66915 | 28 Oct. 2025 | 16:23

Intellectuals, scholars and artists, receiving perhaps the smallest share of GDP in the country in Europe, feel more abandoned and forgotten than anywhere else, trapped in a "dead end"

 "The Anatomy of Betrayal" published in Epicenter.bg, sparked a massive debate. https://epicenter.bg/article/Ivan-Granitski/399264/11/0 

"When we talk about the Bulgarian literary scene after the so-called democratic changes at the end of 1989, we gradually saw different literary parasites crawling onto the public stage, a whole legion of media scavengers, or as Zahari Stoyanov would say, literary cosplayers and fake writers. If we had a new Simeon Radev today, he would surely write a book titled "The Destroyers of Modern Bulgaria," wrote Ivan Granitski and triggered an avalanche of comments.

Today, we present the opinion of Prof. Vasil Prodanov with the headline: "From "the Great Time" to the Misery of Intellectuals", in which he says: 

"In the public space of late modernity, the voice and appearance of Azis are seen and known by more people than, for example, the rector of Sofia University, the voice of showman Slavi Trifonov is heard tens of times louder and reaches hundreds of times more people than the voice of the president of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences...The writer's status falls to that of a manual laborer in the public space." The names of the great scientists, regardless of the mass dissemination of this profession, are less popular in the public space compared to those of showbiz stars, models on fashion runways and beauty pageants, viewers and religious figures, the noisy stars of yet another reality show. Television, show business, cinema, and the internet constantly flood people with a huge amount of information, in which the importance of enduring values seems to diminish...

This is the article provided for Epicenter.bg

by Prof. Vasil PRODANOV.

While the idea of intellectualsand its specific role originated in Eastern Europe, in societies lagging behind in their development, the idea of intellectuals emerged in Western Europe, especially in countries like France. We must keep in mind that in countries like ours and in Western Europe, there are historically two different views dominant regarding the place and role of intellectuals.

Leaving aside the numerous discussions on this topic, the generally accepted view is that these are individuals with higher education, from the humanities sphere, with significant influence in the public sphere, playing the role of social elites, asserting certain values, criticizing, rejecting, or approving authority through the lens of these values.

Not everyone with higher education is an intellectual. Higher education and engagement in intellectual work are characteristic of the intelligentsia. But not everyone engaged in intellectual work is an intellectual. There are hundreds of sciences and scientific workers, specialized in a specific field of knowledge, who are not intellectuals in and of themselves.

The intellectual is more than just a person engaged in mental work in a narrow intellectual field. There are two main characteristics that distinguish him from the intelligent person.

First, unlike the intelligent person, who is simply a representative of a certain division of labor, a carrier of specific expert knowledge, the intellectual is not a narrow expert, although he may possess these qualities, they are not sufficient to make him an intellectual.

Second, intelligence is dominantly associated with reproductive activities, where creativity is not leading, as it is with scientists and artistic creators. Innovation and creativity, the creation of new ideas, knowledge, and values, make intellectuals figures who are inclined to oppose the status quo, the already existing, and to be critical towards it.

The modern era unfolds with the rise of enlighteners and intellectuals, whose words have a powerful resonance in the public sphere and can influence millions of people, be voices that lead to revolutions, rebellions, moral purifications. With secularization, the church and priests as intermediaries between profane reality and transcendence are replaced by intellectuals, and the Christian idea of salvation is replaced by the idea of progress, which leads people and societies towards a better world based on knowledge and science. It is natural that bearers of knowledge and science are starting to be seen as key intermediaries in the movement towards such a world. They possess a privileged epistemological and moral position, because modern progress is achievable precisely through their achievements.

Thus, the intellectual becomes a key figure in the early stages of modernity, as they are seen as a central figure in this process. They are the main participant and initiator of progress. The intellectual utopia of the Enlightenment is for the dominance of the intellectual through the "enlightened monarch" or leader (Frederick the Great, Stalin, Zhivkov) or even directly.

