Is It Still Possible to Be a Public Intellectual?

Alice, your list betrays your age youth. That is not a compliment. Elon Musk and Tavi Gevinson? Oh my.

Christopher Hitchens should be at the top of any contemporary list. You may have found him objectionable on various counts, but he was the most rigorously intellectual and fearless thinker in the public arena for a long time. RIchard Dawkins is right there with him.

Pankaj Mishra seems to reject rationality itself. I suggest he compare the world of 1000 years ago with today. If he is suggesting that the pressure of rationality in public discourse has not made the world a better place, then he is simply incorrect.

I am of Mishra's generation, but the visions of both authors was so narrow that it suggests that many younger folks may not have the breadth of experience to even address this question. Not encouraging.

I'm curious: who gets to decide in this day and age who is an "intellectual", much less a "public" one? It seems that the media anoints those with the loudest voices, most prolific writings, and who are sufficiently telegenic. Sadly, with a few notable exceptions, loudest voices get the most exposure. Saddest of all is that the intelligence part of being an intellectual (someone who makes his or her living with their intellect?) is the last criteria used to decide who gets anointed as such.

Politically independent intellectuals are the rarity while those sworn to an ideology are a dime a dozen. I'd sooner listen to a modest mind who shoots in both directions over the partisan poet or genius. Ted Cruz might be the sole exception simply because he doesn't lie.

More dangerous than the angry young man in the street with a gun, is the intellectual armed with a political ideology. This is why society will always need "public" intellectuals, those who stand apart from ideologies, fetishes and the circles of power. And of course, this is why there will always be very few of them.

I'm having trouble particularizing Mishra's generalizations. For instance: "Laptop warrior" – Is that supposed to correspond to Andrew Sullivan (after 9/11 but before his whiplash switch on the Iraq War? Or is this all about Christopher Hitchens? The sins seem so specific, why not name names?

Then out of nowhere come these "public intellectuals with sectarian loyalties." Who are they? Is that a shot at V.S. Naipaul? Or Tariq Ramadan? Again, why not give us a couple of examples or links? Without specifics, it's hard to agree or disagree.

One type of easily remembered public intellectual, back in the fifties lets say, included a someone who was a professor who had a column in the popular press or magazine, and who wrote about a wide range of public affairs, etc.

As for Dylan's observation concerning the failure of anyone to mention Noam Chomsky, when is the last time he has been seen or heard in the mainstream media, much less on public radio or television? Intellectual, yes. Public, not very. Which, come to think of it, speaks volumes about the possibility of being a public intellectual, at least in America, today. Bear in mind, the likes of Buckley, Vidal and Mailer were ubiquitous in the mainstream media in their day.

"The alienated critic of society — exemplified once by such proud upholders of the individual conscience as Leo Tolstoy, Simone Weil, Hannah Arendt and Andrei Sakharov — has ended up whispering advice and encouragement to power."

Corporations, as well as the politicians who are their supplicants, usurp many intellectuals by giving them what they actually seek; notoriety and wealth. How tempting it is to get ones works published for wider distribution to audiences and to be invited as speakers to crowds guaranteed to applaud your every thought. This is quite the opposite of speaking truth to power. This is tailoring your message so the powerful can take maximum advantage of it. Once again in America, it appears true that everyone has their price.

Pace Alice Gregory, I thought being a public intellectual was about rigorous thinking, not tastes.

"Paris contains and combines, and consummates or consumes, most of the brilliant failures summoned by their destinies to the delirious professions... This is the name I give to all those trades whose main tool is one's opinion of oneself, and whose raw material the opinion others have of oneself."
Paul Valéry

"Is it Still Possible to be a Public Intellectual?"

I do not see the equivalent of writers such as Mary McCarthy, Gore Vidal, Hannah Arendt, H.L. Mencken, or a Mark Twain. Their depth and breadth on social, political, and literary issues is not apparent, instead what we have are those with one issue to to put forth. While I may agree with some of the issues, I do miss the depth and breadth. Instead, the public is more interested in sound bites, instead of slowly digesting, reflecting, and processing.

