Intellectual Rebranding: Why the Public Intellectual is not Dead but has been Revived
- byfield8
- Sep 17, 2017
- 9 min read
The public intellectual is an international figure that has repeatedly influenced how people around the world view and discuss social, cultural, and moral issues. Because the public intellectual has existed for such a long time, a certain standard has been set in who or what makes a public intellectual. That standard’s existence has generated a debate regarding whether or not there has been a recent decline in the prominence and importance of public intellectualism in the modern world. I do believe that there has been a decline in traditional public intellectualism, however the public intellectual himself is still extraordinarily important. Our perceived view of who a public intellectual is has created the façade that there has been a decline in their existence. There has not been a drop in the number of intellectuals but a shift, or rather expansion, in what it means to be a public intellectual and ultimately who falls into that category. I believe that the comedian, particularly the political satirist, has been revived in the increasingly complex world we live in as a true public intellectual and driving force behind public discourse.
Before discussing the viability of the political satirist as public intellectual, one must first establish what constitutes a public intellectual. The main purpose of the public intellectual is to stir the minds of the public, revealing alternate paths of thinking and giving the common man the tools to create his own path to being a social critic. It is the responsibility of all global citizens to question the world they inhabit; public intellectuals are simply gatekeepers to deeper analysis of their environment and catalysts that spark our worldly inquisition. Historically, in efforts to achieve this goal, public intellectuals have garnered a reputation as elitists who dabble in theory to explain the dynamics of society. As time has progressed, an increasing number of public intellectuals have concerned themselves with the practical implications of theory and why or how these results would affect the public. This has been especially true of the public intellectuals that have come out of America. Because this has been the trend in America, the American public look to their public intellectuals for proposals on how to move forward with an issue as well as information that will guide their understanding and ability to engage in debate regarding a concept. The fact that more people in the modern world look for practicality over theory out of their public intellectuals indicates a necessary redefinition of what makes somebody a public intellectual. Today’s public intellectual must tackle a multitude of increasingly complex issues, all of which have compelling arguments in support and defense of them. If he or she wants to compose a complete and deep analysis of these issues he or she must recognize the theory behind these issues but also offer practical, tangible components of their argument that are readily understood by the public.
It is at this point that Jean Bethke Elshstain (a public intellectual in her own right) and her three criteria for becoming and remaining a public intellectual come into play. Elshstain’s first principle of the public intellectual is that they themselves and their arguments must have a strong ethical framework. It is here that a public intellectual’s take on theory has the most bearing. The ethical framework of their argument considers all perspectives and the concepts that make those perspectives, objectively speaking, viable in the context of the issue being discussed. This is essential to the public intellectual because it not only makes the argument stronger by considering all perspectives, but it adds to their credibility by presenting the public intellectual as one that is attempting to be as unbiased as possible even though they will most likely be arguing for one side or another. It is necessary for the ethical framework to be present because, if established well, it will eliminate the possibility of that public intellectual’s being declared unreliable or their arguments being incomplete. The second principle deals with historical sensibility. A public intellectual’s historical sensibility refers to their ability to regard the past as it pertains to the present and what that means for the future. Historical sensibility is necessary because it establishes a timeline for the public. In tapping into historical sensibilities, the public intellectual can easily present the history of a topic, establishing a foundation for further discussion, proceed to explain how that foundation is playing out today, and finally propose the implications of today’s events on tomorrows reality. Elshstain’s last principle is that the public intellectual must have an awareness for human limits and tragedies. Nations have trouble recognizing their past faults and this causes them to repeat past offenses or hinder their national social progress. It is up to the public intellectual to boldly present the realities of the world and its past. This third principle gets to the public intellectual’s responsibility to present the practical implications of certain plans of action and lines of thinking. It is here that the public part of public intellectual rears its head and becomes important. The public intellectual must be able to present shortcomings and tragedy without making the public feel at a loss or even stupid for their past, while at the same time making the public feel like they can discuss or even have an influence on the future of the topic at hand. This is why the public intellectual remains an important figure in our world and why the definition of the public intellectual must be altered.
