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
No comments:
Post a Comment