But, I do believe we need public intellectuals of the above caliber.

A public intellectual in the US today? Now there's an oxymoron, if ever there was one.

We have many public intellectuals, what we have lost is an audience ~ with an attention span. The world is simply dumbing down, add to that a general lack of interest or intellectual capacity across the board. Most people these days could care less when it comes to an honest desire to understand the world around them. An intellectual is a generalist, an observer, an interrogator. Today people's interest are very narrow. They avoid brain strain whenever they can. Most prefer bumper sticker truths over nuanced consideration and explanation

Wikipedia offers three lists of one hundred public intellectuals here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP_Top_100_Global_Thinkers

Of course there can be public intellectuals, but it is as it always was. Some people will find them brilliant because they agree with them, or disagree, discredit and argue with them - some fairly, some unfairly. However, I can't say I even understand the authors' examples as even being particularly intellectual. How, for example, Gevinson (who I had to google), apparently a teen fashion commentator, qualifies as an intellectual. Maybe she is smart or a good writer. But, that's the example of a public intellectual? If so, then they don't just exist, but there are millions. Nor do I see how Coates, who strikes me as someone warming over racial history and problems without offering any new solutions, or the Pope, a religious figure who also offers no creative solutions, whether I like what they say or not, qualify as public intellectuals. Musk, I get as he obviously has tremendous intellectual power and I tend to agree with him politically. Nor does being smart at one thing make you smart at everything, as critics of Ben Carson would probably state right now. Even Einstein, perhaps the most well known icon of a public intellectual, comes up short for me when he ventured from his field into public ones. The bottom line is that of course there are public intellectuals, but people are usually going to respect those who champion their political beliefs - we see different lists in the comments here -, or satisfy some archetype or need for them.

Pankaj Mishra is among the finest public intellectuals we have.

In his enthusiasm to make a place, or not, for public intellectual, Mishra commits the pitfall that may account for why the NYT asked the question in the first place. It is less often the society that takes down a public intellectual but the not-so-friendly fire of internal sniping, judgmental defining and litmus tests that they create among themselves.

A true public intellectual addresses difficult and complex matters of public policy, often with a voice or from a perspective challenging to dominant political views. So, for example:

In the aftermath of the Snowden disclosures, and the failure of Congress to address antiquated electronic surveillance laws that provide the executive branch virtual carte blanche to violate constitutional rights and take advantage of a "secret court system" that defies the foundation of a democratic republic, it is very puzzling that Mishra's opening salvo would be to "laptop warrior for liberalism and democracy."

In his hurry to critique he seems to have missed one of the most significant issues of our day for which public intellectuals -- laptop warriors or not -- are dearly needed.

And curious (as I commit my own form of parochial sling-shots), did Mishra mail his contribution into the Times by snail mail?

Rather than belabor the vapid question whether public intellectuals still exist, would it not be more fruitful and informative to take a "public intellectual" and examine in detail what that person has to say--Slavoj Žižek, for example. There are hundreds of hours of lectures and speeches given by Zizeck, all free on Youtube. He has written many books, some on popular culture, films, religion,philosophy and has earned a prominent position as a "public intellectual," and yet no mention was made of him, but Bill Mahr and Sarah Silverman get a place in this discussion. Perhaps you are not really looking for these intellectuals or you don't know who they really are. Perhaps Zizeck might help to clarify the quest this article seems to be embarking on.

