Bad-John brilliance

28, Aug 2000
HOW do you measure intellect? Is intellectual capacity synonymous with, or in some ways proportional to, intelligence and wisdom? What is this phenomenon in T&T which we call "brightness" to which so many of us lay claim? What do we mean when we describe someone as being "highly educated"?

There is a certain image we have in our minds of someone who is deemed an intellectual. It presupposes a kind of resolute calmness, yet flexibility; a certain bigness of heart and genteel behaviour. It excludes belligerence, or "ignorance" as one would say in T&T. Our image of an intellectual is one of a wise, erudite, well-spoken person who exudes tremendous spiritual and moral strength wielded with a soft touch.

By contrast, a "bad-john" intellectual would be a contradiction of such concepts: a development which will most likely run against the grain. There is this particular well known character, one who claims, for instance, that nothing is beyond his comprehension. Yet, when his teenage daughter is brutally raped by some sadist, he goes to the hospital and abuses the girl, blaming her for the tragic and most traumatic experience.

The nurses were forced to intervene and had to literally put this so-called "giant of an intellectual" out of the ward because of his callous treatment of his own daughter. Can such a father ever be described as a "super intellect" or as being "highly educated" or "bright" when, in fact, such classification or categorisation presupposes intelligent functioning?

A cardinal characteristic of any genuine intellect has obviously to be a compassionate nature, particularly in the case of one who postures as an educator.

The other major factor in the measurement of intellect is the capacity to logically impart and communicate accumulated knowledge and packaged information. In other words, communication skills must be key to intellectual prowess, which in turn allows for logical and intelligent functioning. An intellect that cannot communicate somehow just does not compute. It is like someone who, according to Rasta terminology, "understands in order to misunderstand".

Recently, a government Minister was being interviewed on the radio. His ommunication skills are so terrible, it is impossible to follow his logic.

"Tell us who you are," the hostess insists. Her preamble clearly indicates she is interested in having her audience gain an insight into the principles and philosophical beliefs of her guest.

The Minister understands and senses what is required of him. Nevertheless, he frames his response in the following manner: "To know me, you have to go back to the Old Testament, to Isaiah, Joshua, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Joel." He rambles on in this manner, only to end by saying, "I guess I try to be consistent at all times in what I do and say." Certainly not intelligent communicating. Rather, a random listing of sources. Pedantry.

It got worse. The hostess, seeking to explore further, questions him about what he has accomplished to date. He replies: "More than any other Minister here or, for that matter, in the whole world!"

"Can you itemise these accomplishments?" the hostess inquires. The reply is amazing, "Well, I visited every school and tried to get parents to understand that their role is key to their children's education. They must prepare the right environment... Many people, for instance, take pride in saying they cannot do maths. We have to change that... I have set up a programme and soon music will be part of the curriculum... I have done a lot..." Parental guidance and proper environment, being major factors in the educational process, are already well-known truisms, so propagating them in today's world is no feather in anyone's cap.

It is nothing but trumpet-blowing, so typical of the ghetto-culture which, ironically, this very Minister abhors. At that point the phone lines were opened to the general public. One goodly gentleman called in, wanting to know where the Minister got his credentials since he condemned the educational facilities established by all previous governments. The Minister decided the question was "nonsense" and rudely refused to answer. He seemed unwilling to identify with historic process.

The credentials of so many who lay claim to "brightness" need to be carefully examined. Practical experience teaches a lot. Possibly the "brightest" lads we met at CIC, the prestige college, in the years '59-'65, would have to be Hugo Calliste from Tobago and Austin Gilliard from Point Fortin.

They were both in the A-Special stream which took students as a matter of course to the pinnacle. Those two could have done anything they put their minds to. Yet Calliste never finished Form 1, he dropped out and became a Renegade disciple around La Cou Harpe ­ proud to wear the emblem of crossed cutlasses on his chest.

Gilliard almost made it. I can still recall a poem he wrote in which he examined a dialogue between a table and a chair, all with perfect metre and rhyme. It was sheer genius. As was the piece of music he played on his "Echo Super Vamper" mouth organ ("Rip Van Winkle", I think it was) and what he did in the spaces of the melodic lines. He almost made it, I said, until the lure of Desperadoes tenor pans overwhelmed him. They were both the "brightest" we met, but they just could not adapt.

Similarly, when Lady Acham Chen came to teach elocution, to make us put our tongues between our teeth and say "do put whole thought on art, thus turn the sad man gay with zeal", we were convinced it was a conspiracy to emasculate us.

We responded accordingly, and it was established that Mr Rostant would make himself present at the elocution classes. But one fateful Thursday, Rostant said to us: "Tell that woman I shall not be coming!"

We were only too happy to tell her when she inquired as to his presence: "Toothpick say he ent coming!" Well, none of us will ever forget the thunder that descended. It was then we came to know, from her tongue-lashing, the reason there was no 4-Special that year.

We were not good, not men enough, and we were in fact ruining hallowed tradition. We spoke well after that. The moral? We cannot measure intellect, we cannot judge brightness. People are people before all else. We measure women, we measure men. In their wholeness.