I have just seen two media treatments at the Nobel speech of O. Tokarczuk (Nobel Prize in Literature 2018):

1. Reprinted speech with underlined fragments

2. Article entitled: three words to remember from speech: "I am", "myth" and "tenderness"

I consider such media practices as an example of generating modern intellectual slavery because: (1) the media suggest learning selected content by heart instead of initiating a discussion of these fragments, (2) the media skip other fragments and the context of all speech (3) the media put themselves in the position of hierarchs of ready-made unquestionable values ​​and the auditorium in the position of someone ... (4) the media does not give the auditorium any benchmark or tool for independent analysis.

I think the role of an intellectual or leader is to give the auditorium (auditoriums) tools for independent analysis/use.

For example, if we use the metaphor 'art is a tool' (Ernst et al 2016) for analysis of the speech, we will obtain our independent result.

Consequently, the scientists' task is not only to do empirical research and suggest theorie, but also to identify and suggest methodological metaphors to immunize/empower the auditoriums against the above-mentioned practices.

 What do you think about this?

Literature:

Ernst D, Esche Ch, Erbslöh U (2016) The art museum as lab to re-calibrate values ​​towards sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production 135: 1446-1460