In considering the personal status and state of the public intellectual and also their jobs, Stephen Mack makes a good point about where our priorities should be:
it needs to begin with a shift from “categories and class” to “function.” That is, our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is—and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it. (Stephen Mack )
As Mack mentions later, “It’s a distinction that matters” because it really is significant regarding whether the public intellectual focuses on his perceived status or his function in society. This dichotomy expresses itself in William Dean’s review, if not a critique, of Richard Posner’s book, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline. Essentially, Posner, a federal judge and law professor argues for a variety of factors that have led to the decreasing number and the decline in status of the public intellectuals. However, Dean points out in an example that:
Posner launches into an ill-fated and lengthy exercise in ranking the 571 public intellectuals who in the years 1995-2000 received the most media attention and Web-site hits. None of the great public intellectuals I cite above (from Addams to Lasch) makes Posner's top 100, and three fail to show up among his top 571. Not only is this ranking a ridiculous way to assess real public influence, it undermines Posner's own project; he himself would predict that the ranking would stimulate public intellectuals' vanity, causing them either to preen or be wounded and then to ignore the book's larger argument. (William Dean)
In this example, Dean exposes Posner’s ridiculous method of measuring public influence through something that can be amounted as a popularity contest. Indeed, Posner only grazes the surface, failing to recognize that something as trivial as web site hits is hardly an indication of true influence of a public intellectual. Furthermore, as Dean points out, Posner not only focuses on what he shouldn’t, but fails to give insight on what should matter – the function of the intellectual:
But Posner is not a pragmatist when he disregards public intellectuals who discuss public philosophies and attitudes. These public intellectuals sometimes uncover implicit orientations and worldviews that, in turn, affect public decisions and actions. (William Dean)
Thus, Dean points out the fact that the public intellectual, despite what his standing in or perception by society may be, has an important role, one that can have important effects on a nation and its people. Jean Bethke Elshtain corroborates, stating “the public intellectual needs, it seems to me, to puncture the myth-makers of any era, including his own, […] Public intellectuals, much of the time at least, should be party poopers” (Jean Bethke Elshtain). She implies that the intellectual is to push aside myths and peripheral issues that only get in the way of the only thing that matters – the job of the intellectual, which is essentially to work to expose issues, create awareness and agitate the status quo. Mack concludes this issue in stating:
And so if public intellectuals have any role to play in a democracy—and they do—it’s simply to keep the pot boiling. The measure of public intellectual work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about.
Therefore, a public intellectual should not be so concerned with his status as he should be
regarding the state of his profession. As Mack illustrated, there is no need to worry about who
delivers the message, as long as the message is getting delivered. Furthermore, the more one
becomes worried about and convinced of a decline in his status, he will engage in a self-fulfilling
prophecy. That is, in his almost paranoid concern over himself, he will lose focus on what he
should be most concerned about, delivering the message. So in this sort of "moping" and
"whining" which leads to a lack of focus, his concerns will certainly come true. In fact, dealing
with these issues this way will only make the issue worse as the public intellectuals deviate from
what their protocol and in effect become public "complainers" rather than "intellectuals".
In looking over the public intellectuals over the last three weeks, I have explored few of the
many issues that are prominent in the realm of the public intellectuals. Specifically, there have
been analysis of the "paradox" between religion and politics as well as the dichotomy between
status and function of the public intellectual. The common conclusions that were reached in both
cases was that both are still issues still hotly contested today. Indeed, the platform and ideas
have been established on both sides of both issues, and though I have advocated one side for
both issues, this has been but a battle that is part of the war going on in public forums in the rest
of the world. Another common conclusion for both issues that has been overlooked is that, no
matter what, the public intellectual is neither a full intellectual elitist nor an everyman. He is a
synthesis, a medium, of those two seemingly opposite ends. He must remember that in both
issues, he not only speaks for them in certain cases, but speaks to them as well. That is why in
the first issue, the intellectual finds himself contorted by varying viewpoints, beliefs and codes of
conduct. And as for the second issue, there has been too much deviation from the "public" in
favor of the "intellectual". It is in that deviation in which the intellectual forgets his function of
delivering the message, and forgets that he is often the crucial link between the public and the
socio-political world. Indeed, instead of seeing himself and the public as "us", his vision has
blurred to the point that he refers that "us" as "them" and "me". In looking forward, the public
intellectual should remember that its not ultimately his reputation that matters, but rather the
existence of the message of the intellectual and its ability to move society.
No comments:
Post a Comment