For me the question recalls the pre-Iraq War debate and particularly an exchange between Tony Judt, a forgettable journalist hack, and the then pro-war, openly-biased moderator Charlie Rose. Rose was taking Judt to take because he urged caution and facts. Rose would have none of it. The question isn't whether it's still possible to be a public intellectual; there are plenty of intellectuals capable of fulfilling the role on the scale that our public discourse requires. It's rather that we turn to glib journalists and think-tank shills.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Exactly what is a "Public Intellectual"? Frankly, I don't know. I think that in the 1940s, 50s or 60s we may have been able to recognize intellect. No more. Recognition of intellectual thought must have an audience, a population that understands the need for thought and alternative discourse that offers, if not solutions, at least the basis for discussion to influence and change events. America today is bereft of thought. Intellectualism is viewed as a threat to special interests. Outsiders to special interests are seen as upsetters and attackers. Intellectual are critics that would remove the power of special interests. There is no enlightenment.
In American politics today we are witness not to public discussion or analysis. We do witness vitriolic, fact-less attacks on opponents. Demagoguery (a Republican specialty) is portrayed as common sense opposition to once accepted moral premises. For instance gay rights is a threat to religious values. Gay rights are portrayed as godless invasions and destruction of moral superiority of believers. If you disagree you are one of the godless.
Intellectuals used to have a voice. People were willing to listen and to open their minds. They wanted to think about what they were doing and why they were doing it.
Today we have many experts in many fields. We have created not just political factions but deeply separated technological separatists. We no longer can hear or understand other voices.

Is it Still Possible to Be a Public Intellectual"?
Yes, but the ones we have need a lot more exposure to be recognized as such. Pankaj Mishra mentions Alfred Kazin's labeling a public intellectual an outsider; yes, that's what she/he should be. Most stand-up comics are apolitical, and, essentially entertainers. However, I believe Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are way above the garden variety. A real public intellectual is someone like George Bernard Shaw, a brilliant and fearless social and intellectual reformer, with formidable knowledge of the politics of the day, besides being a champion of feminist causes. A more recent example of a
public intellectual is play-wright-novelist-polemicist-philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. (A staggering number of Parisians attended his funeral.) For me, America's greatest public intellectual of today is Noam Chomsky, a prominent linguist as well as a trenchant critic many of America's oppressive foreign policies. The former Princeton academic, Cornel West, has the potential
to be an influential public speaker on many contemporary issues, especially
racism in America. Gloria Steinem has been educating Americans for years about feminist issues in books and in speeches. Rachel Maddow, although only a news anchor now, can attain the status of a brilliant commentator of
gay-left politics. Far from being entertainers, my kind of public intellectuals
are teachers of what would make Americans a knowledge-seeking people
engaged in creating a just society.

Isn't it ironic that there is no mention here of the most well known American public intellectual, Noam Chomsky?

It is no longer possible to have such a thing as a 'public intellectual' for multiple reasons.
One: our public discourse no longer involves discussion, but mounting soapboxes and/or bludgeoning each other over the head with slogans. To have true discourse involves, first off, accepting the possibility that the other sides (not either/or) may have a point, or even (gasp) that there is no one right answer, much less that you have it.
Two: brevity may be the soul of wit, but not necessarily of insight. Few important matters can be disposed of in 140 characters (or even 1500).
Three: 'intellectual' has been an insult for as long as I can remember. Now it is so even in the universities.
Vargas Llosa's 'Notes on the Death of Culture' is a good autopsy on the death of the pubic intellectual - and of intellect generally. The true 'public intellectual', whether in the mold of GK Chesterton, Isaiah Berlin, George Orwell, Susan Sontag, Christopher Hitchens - is at best an endangered species, and what passes for a public intellectual now is a sorry thing. (Coates is an example of #1. He is not interested in discourse. He is here to tell you what he thinks, period paragraph. Strictly one way.)

Groan. Sorry, comedians (as much as I appreciate and need their presence) are not public intellectuals.

To answer the initial question, yes, it is still possible to be a public intellectual. A better question is whether there are people still willing to embrace this role. As Mishra indicates, a public intellectual is, by definition, often an unpopular figure--willing to stand outside of society and criticize its norms.

In our age of Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms for self-promotion, is anyone willing to be unpopular as a matter of principle? The answer, more often than not, is no.