This is also contributed by the special centralizing and amplifying function of communications starting from the 1970s – initially the printing press, and then national radio and television, which can easily make the intellectual visible and allow his voice to reach a large number of people.

From Martin Luther and Thomas Paine, through Voltaire and Rousseau, to Zola and Sartre, the great European intellectuals have voices that are listened to by all. Intellectuals play an important role not only in delegitimizing existing systems and social revolutions, but also in the formation of nations.

The Bulgarian nation was formed thanks to the works of intellectuals such as Paisiy, the Renaissance enlighteners, Ivan Vazov and Anton Donchev. Intelligence play a significant role in the "imagining of nations", using the term coined by Benedict Anderson.

In the developed Western world, the pinnacle moment for intellectuals was the events of 1968, and afterwards they were crushed by consumer culture and show business, by PR strategies and marketing, and the postmodernist wave of the 1970s and 1980s rejecting "grand narratives" and privileged epistemological and moral positions, erasing the difference between real and unreal, authentic and inauthentic, true and untrue, theoretically resulted in a total defeat of intellectuals.

They were now seen as people who do not know the truth any more than the average person and were swept off the historical stage by celebrities. Where the intellectuals used to stand in the previous era, today the celebrities have taken their place. Celebrities do not claim a privileged epistemological or moral position, they are such because they manage to be in the eyes of everyone and attain their public status mainly by entertaining, putting on a show, or causing scandals. Nobel Prize winners in physics have been displaced in the public sphere by the much more famous talk show host Oprah Winfrey.

The Intellectual in Modern Bulgarian History

The emergence of modern Bulgarian state as a result of the processes during the Bulgarian Revival in the 19th century and geopolitical interventions is closely linked to the appearance of Bulgarian enlighteners and apostles – intellectuals and intelligentsia, who play a leading role in shaping a common national identity in the previously isolated regions, as well as in the process of national liberation struggles. They are the ones who formulate and impose a new value system, in which national liberation and the nation have a fundamental place.

From Father Paisii to Botev, Karavelov and Vazov, intellectuals actively construct national consciousness, national identity and national history. The roots of the nation are found far back in time, while at the same time being influenced by modern theories of science and knowledge, elevating knowledge and its bearers from Cyril and Methodius to the present day.

However, the liberation and formation of a national state sharply changes the situation with the intellectualsand intellectuals, transforming their previously conflicting relationship with the Ottoman authorities into a complex type of interdependence with the institutions of the modern state. In a country where politics and the state become key instruments for social development, corresponding contradictory dependencies arise between intellectuals and politics. They are different, for example, from the ones that arise in neighboring Turkey, where there is a tradition of a strong military elite that plays a leading role in the creation of the modern Turkish state, which is constructed in such a way that at every stage the military elites create stability and succession.

Bulgaria lacks a tradition of strong military elites and a complex and highly contradictory relationship is formed between intellectuals and politicians, intellectuals and politicians.

Intellectuals easily turn into party activists and politicians. A newly liberated state with underdeveloped elites often utilizes intellectuals and significant intellectual names in politics. A large majority of the parties and their supporters are well-known names from the cultural and scientific spheres, while circles of aspiring autonomous intellectuals like the one around the magazine "Thought" by Dr. Krastev remain a rare phenomenon.

In Bulgaria, after the Liberation, a large part of the artists become members and activists of parties. Aleko Konstantinov is a member of the Democratic Party and will become a victim of political assassination. Naycho Tsanov, Todor Vlaykov, Stoyan Kosturkov, Stefan Gidikov are associated with the Radical Democratic Party. Many talented intellectuals are members of the Social Democratic Party, with some joining the narrow, and others the broad socialists.

The largest Bulgarian philosopher, Dimitar Mihalchev, has been three times an ambassador for the Bulgarian government abroad, while his fierce opponent Todor Pavlov has reached the position of member of the Politburo of the Communist Party.

This is an intellectualsthat follows the principle of party loyalty. This gives Lenin grounds to say that the intellectualsis not an independent group, but serves one party or another. In them, they essentially act as politicians.

