An Expanding Intellectual

The idea of a “public intellectual” may be a slightly modern label, but the figures which the term describes have been around for quite some time. The notion that certain individuals have been able to enlighten other members of the population presents quite a varied array of who and what can qualify as this illusive figure. In his essay, “The ‘Decline’ of Public Intellectuals?”, Stephen Mack explains the thoughts of many current thinkers, concerned that our culture has moved away from being stimulated by individuals that, in the past, we labeled as public intellectuals (Mack). Though Mack speaks of a “fiction of America’s anti-intellectualism,” there is nonetheless what seems to be a smaller presence of prominent people who I would readily label as “public intellectuals” in the American media.

Mack’s essay references distinguished figure Richard Posner, one of the most “important legal theorists of our time,” and his 2001 novel Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline, where he defines the public intellectual as solely an academic, separate from the arts and humanities (Mack). While it is not the only definition, this is one idea of what constitutes the term. It can of course similarly be argued that any realm of thought, be it the arts or not, be considered by some as “intellectual” behavior. Who is to say that the arts and humanities are not “academic,” after all? Furthermore, when scrutinizing the term a bit closer, what exactly makes a public intellectual “public”? The moment one does not keep his or her thoughts locked in a personal diary for only oneself to see, it seems that from then on, the thoughts of that person are “public” if they are reaching more than one person, at least to some degree. Does it have to be the mass media? Here we are presented with many questions, since the term which is being discussed can be interpreted so broadly, while some prefer to give it a very narrow scope and definition. There is not one right answer, but I tend to believe that in today’s ever-changing age of innovation, it seems almost too simple to give the public intellectual only one definition. Rather, it can be explored just how broad and expansive this figure can be in the 21st century.

There is an implied irony, to some degree, in the term “public” of “public intellectual.” Going beyond the issue of precisely to whom the person is speaking, to what size public is this figure really attempting to enlighten effectively? If an intellectual is really speaking to a supposed “public,” implying a mass population, that is quite a daunting task. The larger the audience becomes, the more difficult it also becomes to provide any sort of intellectual insight into a matter that said public would agree upon…or at the very least, find helpful. It seems that in a group of any size greater than one, there is always the possibility that the audience at hand may not even consider the figure a “public intellectual” in the first place. This raises a question of whether or not there is ever really a clear-cut image of this figure in our society, or is there always going to be a disagreement? Since this type of intellectual is supposed to be speaking to its public audience, this group does not have to listen or accept any of what he or she is saying, especially when speaking on such a mass scale, as it is with an entire country.

On a similar vein, the types of results which come from a public intellectual are not so easy to discern. What type of outcome allows a person to be deemed a true public intellectual? An individual can talk and talk and talk, but the one who actually causes the audience at hand to at least process the words and take some sort of action could be considered the one most worthy of the title. This raises the issue of whether or not a public intellectual needs to spur the public to some sort of action or change. Someone can be a brilliant “intellectual” in some people’s opinions, but if they never get there audience to comprehend or process anything, then their work may just be wasted. On one hand, we may have a nationally-publicized intellectual who never gets any of his country-wide audience to get off of their living room sofas. However, there may be a teacher in some small classroom somewhere who is effectively able to enlighten his or her students with enough knowledge to go out into the world and make some sort of positive social change. These people are not speaking to the American public at large, but they are speaking to their own “public” in a microcosm, and they may be able to create more change (obviously on a proportionally different scale) than a lot of high-profile figures who are receiving the national press campaigns. To me, these “smaller” intellectuals are just as important. While not everyone may be the darling of the American media, or even getting any national press at all, if only one of these parties is able to make their audience take any action on these current issues, they can be just as important a public intellectual as any.

