America's philosophes

It is often difficult for people to understand exactly what a public intellectual does.

Most often, people think of aloof columnists, reporters and other self-appointed critics fond of their own voice.

But public intellectualism has a long and distinguished history in the United States. One writer on the subject referred to William James and John Dewey, generally acknowledged as the first widely recognized public intellectuals, as “public philosophers who were outspoken commentators on the political and cultural life of the nation.”

The type of commentary generated by public intellectuals is necessary for democratic societies to function effectively because citizens have to be well informed about civic issues. Democratic liberalism (and I don't mean partisan politics) demands the very type of informed deliberation and disagreement through the discourse produced by public intellectualism.

Judge Richard Posner has sat on the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for the past 20 years. He is also a law professor at the University of Chicago, prolific author, and conservative public intellectual. In a recent book, Posner defined public intellectuals in the following manner: “A public intellectual expresses himself in a way that is accessible to the public, and the focus of his expression is on matters of general concern and is reflected in a political or ideological cast. When public intellectuals comment on current affairs, their comments tend to be opinionated, judgmental, and sometimes condescending, and often waspish.”

George Will, William Raspberry, and Ellen Goodman are all public intellectuals whose writings appear weekly on the commentary page of The Roanoke Times. They are also highly ideological and opinionated. This group, along with many others, carry on the James/Dewey tradition of being public philosophers.

Academic public intellectuals represent a unique subset of American public intellectualism. These writers are attractive to media executives because cutting-edge intellectual inquiry is located in the academic community. That's where broad cultural discussions often take place. Academics also give the public an opportunity to get pertinent and synthesized knowledge from legitimate experts rather than from single-issue sources like interest groups or “sound bite” politicians.

However, Posner criticizes academic public intellectuals for possessing an air of intellectual superiority and beliefs in a utopian world -- a belief system that, in his opinion, precludes discussion of meaningful social or institutional reform. To some extent, he is correct. Strongly held political and social ideologies, whether liberal or conservative, cause these writers to defend the status quo and protect their place in the existing system. Non-partisan discussions of organizational or societal change and transformation are something to be avoided at all costs.

Public intellectuals are not reporters whose job is to interview and then write stories. Instead, the public intellectual wraps an existing story around, in Posner’s words, “their reflections on the direction and health of society. They are controversialists with a tendency to take extreme positions.”

Public intellectualism is beginning to have a dramatic impact on the field of journalism. Several years ago, new Columbia University President Lee Bollinger instituted major reforms at that institution’s graduate school of journalism (see “Positive Changes at Columbia’s journalism school”). His goal was to transform the graduate program from a “trade school” (that is, writing, reporting and sourcing) to a deeper educational culture where the curriculum now includes courses in law, science, economics and history. The J-School’s graduate education has also been extended from the traditional 10-month program to two years of study in order to accommodate the expanded curriculum.

Bollinger’s objective is to produce a hybrid “journalist-quasi public intellectual” for America’s leading newspapers. As a student of Organization Change, I am fascinated by the goal of his strategic transformation. However, because of imbedded journalistic cultural values, and demands from society for “objective” reporting, it will be quite some time before journalists (as “qua public intellectuals”) become instigators and facilitators of public discourse in the newsroom.

Public intellectuals see themselves as enhancing the continual evolution of an enlightened citizenry and facilitating more public discourse than any other actor writing in the public sphere. These are indeed noble goals if accomplished. Yet, Posner is correct: they cannot be obstacles to the implementation of evolving ideas of what the “good society” should look like.

These writers occupy a unique space in the public discourse -- the responsibility to create broader meanings and holistic understandings as opposed to reporting the news -- only if they actually act like public intellectuals. This is where their institutional and societal legitimacy exists. As interpreters of public affairs, they should neither be co-opted by public officials/business leaders who want to “spin” a story or paralyzed into inaction because of self-interest.

Academic public intellectuals do believe in a utopian vision for society. That’s okay. There is nothing wrong with calls to our “better selves”. We would never grab hold of a star otherwise.