And almost every government has such names among its ranks, which are often among the most criticized and disapproved. This was the case with former Minister of Culture Bozhidar Abrashev during the time of NDSV, as it is now with the Health Minister in the current government. Such politically engaged intellectuals can be found everywhere today. Many of the big names in Hollywood demonstrate strong political biases. Martin Sheen leads demonstrations against Bush's policies. Sharon Stone stated desperately after Bush's reelection that she will emigrate. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt argue daily due to their biases towards different presidential nominations from the Democratic Party.

The second type of addiction is related to the fact that intellectuals at all levels are not connected to free, state-independent professions, but are essentially state officials. This is a tradition that dates back to the first Bulgarian state and the Byzantine caesaropapism, in which the spiritual authority is dependent on the secular and subservient to it, which in turn supports and tolerates priests and intellectuals, giving them relative freedom within the framework in which they do not delegitimize the power system. Only in a short period of a few decades during the Bulgarian Revival in the 19th century does the situation change and the emergence of intellectuals who enter into conflict with the authorities.

In fact, this is the case in any period of collapse of the legitimacy of power, when the illusion is created that the intellectualsand intellectuals, playing a key role in legitimizing and delegitimizing power structures, acquire a leading role in development. In these brief periods, it seems like the "great time of the intelligentsia" is coming, and the leading part of it - intellectuals, enter the epicenter of politics, not only legitimizing new power structures, but also participating in them. But this is only a very short period, in which the illusions of independence and significance of intellectuals burn out.

In Bulgaria, from the beginning of the modern Bulgarian state, a tradition of strong state intervention in culture and science is established, as well as a dependence of the intellectualson the state, which is its employer. The reasons for this are primarily due to the relatively small and poor market for intellectual products, and intellectuals can only arise and exist with the help of the state.

Furthermore, the delayed development turns the country into a main tool for modernization, for building modern institutions and in this role it gradually creates a growing number of intellectuals and intelligentsia. The greatest Bulgarian writer Ivan Vazov goes through positions from a world judge to a minister. Peyo Yavorov works for many years as a postal clerk, librarian, playwright at the National Theater - all places where he receives a salary from the state. Pencho Slaveikov is the director of the National Theater, Vladimir Vassilev - its long-standing director. A great Bulgarian archaeologist like Bogdan Filov will become prime minister. Even Krastyu Krastev is a teacher, school director, and university professor - all in state institutions. The intelectuals are strongly entwined with the state, earning their bread as employees paid by the government, which limits the possibilities for its own independent space.

There are three main reasons for this. The first is the underdevelopment and the desire to catch up with the developed European countries, in which the state plays a key role, both in building a national education system and in creating basic cultural institutions. The second is the continental European models, which are perceived in the building of the Bulgarian state, mainly from Germany and France, where there is traditionally a significant state control over culture. The third reason is the small size of the country and a relatively small market for most art products, which could not be created and operated without the help of the state.

As a result, the majority of artists are public servants, working in one of the main state cultural institutions - the National Library, National Theater, Opera, University, and the education system. There is a perception of the continental tradition of strong state commitment to culture, the creation of national cultural institutions, where artists are permanent state employees rather than freelance practitioners. "The development of national culture is a task of the state and the artistic intelectuals is strongly connected to it, with its great representatives being associated respectively with Ferdinand, Boris III, Todor Zhivkov, who include in their circle of friends great names from this intellectualsand pay special attention to them as artists.

This process reaches its peak in the 70s and 80s of the 20th century, when the state creates a huge material base for culture, a powerful network of cultural institutions and a significant artistic intelligentsia, powerful artistic-creative unions with solid material base, as well as a system for material and moral stimulation of individual creators. Folk and deserved creators in various fields are well known." Intellectuals connected to culture, education, and science, supported by the national government and favored by state textbooks in higher education, play a significant role in the public sphere. This is particularly characteristic for countries where there is a high degree of decommunization in the cultural sphere, as is the case in former socialist countries.