The United States have not had a "public intellectual" for many , many decades:

"The end of history will be a very sad time. The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one's life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism, will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands. In the post-historical period there will be neither art nor philosophy, just the perpetual caretaking of the museum of human history. I can feel in myself, and see in others around me, a powerful nostalgia for the time when history existed. Such nostalgia, in fact, will continue to fuel competition and conflict even in the post-historical world for some time to come. Even though I recognize its inevitability, I have the most ambivalent feelings for the civilization that has been created in Europe since 1945, with its north Atlantic and Asian offshoots. Perhaps this very prospect of centuries of boredom at the end of history will serve to get history started once again."

Fukuyama, Francis. "The End of History?" The National Interest (1989): 1-19.

The closest things we have to "public intellectuals" are comedians like Tim Minchin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoEezZD71sc

More real wisdom in 11 minutes that you'll get any academic or intellectual source anywhere on the planet.

Were there an all-time, all-star baseball team called the "Public Intellectuals," its starting nine might read something like this: Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Oscar Wilde, H.L. Mencken, George Orwell, William F. Buckley, Jr., Gore Vidal, Norman Mailer, Christopher Hitchens. Can we, today, to paraphrase President Obama, even field a JV version?

Of course it's possible to be a public intellectual, but as the first piece in this series implies, the title is often only bestowed posthumously. Just as we cannot foresee a president's full legacy until it is unfolding before us, we also cannot predict whose ideas will be the most influential on our generation, or the next. All we can do is blog, tweet, post, and record, hoping that someone out there will be convinced by what we have to say.

I appreciate the perspective of the contribution of the comedic voice. If it weren't for that voice, I'd conclude that the punditocracy, with its "bloviation uber alles" work style had singlehandedly ushered out the era of the public intellectual.

I'm just not sold on the argument that comedians (even really smart ones like Colbert, Stewart, Silverman, Schemer, Ansar et al -- all of whom I do enjoy too) are the ideal replacement for public intellectuals. Now, more than ever before, when there is so much noise vs signal in our information/education sources, we need thoughtful, insightful individuals who will step up and provide cogent, considered, and extensive commentary. And, they're out there, of course. Ms Gregory could not think beyond Ta Nehisi-Coates, Elon Musk, and Tavi Gevinson. Goodness. What about, say, Steven Pinker, Gloria Steinem, Malcolm Gladwell, Barbara Ehrenreich, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Camille Paglia -- just to name a few that come to my mind? I don't see eye to eye with all of them and nor do I claim to have read all their works but I think they've offered so much to our ongoing and ever-evolving public discourses on many topical and important issues.

The shaking off of the label of "public intellectual" is understandable, though, because of the reverse snobbery that is now associated with it. Ta Nehisi-Coates says, elsewhere, that he does not want to be an "expert" on anything. That's his choice, of course. Maybe we need a different moniker now.....

It is possible to be a public intellectual but not with the current set up of the political and publishing industries in America. What happening is what I will call "The Synchronization of the American Mind" by countable gatekeepers in politics, printing media, radio and cable outlets and motion pictures as well. We could count and all know the few opinion-makers of every major newspaper, magazine, radio and cable outlet. There are rarely new ideas and thoughts on the current and future social problems. What we hear and read are the voices of the same politicians, talking heads and opinion writers day in day out. It is an absolute repetition and regurgitation of the same thought lines without injecting any new or radical thoughts. And these few gatekeepers are committed to synchronize and narrow the thinking of the American minds. For example, these gatekeepers were talking about Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, ISIL and Daesh as being different groups with different ideologies and modus operandi for the past 15 years. or in other words, if the extremism and ruthless acts of Al Qaeda is different than that of ISIS and that is an absolute garbage to listen to and believe in. It is very sad.

I don't think there are any 'public intellectuals' who are not bought and paid for by one think tank or another, so while there are plenty of people who think of themselves that way, they all have a viewpoint they are paid to look at everything through. So, public intellectuals are inherently corrupt, in other words. If they could make a living solely from selling books (vs books that were sponsored by their real employers) then maybe. But I don't think that happens.