Formulation of the claim
The religious intellectual relies on popular religious legitimacy, whereas the modern intellectual remains less present and more narrowly disseminated.
Explanation
Arkoun understands this distinction in the context of the structure of society, which grants the status of authority to those connected to the circulating religious reservoir, not to those who merely possess the tools of modern thought. Value here is not measured by the depth of knowledge alone, but by the ability of discourse to establish itself within the legitimacy recognized by the public.
The modern intellectual appears, in this view, as limited in number and weak in popular appeal, because the scope of his influence does not automatically acquire the same social support enjoyed by the religious intellectual. Thus the difference between the two is no longer merely a professional one, but a difference in each one’s position within the distribution of knowledge and recognition.
Its place in the book’s argument
This atom appears within Arkoun’s dismantling of the structure of the cultural field in Muslim societies, where symbolic authority overlaps with religious legitimacy. It brings into focus his idea of the difficulty of the modern intellectual’s spread so long as the public sphere is governed by forms of recognition that give priority to religious authority, which is consistent with his broader theses on the crisis of modernization and the limits of the critical space.
Limits of the claim
This distinction should not be taken as a final judgment on the value of the modern intellectual, nor should the religious intellectual be reduced to popularity alone; the atom describes a social and functional position more than it offers a comprehensive evaluation of knowledge or persons.