This tradition, in which the biggest artistic figures are state officials, creates a paradoxical duality among them. On one hand, there is a tendency to flatter those in power, to seek their support, and a high level of politicization among many artists. This coincides with the desire of politicians and those in power to gain the support of the artistic intelligentsia.

On the other hand, however, by its very nature, artistic creation implies creative freedom and artists strive for greater freedom. When the quantity of artists increases and the position of power and the state is shaken, a large part of them are inclined to quickly change their positions.

The Bulgarian intellectuals easily transitions from bureaucratic fearfulness, as seen in Dushko Dobrodushkov and Akakii Akakievich, to political conciliation and servility, to extreme radicalism when the feet of power tremble and criticality no longer seems dangerous. This can even be seen in the passionate fighters and deniers of "totalitarianism" who emerged after 1989, who with "insane courage" offer all kinds of forms of condemnation and criticism towards it. In fact, the reverse transition from idealism and radicalism to opportunism and dictatorship is also typical not only for our country, but in general for Balkan intellectuals in politics.

Ideas, spirituality, and upbringing of a person serve as a substitute for market connections and intellectuals must maintain the "grand narrative" for the future society on a daily basis, which plays the role of an integrator of the current society. They explain the meaning of the society, the changes in it, the actions of its leaders, and try to fit the meaning of individual human existence into it. This in turn explains the fact that there have never been such important prerequisites for the development of artistic culture in the history of former socialist countries, like in the last two decades of state socialism - in the 70s - 80s of the 20th century, when the Ministry of Culture expanded and became particularly important, and the question of a "national program for aesthetic education" was raised.

There are two main reasons for this. The first one is the very nature of socialist society, which is directed towards a certain ideal in the future and this common orientation permeates all aspects of social life. It is assumed that beyond the current reality, there is another, expected, better future, through which we must and can see and evaluate the present reality, making our daily lives constantly carry certain transcendental values.

This is necessary as a method of Socialist realism, which assumes that the present and its heroes should always be seen through the lens of an ideal. And art is precisely that - a speaker of transcendental values. Thus, it becomes an instrument for education, for mobilizing people around a common perspective, serving as a tool for evaluating the present through the prism of a normative-value system, intended to make a person better. It not only reflects the world as it is, but is aimed at actively changing it, participating in the construction of behavior and reality.

The weakening of the mobilizing power of socialist ideology, the orientation towards the future finds expression in the fact that since the 1970s the importance of historical literature - novels and films aimed at forming a unified national identity - has been growing. It should be noted that with its social and moral characteristics, socialist realism as a method of art is not fundamentally different from a large part of Hollywood production - it also constructs reality, reflecting the existing through the prism of leading American values - individual entrepreneurship and success, patriotism, individual activity, through which the world can be changed and saved, family values. In the average American action film, the main character usually saves the world from dangerous natural disasters or terrorists.

The second reason for the unique rise of culture under socialism is the nature of the economic relations, especially after the 1960s, when the amount of money in the hands of the population rapidly increased. However, it was difficult to be spent on consumer goods and, more importantly, it could not be invested in stocks or private property for expanded reproduction. In this situation, there is a growing amount of funds in the population that are used for cultural purposes and the consumption of books, films, concerts, and theatrical performances is enormous.

Artistic literature is published in tens of thousands of copies and there are often long queues for new books. A huge mass of the population, relatively more than in the most developed countries, is interested in artistic culture and literature. The world of art implies creative freedom and a high level of idealism, a utopian view on reality. When it becomes too strong, its bearers represent a significant force that can clash with reality and the control system of those in power.

This is how, in Bulgaria between the 1960s and 1980s, events such as the funding and production of 30 films per year (after 1989, only one per year), or the launch of large campaigns such as the one for the 1300th anniversary of the Bulgarian state, became possible. During the period between the 1960s and 1980s, a powerful system of hierarchical privileges for the intellectualswas created in Bulgaria - through numerous different titles such as "Meritorious" and "People's Activist" in the fields of culture, science, etc., making this group a key factor in the functioning of the system. The removal of these privileges at the end of the era of state socialism is one of the many factors leading to the gradual opposition of the intellectualsto the system.