Kathryn Edgeworth, in her essay “Women as Public Intellectuals: The Exclusion of the Private in Public Intellectual Life,” describes the role of what she labels the “private” intellectual, with regard to figures in the past who argued specifically for feminist issues. She writes that these women may “focus on the private sphere in articulating discourse in the public domain” and are in turn “likely to be denied the status of ‘public intellectual’” (Edgeworth). Whenever a female tends to discuss issues such as women’s rights, it is often written off as “feminist insanity” by many Americans. While this may not appeal to the mass public, in certainly has the ability to motivate action among the “private” world that Edgeworth discusses. If these figures are never able to assume the same label of the “public intellectuals,” it is only because their words may not be generally accepted or welcomed by the mass population at large. Nonetheless, their ability to stimulate some particular public does not discredit their places as contributing intellectuals who are still enlightening the public in one capacity or another.

Since the broadness in scope of the public intellectual has been explained, it is important to look at some problems that might arise due this apparent lack of any real definition for what a “public intellectual” is. With regard to the current age of new technology and media, the narrow definition of the widely-publicized “public intellectual” is presented with even more challenges. In the growing craze over the past decade of celebrity obsession and heightened media attention, it seems like it may be even harder to allow a public intellectual to live by a narrow-scoped definition. Is this figure really there to inform the public, or are they just there to achieve some sort of fame? Anything that could possibly be deemed “radical” nowadays is able to gain hoards of media coverage. With online video sites like youtube.com and various blog sites which specialize in the triumphs and travails of public figures, not only is our culture’s obsession with celebrities ever-present, but the ability to be featured in the mass media is even easier. With this in mind, can a public intellectual’s intentions remain solely based on informing the public?

In class, we brought up Ann Coulter and the question of whether or not she could be considered a “public intellectual.” Since the broad boundaries of the term are so vague anyway, let’s just assume for right now that we are considering her to be a part of that group. Coulter, an extremely vocal author and personality in America who thrives on making controversial comments in favor of the right wing, can be viewed as an example of this intellectual versus celebrity conflict. Is she making these statements because she really wants to inform the public of her extreme opinions, or, rather, is she simply making these radical statements so as to gain more media attention in today’s star-struck culture? While it is not really fair to assume either is necessarily an absolute truth, some of Coulter’s radical and often hate-infused comments due reach great heights, such as her 2007 reference to John Edwards as “a faggot” due to her apparent need to label him as a “wuss” (CNN.com). While it has not necessarily been decided if Coulter is a public intellectual in the first place, nevertheless we can acknowledge a sort of tug-of-war between a duty to inform the public, and a duty to entertain the public (even in Coulter’s somewhat sick view of demeaning gay people to achieve such ends) by way of the media hype that may come from such radical remarks.

The issue of media celebrity plays a new card with the advent of technology such as the internet and websites like youtube.com, where somebody can post their own intellectual thoughts and possibly reach out to people all over the globe. Is the issue what this particular person is discussing, or is it also the media through which is it presented? If a distinguished scholar decides to utilize an online video source as his method of reaching the public, or even if it is not a prestigious academic, it shows that there are constantly new ways of approaching this “public intellectual” definition.

While it helps to be able to define some terms specifically, there are many that cannot be contained so easily. The public intellectual’s work has the ability to reach all sorts of groups and encompass a myriad of different arenas of “intellect,” so to speak. While it may be an issue of academia versus the arts, or the mass media versus the college classroom, the lines can often be blurred. Similarly, the difference between the public intellectual and the private intellectual is definitely a topic of debate, though in my opinion, there is not really much need to separate the two. Gone are the days, it seems, when the prominent public intellectuals are well-known in our media. It is important not to allow a “definition” of the public intellectual to become narrower, but instead, to make room for it to become broader. We are in an age of ever-expanding media and technology, and, as a result, a culture that is always changing. What worked to stimulate the public twenty years ago may not lead to any change in today’s age. There is not one type of intellectual that can speak to the population of our country as a whole. Rather, we can accept a multitude of different intellectuals in varying fashions who are all working to speak to their specific publics, big or small…and, in turn, we can know that this proliferation of knowledge is still with us today. While some are worried for the “decline” of the public intellectual, perhaps it is more a reframing of what the public intellectual is capable of that will allow us to study these people’s influences more effectively.

