. They can emerge from the academic, professional, or media worlds, as long as they actively contribute to renewing ideas and nourishing collective reflection.

Thus, a psychologist, a doctor, a coach, a trainer, a university professor, or a lawyer are not automatically intellectuals, even if they have expertise. They can be technicians of knowledge, applying information within their field without producing reflection that transcends their disciplinary framework.

They can be "knowledgeable," "experts," "pseudo-knowledgeable," or "pseudo-experts."

Um, yes, the limit? How to recognize them? Who knows... :)

But in this article, we will focus on "pseudo-intellectuals" or "semi-intellectuals."

Conversely, a person without a university title but capable of shedding new light on ideas, fueling societal debate, and being recognized for their critical thinking can be considered an intellectual. The intellectual distinguishes themselves by their engagement in the public sphere and their ability to problematize beyond established knowledge. Simply repeating what an intellectual said 10 or 100 years ago does not make you an intellectual.

I think of all those who quote Einstein even though nothing allows us to attribute this quote to him: "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." What does this say about the person who displays it and their objective?

Ideally, an intellectual juggles concepts and interdisciplinary contributions, with an openness, a priori, to any field or element that could further illuminate a problem or subject.

For me, this is intrinsically linked to the primary will to evolve thought beyond any agenda. It is an active approach towards greater accuracy and truth.

Let's move on to the term "semi-intellectual," which is defined as a person with intellectual tastes or pretensions without being a true intellectual. This expression was cited by Marcel Proust in 1921.

The problem with this concept, and it is central, is that only intellectuals are able to qualify others as semi-intellectuals. I will delve deeper into this simple definition.

Being a "semi-intellectual" is a sociological and philosophical critique that designates individuals who adopt certain appearances of intelligence and knowledge without truly mastering their demands and rigor. These figures are particularly visible in the media, social networks, and the world of personal development or public debate.

A semi-intellectual is not an intellectual per se, but someone who plays the role of an intellectual by oversimplifying complex concepts and spreading seductive but often superficial ideas. This should not be confused with the act of scientific popularization!

We can identify 5 major traits:

1. Superficial knowledge: They adopt scholarly concepts and references without deepening them. They rely on a few readings or quotes but without in-depth understanding. They do not correctly articulate concepts or do so in isolation within a single field of reflection. For example, thinking about a problem solely from the perspective of psychology or economics.

2. Intellectual veneer effect, a shiny overlay: They adopt the codes and language of legitimate thinkers but empty the concepts of their complexity. They can juggle terms like "kindness," "respect," "paradigm," "structuralism," "cognitive biases," but without a true mastery of the deep meaning, which is concretely limited, cf: point 1).

3. Excessive simplification: They transform ideas into catchy slogans, often too binary. For example, a true intellectual would analyze a problem from multiple angles, while the semi-intellectual would reduce it to a simple opposition (e.g., "it's the system" or "it's individual responsibility").

4. Use of buzzwords and shock formulas: They primarily seek emotional adherence and immediate impact. They like trendy concepts: "the matrix," "awakening," "biases," "brain drain," etc.

5. Lack of willingness to understand others and real confrontation with opposing ideas: They avoid entering debates where they might be challenged and prefer spaces where they can shine without contradiction. They also carefully avoid, in a contradictory discussion, taking up opposing concepts to attempt to deepen them and at least display a willingness to understand or objectively question the concept or their position. They surround themselves with people who validate their ideas (echo chamber effect). This phenomenon is very visible on social networks.

Where can we find semi-intellectuals according to intellectuals?

Semi-intellectuals are present in various environments where "intelligent" discourse can be monetized or serve influence.

• In the media and social networks

TV commentators or "media experts" who comment on everything with false authority. YouTubers and influencers who adopt complex concepts without sourcing or deepening them, creating amalgams and sophisms. Televised debates where the goal is to impose a punchline rather than advance reflection. Conspiracy theorists who give the impression of being "free thinkers" by manipulating facts to their advantage.