The unions of writers, artists, musicians, journalists, painters, translators, etc., known as "creative organizations," are powerful unions that are not only constantly courted and granted huge resources by the layers, but also recruit a significant part of the ruling class from them. They distribute various rewards and benefits, possess levers of influence in various spheres of society. From each professional group of the "creative intelligentsia" there are at least a hundred people who hold top positions not only in terms of publicity, but also in terms of material resources and ability to influence the mass consciousness. In the sense of Gramsci, state socialism not only creates its own "organic intelligentsia", but this is also the main source from which representatives of the ruling layer are recruited.

Intellectuals play the role of social educators of man, whose behavior cannot be effectively directed by mechanisms of personal market interest. But the problem is that their function is not only valuable, but also epistemological - they try to reflect and explain the existing reality, and this reflection and explanation constantly implies going beyond the existing boundaries of explanation and entering into conflicts with any attempts to impose strict ideological boundaries on knowledge.

In 1986, when the restructuring was unfolding, there were 1.14 million people with higher education in Bulgaria, of whom 181,000 were in the so-called "non-productive sphere" including science, culture and management.

In total, over 1.8 million people work in the system of culture, art, education and science. This is a huge mass of people, whose education and broad vision cannot allow them to not clash with a system that imposes political restrictions, leading to conflicts between the intellectuals and the governing powers in the search for a much greater creative freedom and democracy.

Furthermore, at the time, only around 200,000 or one-sixth of university graduates are members of the communist party, the vast majority of whom are not and represent an alternative elite, which cannot help but enter into contradictions with the party structures. It creates the attitude that gradually this will become more and more characteristic of the public sphere, that the "great time" of the intellectuals is coming, who will play a leading role in society thanks to their knowledge and abilities. The inspiration came from Moscow, but the Bulgarian intellectualsand intellectuals were ready for it.

During the restructuring, they were all government employees, but like the majority of them, their nature of work pushed them towards a desire for greater autonomy and the elimination of any constraints on their creative freedom. Their utopian desire is for a state that does not limit them, but continues to take care of culture and artists in the same, even larger scale.

In Eastern Europe, figures like Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov played a key role in delegitimizing the existing system. State socialism, as a radical modernist ideology, created a huge mass of intellectuals, who, however, entered into conflict with politicians over the role of intermediaries between the masses and the transcendent truths of history, arguing for power. During the process of restructuring and shortly thereafter, intellectuals decided that "the time was theirs" and that they should receive "true freedom" and create a world where they would be the only carriers of truth and values. This turned out to be a Platonic illusion. Thus, this part of the intellectualsthrew themselves headfirst into politics and became a striking force for the destruction of the existing political system and the state associated with it.

Intellectuals were riding the wave during the time of restructuring, in fact, the decade between 1985 and 1995.

Famous names such as Valeri Petrov, Yordan Radichkov, Vili Tsankov, Vasil Mihaylov, Georgi Mishev, and many others entered the Grand National Assembly in 1990.

After that, there was a decline in the intellectuals and the respect towards authorities. Following the "Great Time of the Intelligentsia", a major part of the intellectuals quickly turned into a squad for politicians, which in every key political situation believed to possess the symbolic capital of their predecessors, which they tried to transfer to politicians and influence society. After 1989 and especially during the 1990s, intellectuals entered and exited politics, supported parties and leaders.

A group of intellectuals wrote "Zhele Zhelev or Civil War". Hundreds of other intellectuals wrote a letter to Simeon, whose motto was "We want our king." Throughout all these years, the intellectuals dived into politics, demonstrated left, right, and so on commitments, maintained party platforms, played the role of entourage to this or that politician, i.e. they were not only strongly one-sidedly politicized in one direction or another, but a number of them also threw fuel on the fire of hatred and political divides by becoming fierce supporters of one or another politician.

This ultimately devalued and discredited the concept of an intellectual as a representative of a group with a special position, from which knowledge and values ​​are seen that are not noticeable anywhere else.