WORKS CITED:
CNN.com. “Coulter under fire for anti-gay slur.” 4 March 2007. Accessed on 23 February 2008 at: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/04/coulter.edwards/index.html

Edgeworth, Kathryn. “Women as Public Intellectuals: The Exclusion of the Private in Public Intellectual Life” (1999). Accessed on 23 February 2008 at http://www.skk.uit.no/WW99/papers/Edgeworth_Kathryn.pdf

Posner, Richard A. Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (2001).

Mack, Stephen. “The ‘Decline’ of Public Intellectuals?” 14 August 2007. Accessed on 13 February 2008 at http://www.stephenmack.com/blog

Accepting what is Inescapable

While someone may not be able to transform themselves into “white,” they are fully able to slightly “tweak” themselves and get one step closer. While it is not the perfect situation, one can at least accept these actions as desires to fulfill some sort of inherent beauty standard which we cannot erase.

This is what Tyra Banks seems to think.


Why is it that our culture in today’s world is so conditioned to follow what is seemingly one set of Western beauty ideals? Though some may argue that it is not the only form of beauty, every other perceived “beauty” is only labeled as such for its exotic appeal and “Other”-ness, thus separate from the prevailing ideal of Caucasian beauty.

Even if solely changing one's eyelids, hair, or similar smaller features may not turn a person into the perfect representation of white beauty, it nonetheless is still an attempt to fit aspects of this ideal. If this is the idea of beauty, though, how are we supposed to escape it? One cannot change how they have been conditioned, and as a society, we have been conditioned to feel that the white beauty standard is the beauty standard by which we compare and judge all others. From the time we are small children, this has been implanted into our minds, and it is not necessarily right or wrong to “conform” to this ideal. However, it is important to at least accept that these standards are the reasons why, as a society, there is a desire to look and exist a certain way. While there may not be any easy way to change these standards, it is necessary to increase the awareness and knowledge that these beauty ideals do govern our lives, whether we realize it or not.

GO VOTE!

As it is election day here in California, go out and make a difference RIGHT NOW!!

"Other"-ing on the Campaign Trail

White and male. That has always been the make-up of the president of the United States. In the current mix of 2008’s campaign for the white house, two of the frontrunners are not of this seemingly inherent demographic which has dominated the nation for so long. While it may not be fair to assume that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both acting for change to this social stigma, they are, regardless, placed as figureheads for their respective demographic populations. Their roles as both a female and a non-white male, respectively, are still so “new” to this nation that it is a huge part of their importance in this election year. Though it may not be fair to them, both individuals are labeled as “Other” candidates when compared to the rest of the field, almost all consisting of the normalized white male. The idea of “the Other” is a key philosophical concept which is used in contrast with a concept of what would be labeled as the “normal” or “same.” The Other is defined and recognized by its difference with whatever is considered the normalized entity. Though many are in fact conscious of the hardship of being “the Other” in our culture, most efforts to empower this oppressed population only lead to much of their further polarization. When compared with the people who are normalized through accepted cultural norms, the Other is still simply that: the Other. When looking at the presidential race heading into the 2008 election, both front-running Democratic candidates are facing this dilemma. Despite efforts to counter or seemingly ignore any “Other”-ing brought to Hillary Clinton (as well as Barack Obama), their presence as non-normalized presidential candidates is nonetheless a challenge against this social structure and is able to eclipse many discussions of the actual issues of the campaign as their identities are defined by these limiting characteristics.

