Pundits, Professors, Scholars, Doctors: Will the Public Intellectual Please Stand Up?

After reading Mack’s analysis of John Donatich’s panel discussion on the whole notion of the public intellectual that The Nation sponsored in 2001, I was compelled to examine some other posits put forth throughout the panel regarding the so called “decline” of the public intellectual through a lens of my own. In this discussion, highlighting quite an interesting point, I think, Russell Jacoby was quick to identify. “Where were the new intellectuals?” he questioned, arguing that many public intellectuals were becoming quite invisible—especially when compared to those of the past, “the Edmund Wilsons, the Lewis Mumfords.” The fleeting nature of that sort of public intellectual, Jacoby reasons, is in part due to a change that has happened within the last few generations. Academic institutions, such as the university, now beckon the conventional public intellectual of old, thus introducing a new breed of the public intellectual.

The big problem facing my current generation is that it is now, unlike ever before, overly credential-focused. There has been an explosion in the number of students with not only bachelor’s degrees (which now is now the norm) but also degrees of higher education: PhDs, JDs, MDs, and the like. They do this to establish a sense of credibility, which is an important trait for public intellectuals to attain so that they may be taken seriously as they seek to play an influential role as they “prod, poke, and pester the powerful institutions that would shape their lives.” According to Max Weber, the best way to attain power and influence is through establishing oneself through establishing: 1) tradition 2) charisma 3) legal rational authority. While the majority of us fail to hail from the prominent Kennedy-line, nor are we born into some sort of present day aristocracy, it is difficult to fulfill Weber’s first criterion. Next, and unfortunately, charisma is innate; it certainly cannot be taught. Thus we are left with but criterion to realistically build upon—the legal rational authority aspect. Those lacking tradition and charisma must over compensate by establishing a long list of credentials (i.e. degrees garnered from the university) to serve the legal rational aspect. As a result, the public intellectuals have become more of a student of, or loyal to, the realm of academia. They have, according to Jacoby, “become academics, professors locked in the university.”

As a result, those like Jacoby posit that the hailed lineage of the public intellectual has slowly diminished. The new generation of public intellectuals now write differently, and also think differently, which leads those such as Jacoby to contend that “the university and professionalization does absorb and suck away too much talent, and that there are too few who are bucking trends.” Now, while I believe that this generation of the public intellectual may include a great number of academics and professors who are supposedly “locked away in the university,” I ardently believe that these individuals still continue to criticize, and to “puncture the myth makers of any era, including his own,” however, they may do so in a new and unique way.

Though there may not be as many big name public intellectuals as in the past, I agree with Herbert Gans that the public intellectual is indeed alive and well. There are many that continue to exist today who continue to poke, prod, and act as the party pooper by offering a unique take on certain issues. With the importance of media on the rise in today’s society and the proliferation of the various forms of media — newspapers, tabloids, and television stations—they seem to keep themselves up in arms against each other. They continuously churn out stories on an array of subjects, constantly looking for credible sources from which to seek information and find appropriate individuals who can give their personal take on a general topic. This search often leads the media to one type of the modern day public intellectual.

Herbert Gans states that for this reason, some modern day public intellectuals, namely those on university campuses (such as professors), have become somewhat celebrities. These new breed of public intellectuals have become an educated class of pundits. Many public intellectuals, like those scoffed by Jacoby who have been abducted by universities, now function as quote-suppliers to not only legitimize the media, but also offer and apply their own ideas on certain topics, however still poking, prodding, and puncturing the myth makers of today which exist heavily in the media.

Nevertheless, one may argue that this sort of new-day public intellectual still pales in comparison to the full time public intellectual of old. This new breed of intellectuals, it is argued, are merely part-time public intellectuals who continue to crawl back into their office-caves to “just sit there writing books and teaching classes,” while not being called upon by those like the media to get their outward take on certain events or general topics. Therefore, this class of public intellectuals has sometimes been classified as the disciplinary public intellectual: the public sociologists, the public economist, the public humanists—public plus a discipline.

Take for example University of Southern California lecturer, Julie Albright—a beloved teacher, respected researcher on relationships, both on and offline, attraction and infidelity, and an expert in her particular field of sociology on marriage and family. Though ultimately, a faculty member in USC’s esteemed department of sociology, she has at times, been called upon by the media for legitimization. This sought after lecturer has provided her disciplinary insight, using her specialized skill to add something original to the public debate over certain issues in a number of media outlets including Yahoo News and MSNBC, just to name a few, by offering her take on things ranging from the “oversharing” of too much information, to her professional and unique take on celebrity drunk driving.

Though some may argue that Albright hails from the cast of the newer, and less revered breed of the public intellectual, she still, nonetheless, contributes to the puncturing of the myth-makers of today’s era. Those like Albright continue to offer her take on the issue—a flare of originality that deviates from the commentary of the norm, thus offering something very original and essential to the arena of public debate. Not only does she remain an example of one type of today’s public intellectual, a sort of disciplinary one, she also serves as an educator. Those like Albright wield the ability to potentially provide students with the necessary tools to become the next generation’s type of public intellectual, whatever that may call for. Therefore, to discredit the importance and influence of this new breed of public intellectuals, such as the disciplinary public intellectual, remains somewhat disturbing. Although they may differ in profession and writing style compared some former public intellectuals, they are still individuals “uniquely blessed with wisdom” who continue to serve the same and important function of offering insight, and criticism, thus fulfilling their duty-bound obligation as members of a democratic society by continuously prodding, poking, and pestering, as Mack puts it, the powerful institutions that shape our lives.