To explain what happened, we need to take into account the characteristics of the Bulgarian intellectualsand intellectuals after the 1960s.

In at least three different senses, they represent a boundary social group, located on the fringes and therefore possessing a high level of social instability.

Firstly, they are not an autonomous social group, but dependent on politics and the state, constantly oscillating between intellectual autonomy and political chameleonism, between wanting to be the dominant social group and being directly subordinate to politicians.

Secondly, their boundary position lies in the fact that, in their dominant part, they are the first generation of intellectuals after a rapid and extensive increase in educated people for about two decades.

The third borderness is a result of the fact that the accelerated modernization creates a large mass of artists and scientists who, in a small and rapidly modernizing country, are in fact transmissions of values and models, patterns created elsewhere. They are amplifiers of something happening outside of them. It is not by chance, for example, that their behavior is so strongly dependent on the Soviet perestroika and what is happening to Soviet intellectuals and intelligentsia. Because of this borderness, a psychologically significant part of them demonstrate behavior of a marginalized group, of lumpen intellectuals with extremities and radicalism, who are far from rationality, as well as from the normal role of cultural people to be carriers of continuity, to create bridges instead of breaking them with continuity and bridges. They demonstrate characteristics described in previous periods as characteristics of the petite bourgeoisie - between extreme radicalism and nihilism on one hand, and conformity and conservatism on the other.

Intellectuals have become gravediggers of socialism, but its ruins have also crushed them. The new hyper-capitalist and competitive environment, where thousands of media and millions of people outshout each other, depersonalizes the intellectual and turns them into one of many, their voice drowned out by millions of others. The authority of their voice is lost in the political cacophony and oppositions at the end of a tiring transition from one system to another in Bulgarian society.

Attempts by groups of intellectuals to repeat over and over again the famous "J'accuse" by Zola about a public event or another, begins to provoke media stigma, denial and opposition, making it appear farcical and inadequate. Some of the previous intellectuals were involved in the daily interpretations of what is happening at the level of demoscopes and political scientists of the type that Plato calls "doxa sophists" - "opinion experts who think of themselves as scholars", putting the problems of politics in the same terms as businessmen, politicians, political journalists, and seeing them through the lens of critically rejecting the existing existence.

Left in market interactions, intellectuals discover that many of the works that previously brought profit and were widely consumed, are now losing their audience. After opening the country's borders, a huge influx of cultural products from global markets has flooded in, making it difficult to compete on a national level.

In the world of consumer culture, it is not the high values of intellectuals, nor the great truths, but rather the show, entertainment, and scandal that are the most profitable products. The publication of Bulgarian literature, which was once a thriving industry, has now become a struggle. There is a new market situation in culture, which pushes a large part of the previous artistic intellectualsout of the country, and scientists are increasingly finding themselves without consumers for their knowledge. They are not expected to be "spiritual awakeners", but to "do" and "make projects". The Minister of Finance is not interested in whether they can discover some new truth, but whether they can sell that truth.

In this situation, a part of the intellectuals continue to gravitate towards politicians and political forces, even demonstrating extremes in politicization or bowing to those in positions of power, but overall their status has been radically changed. They dream of the country and its support, as they knew it before, dissatisfied with the neglect of culture, outraged by the fallen taste of the consumer, and disempowered by the clash between culture and the state and the market. The state no longer has the funds, nor much desire to engage in culture and science, while the market rejects a large part of the existing cultural products, has no potential to consume science and is not interested in it.

In 1990, there were still 2174 cinemas left from the time of socialism, but in 2003 they were only 149, and the rest have been privatized and used for completely different purposes. Since 1990, over 1200 community centers have been closed, which is more than a quarter of all of them. Libraries in the country have decreased by about one third. Cultural traditions and accumulations are being lost. The allocated 0.6% of the budget for culture seems depressingly small and it seems as if the state has completely forgotten about it, although science with its 0.4% is even worse off. Overall, they have shrunk to 1%, which seems like a mockery to the desperate or battling among themselves for more resources artistic and scientific intelligentsia.