With regard to identity in the first place, one is able to define itself through a comparison with the Other, as it is by recognizing the differences inherent in this idea of “Other” that the normalized being can be labeled. In this sense, it is through comparison with other demographic traits that a white male presence can be labeled as the “normal” characteristic from which all other contrasting judgments are formed. Simone de Beauvoir, a prominent figure in the 1900s with regard to this concept of the Other and its relation to issues of gender, wrote about this idea in her work, The Second Sex. De Beauvoir’s work states that “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” Through this concept, woman is not born with any significant differences to man, but she is conditioned and in turn naturalized to assume a part of this sex dichotomy which is present all over the world. Hillary Clinton presents an example of how “Other”-ness with regard to sex and gender can be problematic, though different than the issues presented in a racial difference. While “equality” is often treated as a sort of unreachable ideal, it seems that most regard any inequality between the sexes as a prejudice that has progressed the farthest over time in our nation. However, in many ways, this divide between the two sexes does in fact remain an acceptable form of discrimination. In looking at the other presidential hopefuls currently looking to become candidates in the general election, Barack Obama also plays an important role in being an African-American man: different from the normative role of the Caucasian figure that has always occupied the white house. It seems taboo to make a claim about Obama’s abilities to run the nation as a black man, yet Hillary’s female status is much more often readily used as a means of criticism and commentary.

Clinton’s role as the first female to ever make such a legitimate chance at entering the white house presents a powerful step for women in our culture, but, in turn, it presents a lot of problems due to its almost unnatural occurrence. Not only does it make her a poster-woman for her “Other”-ed group which she is almost forced to represent, but it also allows her place as an “Other” to define her presence along her campaign’s journey. While other candidates have the ability to be looked at as presidential contenders in the first place, Hillary is immediately labeled as the Other, as a woman (and, similarly, Obama as a non-white candidate). In the first place, this is a burden, as no matter what she does or says, she cannot really do anything to take away her place as a divergent from the normative politician. Beyond this, it creates an association with a particular group and demographic which leads to many assumptions and challenges that Hillary is forced to take on. While there may be a few problems for the white man to “battle” as well, Clinton is presented with a myriad of issues as a result of her sex.

Before the New Hampshire primary election in January of 2008, Clinton gained a lot of media attention for a public display which she began to, though slightly, show a side of emotion and begin to tear up when speaking to a small group of people in a coffee shop. Though not a large event, the video footage was posted throughout the internet and was turned into quite a big media talking-point during her campaign. While supporters allowed Clinton to take this moment as a showcasing of her sensitive and caring nature, negative critics either questioned its legitimacy or used it as an excuse to write her off as “emotional”: a trademark issue and excuse as to why women are less capable of achieving success, such as running our country, when compared with men. Maureen Down, in a New York Times opinion piece, wonders if Hillary “can cry her way back to the white house,” criticizing her emotional outburst and only impressed “that she could choke up and stay on message” (Down). She elaborates by explaining Hillary’s typical presence as an almost “masculine” figure who is often “seen as so controlling” to the public (Down). In the first place, it is problematic to draw such a stark white and pitch black comparison between two assumed and limiting characteristics of the opposite sexes. However, it also becomes a problem for Clinton specifically, as she is not given many positive courses of action. Cathy Young, in a piece for Reason Magazine, tells that “it would be truly an unfair burden to expect a female presidential candidate to be a standard-bearer for feminist idealism” (Young). However, the burden is there, as Hillary is the only person in her position, and in turn needs to uphold a strong feminine presence as one of her selling points, yet at the same time cannot let it define her either, so as to limit her identity when compared to the males with whom she is expected to battle.

This raises the question: what is Hillary allowed to do? Here, we can see the tricky situation that Clinton is put into through her status as the Other. Either she is pushed further into that category, a la the “emotional woman,” or she is seen as an Other who is trying to make her way with contenders who are the normative white males. In turn, this leads to her appearing as the Other who is ignoring her role as a powerful figure for the female population. It seems that no matter what path Clinton takes, even if it is a negotiation of the two, she is not able to succeed on any level that compares to the white male candidate, since he never has to face this issue in the first place. Not only this, but after all of the conversation is over regarding what route Clinton should take in handling her feminine status, it is interesting to step away from this issue and wonder why Hillary’s place as an actual political figure and candidate has not really been touched upon. While this is not to say that there is not a huge focus on Hillary’s political worth, as she is treated as a legitimate presidential contender, it cannot be denied that a male in the same situation does not have to face any of these extra issues. While the normative white men are able to escape this dilemma of the Other without even considering the extra obstacles it causes, Hillary, Obama, and anyone else who does not identify with this “normal” demographic are thrown even more hurdles to clear.

