Don't you feel small? The Earth is populated by nearly seven billion people, each with his or her own dispositions fostered by life's peculiarities. Like snowflakes falling from the sky, every one of us has uniquely come to be. So, we reflect varied perspectives of the world, and appropriately varied solutions to its development. Naturally this causes a collision of popular ideas, which is necessarily a healthy way to reconcile opinion and strive toward some consensus not only of the way things are, but the way they should be. While our environments separate us, the human condition will forever pulse through the veins of each and every person on this Earth.
The notion, then, that the realm of public intellectuals is and should be exclusive seems fatally misguided. Blogger and political commentator Stephen Mack recently argued against the idea of intellectual elitism, making the point that, "Any argument for the public intellectual that, like Donatich’s, rests the assumption that common citizens are forever childlike and must be led by a class of experts is politically corrosive and historically dangerous." It just makes sense. If the goal of the public intellectual is to somehow challenge the public vision of our world, why shouldn't anyone with the capacity of intellectual thought be included? Aren't we in this together? What's the use of extinguishing individual, unique thought solely based on some haughty definition of a term?
Taking Mack's argument further is Jodi Kushins, writer for CultureWork. Kushins argues for the inclusion of socially conscious artists as public intellectuals, and for good reason: "My primary criteria for judging art as public intellectual activity is that it creatively engages audiences with observations of, reflections on experiences within, and re-visions for our world." This extension of the term would glorify the ability of the individual, and give due credit to highly critical, sometimes abstract, emotionally engaging, worldly arguments. The written word is certainly the most accessible tool of today's "public intellectual", though art as Language has the potential to reach, affect and challenge a much worldlier audience. How can we deny Picasso, whose works are undoubtedly poignant reflections that still challenge human society?
The very nature of what it means to be a public intellectual glorifies the unique abilities of the individual. Any exclusivity in the definition of the term seems not only counterintuitive but self-destructive to its cause. Instead of defending the podium on which the public intellectual stands, it is his or her job to abet the development of other intellectuals by inviting them to join the cause.
The Supposed Decline of the Public Intellectual
7 years ago