Inside it, discussions begin on how to distribute the funds - for example, whether to give them to cinema or theater, for the preservation of cultural and historical heritage or for opera and musical character, etc. The Morfov scandal at the "Aascer" awards ceremony is a typical expression of the crisis situation in the cultural community, where each profession tries to push out their colleague in order to survive under better conditions.

In 2006, the intellectual Andrei Pantev, who had been in politics for many years, wrote a special article, whose main conclusion was that "intellect hinders in politics." And perhaps he is right, if we observe the growing hostility of politicians towards intellectuals. At the same time, trust in Bulgarians towards politicians according to a survey in our country in 2007 has dropped to 8%. A gap has formed between them and the intellectualsas a whole, and intellectuals in particular.

Right-wing intellectuals, who are trying to create a party-oriented movement, state that they have been forced to do so because they have been "unjustly removed" and "ignored" by the UDF party.

On the other hand, during elections, left-wing parties recognized as intellectuals the chalga singers Azis and Desislava, who could serve their party goals.

Both the left and the right have used and discarded intellectuals over the past 18 years. This is why they have decided to start acting independently. Some of them as a partisan-oriented union, while others demonstrating their non-partisanship, supporting mayors of different colors, trying to impose the idea of the intellectual as truly standing apart from parties, not accepting partisanship and serving directly the parties.

The symbolic capital of the concept of the intellectual begins to fade not anywhere, but in the public sphere of societies that claim to be "knowledge-based". There, new communication technologies give the opportunity to hear millions of voices and it is difficult to distinguish the voice of the intellectual, pretending to be morally and epistemologically privileged. The attempts of figures to impose mandatory standards on everyone are constantly challenged. Billions of people, participating in online communication through countless blogs and forums, can give all kinds of ratings, views, opinions, and among this giant multitude of voices it is much more difficult to distinguish certain ones with a special status.

In fact, there are such voices, but they do not belong to intellectuals, but to celebrities, stars of popular culture, show productions, sports, famous TV hosts, movie stars and politicians, and all sorts of other figures that stand out in the public space. The traditional type of intellectual, however, cannot stand out in this vast multitude.

In the public space of late modernity, the voice and appearance of Azis are seen and known by more people than, for example, the rector of Sofia University. The voice of showman Slavi Trifonov is heard tens of times louder and reaches hundreds of times more people than the voice of the president of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

The status of a writer falls to that of a blue-collar worker in the public space. The names of great scientists, regardless of the mass popularization of this profession, are less popular in the public space than those of show stars and successive beauty queens on fashion runways and beauty pageants, TV presenters, and religious figures, the next noisy stars of yet another reality show. Television, show business, cinema, and the internet constantly flood people with a huge amount of information, in which it seems to diminish the importance of enduring values.

Pierre Bourdieu points out that: "Television undoubtedly contributes, as much as bribery, to the degradation of civic virtues. It summons and puts on the political and intellectual stage only "self-promoters" who are most concerned with being seen and appreciated - in complete contradiction with the values of modest dedication to the public interest..."

In the postmodern public space, it is difficult to find a privileged epistemological and moral position that can maintain anyone's authority. The problem is not actually the lack, but the overproduction and continuous wear of authority, where no one can claim "exceptionality". Where there is a constant generation of authorities on every issue, they constantly begin to contradict and refute each other.

In order to maintain their positions, they turn not to a transcendent world of truths and values, but to the voter and consumer, seeking their favor, adapting to them, trying to seduce them with populist methods, but very soon getting replaced by other competitors for this position. Academic science is displaced in the public space by everyday interpreters from various civil organizations and private think tanks.

Liberal freedom of speech assumes that every voice is perceived equally with any other perspectives and unprivileged positions, including the position of a moral judge and moral conscience, which are increasingly losing their importance. If the previous "grand narratives" of the era of progress are not felt in the public sphere, overcrowded with prophets of the free market, then their previous speakers also lose influence. There are no more intellectuals, only experts and analysts in different fields, who participate in the general division of labor.

