[en] This article aims to analyze the role of intellectuals in times of a global pandemic, whereby their discourse is assumed as a counterbalance to the hegemony of experts. It takes as a case study several exemplar speeches by Noam Chomsky, linguist and political activist, which were produced since the beginning of March 2020 regarding Covid-19.We will try to show that what marks Chomsky's discourse is related to the ethos (Maingueneau 2020) of an "intellectual engagement" (Bourdieu 2003).Within the universe of possibilities for choosing intellectuals' speeches, who are not necessarily convergent on topics affecting the world, and who, in general, don't talk about the same things, we chose to circumscribe our research on a specific intellectual: Noam Chomsky. In our view, he is an actual example of "intellectual action", representing properly "the relations between intellectuals and power" (Bobbio 1997).Therefore, it is necessary to understand the statements of intellectuals like Chomsky in moments of global uncertainty, and as a discourse of a different nature that stands against the experts' power in major media corporations or in government technocracy.Thus, far from wanting to exhaust the possibilities of interpreting the role of the wider category of intellectuals during the pandemic, our proposal is to outline the main points of how an intellectual like Chomsky has been developing and taking the same political positions since the beginning of his activism, in the 1960s, which refers to a type of intellectual engagement similar to that taken since the Dreyfus Affair. In the Dreyfus Affair we have an "inaugural archetype" of the concept of an "engaged intellectual" (Bourdieu 2003, p. 73–74), from which the one who has social capital as an erudite, a scientist or a writer, comes out publicly criticizing the established powers and denounces crimes committed by "the reasons of State" (Chomsky 1973).Therefore, we understand that Chomsky comes from a lineage whose representatives are inserted into a form of intellectual activism; a lineage that became known as "the century of intellectuals" (Winock 2000), the intellectual conceived as the one who "tells the truth", as Chomsky (1996, p. 55) himself define the "intellectual's responsibility": "At one level, the answer is too easy: the intellectual responsibility of the writer, or any decent person, is to tell the truth." On the one hand, there is a patent argument of authority behind the experts, based on a "scientific discourse", but, on the other hand, there is a kind of "moral commitment to the truth" behind the intellectuals' discourse that becomes a "deeper criticism". That is, a holistic view to ponder, in the case of Covid-19, the humanitarian problems created due to the pandemic, but also to think about relating this crisis to previous and further geopolitical reasons, from a freer position, not committed to companies and States.This position of the intellectual engagement is idealized in opposition to the "normal science discourse": the genre of the scientific discourse is produced under official means; it is plastered, blunted, does not allow the spokespeople of science to speak beyond what their research allows. In other words, the scientific experts are inscribed in discursive structures of "scenes of enunciation" (Maingueneau, 2006) that don't permit them to surpass the barriers of "objectiveness" and enter the field of moral judgment. Seeking to understand how Chomsky acts as an engaged intellectual during the pandemic, we searched his political network and the media in which he is involved. From that, we chose our corpus of analysis, selected from Noam Chomsky's innumerous speeches to a left-wing or clearly progressive press during the first months of Covid-19 pandemic in the form of interviews from March to June: an interview to Michael Brooks (2020), at the Jacobin Magazine (Brooks, M. 2020); an interview with his longtime interviewer, David Barsamian (2020), an Armenian-American journalist and political activist, published on the website Literary Hub; an interview with the British socialist newspaper Morning Star (2020); two interviews he gave to Amy Goodman (2020a, 2020b) for the American journal Democracy Now; an interview with the Croatian philosopher Srecko Horvat (2020), from which we will use only the parts of the transcript that we found published by Al Jazeera and not the video; an interview to the writer Chris Brooks to the magazine Labor Notes, channel for the proletarian movement; an interview to Cristina Magdaleno (2020) for the Euroactiv, a non-profit organization for democracy in European Union, as well as an interview Chomsky and Robert Pollin gave to C. J. Polychroniou (2020). We believe that through this corpus it is possible to cover the vast majority of Chomsky's speeches on the Covid-19 pandemic, centered on media where Chomsky