• In personal development and pseudo-science

Coaches and gurus of positive thinking who transform psychological principles into miracle recipes or solutions without first understanding them. Online course sellers who claim to hold "the secrets of success and a winning mindset." Inspirational speakers who manipulate emotions to convince without a real scientific basis. Are you clear about your Why?

• In the political and activist sphere

Figures who oversimplify complex debates by proposing caricatural solutions. "Are you deconstructed?" Speeches that manipulate poorly interpreted or out-of-context data to defend a point of view. Populist politicians who play with emotions and fears by simplifying economic, social, or geopolitical issues.

Why are semi-intellectuals so successful?

The phenomenon of semi-intellectuals is linked to several factors:

• Need for simplification → The world is complex, and people prefer clear and decisive answers over nuanced analyses. A quick point of view is needed.
• Culture of buzz and emotion → Social networks favor short, impactful, and emotional content, which plays in favor of simplified discourse.
• Distrust of experts → Classic intellectual authority is being questioned, and semi-intellectuals offer a more accessible alternative.
• Attention economy → Those who can captivate their audience, even by telling half-truths, have more influence than researchers who spend years refining their theories.

This brings us to the central question of this article: How to distinguish an intellectual from a semi-intellectual?

When a circle of established intellectuals holds the power to define who belongs, those labeled as semi-intellectuals find themselves in a delicate position: if they contest this label, they risk reinforcing their exclusion. This logic tends to favor the self-legitimization of intellectual elites.

The example of Pierre Bourdieu and cultural distinction:

Bourdieu analyzed how intellectual classes impose their own criteria of legitimacy, thereby excluding those who do not master their codes.

Take the example of the academic world and media intellectuals:

A university researcher decrees that a media essayist is a "semi-intellectual." If the essayist contests this label, they risk being perceived as seeking recognition in a framework they do not fully master, which can play in favor of their opponent. If they accept it, they may be perceived as validating a form of inferiority, unless they manage to turn this label to their advantage. An external and legitimate instance could arbitrate, but these spaces are often influenced by those who already have the power to define who is an intellectual and who is not. However, alternative circuits sometimes allow escape from this domination. And you can note that this dynamic also contributes to reducing the scope and legitimacy of the ideas of those labeled as semi-intellectuals, placing them in a defensive position where they must first justify their status before even being able to defend their arguments.

A concrete case: Michel Onfray and the university

Michel Onfray is often presented as a popular philosopher, but he is regularly labeled a "semi-intellectual" by some academics, notably due to his positioning outside the traditional academic framework.

He criticizes the university and its criteria for intellectual legitimacy, but it is primarily academic institutions that define these norms. When he questions the university system, his opponents accuse him of an anti-intellectualist stance. If he claims a place in the intellectual debate, his detractors point out that he does not fit into the classic academic research approach.

In this context, the concept of a semi-intellectual can function as a social filter, making it more difficult to gain intellectual recognition outside established circuits. Those who already benefit from academic or institutional validation have a decisive influence on defining what constitutes a legitimate intellectual.

Intellectual recognition is often influenced by academic and media elites, but alternative circuits sometimes allow escape from this domination.

This phenomenon concerns not only intellectuals but all forms of elitist self-legitimization: in politics, art, journalism, etc.

Semi-intellectuals play on a balance between the appearance of knowledge and the seduction of accessible discourse. They exist because there is a massive demand for discourse that simplifies the complexity of the world.

But there are rigorous semi-intellectuals who demonstrate the same dynamics as intellectuals, and those who only claim the label.

Sometimes, the problem with the latter is that they contribute to a form of rapid, biased, and uncritical thinking. And when they are more convincing and more viral than true experts... Any curious mind that scratches the surface: their ideas falter or collapse in the face of a truly structured debate, when it is respected. When a structured debate allows for real deepening, it becomes easier to identify intellectual approximations and shortcuts.

Morality: It is better to be wary of overly seductive discourse and seek to deepen subjects oneself. For these battles do not serve the general interest. The general interest is to advance thought in respect and objectivity so that ideally everyone can freely express and develop their critical thinking, to be able to evaluate and refine their ideas.