Without individuals with a privileged epistemological and moral position, everything is relativized - pseudoscience goes hand in hand with science and is indistinguishable from it, entertainment shows compete for viewers and listeners with expert appearances on a given problem. Bach begins to lose audience in competition with folk singer Desi Slava. The morning astrological forecast on the television channel goes along with the weather forecast from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences meteorological institute. The television show of Alena, who offers white and black magic, may be watched by more people than that of a university professor. The moral norm is offered, embodied in characters who may be more boring than the flow of their personified deviations, the line between permissible and impermissible is increasingly blurred.

A Google search on May 23, 2010 shows that the name of astrologer Alena appears 4,590,000 times, while that of the chalga singer with unclear sexual identity Azis is present on 782,000 websites, including Wikipedia. The name of Slavi Trifonov appears 586,000 times, while that of the rector of Sofia University, Professor Ivan Ilchev, only appears 37,000 times. The name of the president of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Academician Nikola Subitov, appears 83,600 times, writer Anton Donchev - 33,500 times, and Stefan Tsanev - 32,000 times.

With only 52,000 mentions, the last intellectual in the Bulgarian parliament, Andrei Pantev, lags behind in public popularity, more than 11 times behind showman Slavi Trifonov and over 15 times behind Azis.

Intellectuals, represented by scientists and writers, are displaced to the periphery of the public space by chalga singers, astrologers, and entertainers. In fact, in the era of the European "knowledge-based society", in Bulgaria at the top of the social pyramid in terms of fame, is an astrologer and magic specialist.

In the early 1980s - the decade that gave birth to the "great time of the intelligentsia" - Zhelyu Zhelev raised the slogan for the intellectualization of all spheres of Bulgarian society. Three decades later, in the time of misery, the opposite process of de-intellectualization of all areas of society, including politics, is taking place. It is no coincidence that politicians do not hesitate to call scientists "feudal elders" and accuse them of "senile babbling".

We could paraphrase Vazov: "Poor, poor intellectuals, why didn't you die right after the end of your 'great time' on November 10, 1989?" Chalga singer Sveta shines 10 to 25 times stronger than the most famous Bulgarian intellectuals, and the astrologer is more visible 50 to 140 times than the most famous Bulgarian scientists. In the world of Alena, Azis and Slavi Trifonov there is no place for you.

By pretending to inform about various negative phenomena, presenting them as facts of something that happened, the media effectively erase the difference between information and propaganda of moral deviations, and the barriers between the two become increasingly indistinguishable. The boundaries between the elites, who have previously set standards of behavior, and the masses are being blurred in a public sphere where, thanks to digital interactive media, millions of people can participate in the exchange of information.

Until two decades ago, politicians built their image by socializing with intellectuals and demonstrating their connections with them - Boris III had a circle of writers and scholars whom he mingled with, and Todor Zhivkov had his famous "hunting party" of well-known intellectuals. They still live in the modern era, where the intellectual is a symbol of knowledge, progress, and moral values, and therefore plays a crucial role in politics.

In the era of late modernity, celebrities and stars become much more important for politicians, and these are usually not scientists or even the great representatives of art, but showbiz stars, famous pop singers and musicians, and well-known athletes that stand out in the public space over intellectuals.

Showman Slavi Trifonov tells how the rise of Boyko Borisov as a politician is connected with a close friendship between them and support from the showman towards politics. Intellectuals, scientists and artists, who receive perhaps the smallest share of the GDP of the country in Europe, feel more abandoned and forgotten than anywhere else, sent to the “third deaf”.

The general trend of changing the status of intellectuals, characteristic for the contemporary world, is manifested in stronger and more extreme forms than anywhere else in the world. They still live with the glorious past, in which they are spoken of as "spiritual leaders", in which the teacher, the scholar, the writer are people with high status, authorities, followed by the younger generations who set examples of behavior.

In the real world of real life, however, they wonder how to survive, surrounded by Hollywood stars, chalga singers, successful businessmen, and politicians who have managed to organize their lives.