usually features and that name themselves as having a more progressive bias.We assume that what gives Chomsky's speech authority to talk about the pandemic, to be invited multiple times to do so, is not his expertise in the subject; it is not his background in epidemiology studies, which he lacks, neither his linguistics theories, that do not relate to the topic, but his image as a great surviving intellectual. It's to say, what authorizes Chomsky to speak and, therefore, to make his contribution to the studies of this pandemic situation, is not what interests the State, or what would lead the actions of government officials, as they are in general centered on the discourse of experts. Instead, it is his trajectory as a critic without corporate scruples, engaged in telling another kind of "truth", as one that can discuss and propose a different future for humanity. So, with this article we intended to produce a discussion about the following problem: the type of discourse raised by Chomsky is not that of government experts, men of science who must anchor themselves in statistical studies on disease proliferation curves, researchers who need to give prevention guidelines or economists who provide "get out of the crisis" scenarios. In other words, differently from a biologist, a disease proliferation specialist or a market administrator, Chomsky conceives the pandemic beyond Covid-19, as a long-term crisis, which will cover economic, social and environmental aspects of much greater proportions. In short, with this article we seek to understand how Chomsky assumes himself as a spokesman for all of humanity and how he constructs this position discursively. He is concerned with "bigger problems", not diminishing the dangers of the Covid-19 pandemic, but insisting on the fact that global warming and the economic crisis created by the debacle of neoliberalism, as well as nuclear war menaces, are much greater threats to human species survival and the maintenance of the planet.We also bring an overview of three important intellectuals who also acted and contributed their reflections on the Covid-19 pandemic during its inception. They are Judith Butler, Giorgio Agamben, and Byung-Chul Han. The purpose of incorporating these distinct views is, in the first instance, to compare to what extent they may resemble the Chomskyan discourse, but also to show how intellectual discourse is constructed in times of a global pandemic in the face of the discourses of health experts or specialists who occupy the spaces of intellectual speech authority.

[es] Este artículo busca analizar el rol de algunos intelectuales durante los primeros meses de la pandemia de la covid-19, entendiendo en qué sentido su discurso se asume como un contrapeso a la hegemonía de los expertos en el tema de la salud.Tomamos como objeto de estudio varios enunciados ejemplares de Noam Chomsky, lingüista y activista político estadounidense, que se produjeron desde principios de marzo hasta mayo de 2020 en relación con la covid-19. Intentamos comprender los puntos principales que marcan el discurso de Chomsky relacionándolos con el ethos discursivo (Maingueneau, 2020) de un "compromiso intelectual" (Bourdieu, 2003). Queremos entender cómo se construye la trayectoria de la imagen pública de Chomsky como activista político, a partir de su definición como uno de los mayores intelectuales vivos del mundo, y cómo él y ciertos medios de comunicación utilizan ese tipo de credencial para erigirse en una figura poderosa, siempre demandada para hablar de cualquier tema de actualidad, incluso una pandemia. Nos sustentamos sobre la hipótesis de que, para Chomsky, la explicación de los hechos históricos se hace siempre con una visión holística, conectando la pandemia de la covid-19 con otros problemas mayores y otras amenazas para la humanidad. En otras palabras, Chomsky se asume a sí mismo como portavoz de la humanidad, preocupado por problemas mayores: una pandemia no puede ser subestimada, pero el calentamiento global y la crisis económica creada por la debacle del neoliberalismo, así como las posibilidades de guerra nuclear, son amenazas mucho mayores para la supervivencia de la especie humana y el mantenimiento del planeta.También aportamos una visión general de tres importantes intelectuales que igualmente actuaron y contribuyeron con sus reflexiones sobre la pandemia de la covid-19 durante sus meses iniciales: se trata de Judith Butler, Giorgio Agamben y Byung-Chul Han. El propósito de traer estas distintas visiones es, en una primera instancia, comparar hasta qué punto pueden asemejarse al discurso chomskyano, pero sobre todo cómo se construye el discurso intelectual en tiempos de pandemia global frente a los discursos de los expertos o especialistas en salud que ocupan los espacios de autoridad discursivos en los medios de comunicación durante una crisis sanitaria.