One of the main hurdles placed in front of Hilary is the frequent question asked: “can a woman run this country?” Now, this may be not be a completely unfounded claim, as a woman has never tried before. But who is to say that a man is able to do it? Surely no two people are the same, and it seems to foolish to ask such a question when the question of, “can this particular individual run this country?” is often just thrown to the side in favor of forming categories. As a human, it is common to group things together, but to assume that every man that was a president in the past was effectively “able” to run this country places all of them into one successful group of males which were apparently able to do this act successively. In turn, the claim almost trivializes the role of a presidency down to the physical technicality of actually sitting in the white house, and it sure seems that almost all of the population is physically capable of handling that task.

While there are many negatives to being the Other when thrown into the political mix, it may not be a completely positive experience for the “normal” individuals, either. One online opinion talks about the idea that, in the Democratic presidential race, John Edwards’ place in the race towards his party’s nomination was a challenge due to his lack of “symbolic weight.” Eugene Robinson explains that there is a problem in that Clinton and Obama’s “unique” traits “take up so much space that it's impossible to see the other guy” (Robinson). On one hand, this seems unfair that Clinton and Obama’s “Other”-ness has the potential to overshadow a legitimate campaign by another contender. However, Robinson goes on to state “that Clinton and Obama aren't candidates so much as phenomena” (Robinson). On this hand, it is very problematic to assert that these two candidates are seen as “phenomena” in the first place. The statement does not take into account any of the political worthiness of these candidates, but rather writes them off solely based on their traits as the Other. Furthermore, to assert such an extreme that the two “aren’t candidates” really does define them solely based on being the Other, in contrast with the white male normality that John Edwards is able to assume with complete ease. If the fact that a woman and a black man are campaigning for president really is so important that the political worth of both candidates can be stripped, in a greater sense, the quest for any identity sought out by the “Other”-ed population really is in jeopardy.

As humans, we are inherent labelers. Though it is very exclusive to allow one type of person the right to be the “normal” by which the Other is commonly formed, so it stands in our culture, and especially within this political arena. As the female Clinton and African-American Obama allow these roles to be a part of their identities, it inherently limits these identities as candidates who want to run just as every other presidential hopeful would. Despite the power that may come from being the exotic Other, the overshadow that it casts upon the candidates is similarly limiting. While the spectrum does have two sides, no matter which one may seem the most advantageous, the creation of the Other is what in turn leads to this “limiting,” in one way or another. When one has to step back from such a discussion and ponder whether or not any points about the actual issue at hand were acknowledged, therein lies a problem. If a political campaign looking to elect the leader of this country can be potentially decided by a candidate’s race or sex, despite conversations about the “real issues,” it must be recognized. It is not feasible to assume that people and voters want to admit that this may be the basis for their decision-making process, but if at the very least it can be recognized, that is a step in the right direction.


Works Cited:
De Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex (1949). Trans. H M Parshley. New York: Penguin (1977).
Dowd, Maureen. “Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?” New York Times. 9 January 2008. Retrieved 1 February 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/08dowd.html
Robinson, Eugene. “Edwards overshadowed by symbolic weight of Obama, Clinton.” The Island Packet Online. 26 January 2008. Retrieved 2 February 2008: http://www.islandpacket.com/526/story/142245.html
Young, Cathy. “Hillary’s Feminine Mystique: Is gender any reason to elect a president?” Reason Magazine. 7 July 2007. Retrieved 1 February 2008: http://www.reason.com/news/show/121162.html