The prominence of public intellectuals has dwindled because the obvious settings for public discourse have greatly diminished over time. Salon culture was a huge asset to the life of public discourse among common people; however, that culture died shortly following the Harlem renaissance. The death of salon culture was not the death of open discussion, but it was a huge blow to the existence of open settings for discussion outside of the walls of academia. Many public intellectuals stem from academia, which makes sense, however, for the common man, after his years of schooling he rarely encounters an environment where discussion of social, political, cultural, and ideological issues is highly encouraged. This causes a lack of exposure to public intellectuals unless they are actively sought out by the public; it is this lack of, for lack of a better term, natural exposure that creates the façade that is the decline of public intellectualism. I contend that this is just a façade because the definition of a public figure must inherently change as the culture of the public changes. Public news consumption culture has shifted greatly in recent years, this has ultimately shifted who the public views as a public intellectual. This being considered, there hasn’t been a decline in public intellectualism but a shift and expansion in who can be considered a public intellectual. The political satirist has been a long standing position in the realm of social commentary, however I believe that the contemporary satirist can and should be classified as a public intellectual under the right circumstances.
The social function of the public intellectual is to fight apathy, decrease ignorance, and simplify complex concepts for the public; comedy is the perfect outlet to complete these objectives especially when that comedy specifically targets certain issues. Comedy fights apathy by appealing to all demographics. Although, as is the case in many entertainment sectors, representation is not equal across the board, the majority of demographics are represented in comedy; this allows people to identify with the comedian because more often than not if the public identifies with a comedian it is because that comedian is talking about something that they have personal experienced. If we look at Netflix’s stand-up comedy offerings, it is easy to see that Whites, Blacks, Indians, Latinos, males, females, and more demographics are represented with many of these comedians speaking specifically to social issues that affect their people. Comedy combats ignorance by illuminating tough and taboo issues in a mode that is not off-putting and uncomfortable. Rather it makes light of these issues while at the same time making the audience think about the reality of society and question the current state of affairs regarding that issue. Finally, because comedy is part social commentary and part performance, the simplification of complex ideas is inherent in the art. Through anecdotes and analogy comedy is often able to take a complex, multi-dimensional issue and boil it down to a level that is easy to comprehend, laugh at, and ponder. Comedians like Joan Rivers and Richard Pryor have been performing the social function of the public intellectual for their entire careers, however they would not be considered public intellectuals because they lack a scholarly component to their work. I believe that John Oliver of HBO’s Last Week Tonight is the perfect example of a comedian, political satirist, and public figure who can and should be regarded as a public intellectual.
John Oliver’s track record as a seasoned political satirist is key to his establishment as a public intellectual. Before coming to America in 2006 to write and temporarily host The Daily Show, Oliver co-hosted multiple podcasts and radio shows that satirized the British government and prominent world news while at the same time providing in depth analysis and critique of current events. Oliver also co-produced and co-starred in a plethora of politically headed stand-up shows in addition to his podcasts and radio shows. In 2005, BBC’s panel program Mock the Week frequently featured Oliver as a guest panelist. Oliver’s presence on the show was unique and important during this period because he, unlike many other politically geared comedians on the show, stayed away from material about Americans. Jokes about America provided easy laughs during the Bush administration, yet Oliver decided to continue on his markedly different yet informative path of political satire. This is important because it gives us a glimpse into Olivers aversion to lazy content and affinity for well-produced, informative, mind-stirring comedy. We must recognize that during this period of Oliver’s career he was doing much of his own research and converting that research into easily consumable political satire for the public. This is exactly the job of a public intellectual: he is responsible for converting complex concepts and news stories into digestible, engaging content that promotes inquisition by the public. Oliver’s technique in political satire is so effective that in 2005 BBC recognized him as a major factor in the resurrection of political comedy. Oliver’s position as a public intellectual is not solidified by this admittedly impressive history though; he can truly be classified as a public intellectual after he crosses the pond and brings his social critiques to America.
Oliver’s years of experience as a political satirist aids in his ability to effectively report on the main stories of Last Week Tonight. A public intellectual must be well trained in the art of criticism and must use this skill regularly. Through his years of experience he has undoubtedly trained himself well in the art of criticism and his weekly reports on the various stories of Last Week Tonight keep his critical skills sharp. In being critical he keeps his ethical framework in check by constantly using a multitude of sources that cover a breadth of perspectives on the story. He does not just glaze over various perspectives either, the origins of a perspective are almost always explained and are related to the current state of affairs regarding the topic being discussed. For example, in a report on nuclear waste Oliver presents facts from 1957, 1990, 2013, and 2017 to give a complete picture of how our nuclear waste problem got so bad. This is just one of many examples where Oliver’s historical sensibility plays a central role in his reports on major world issues and maintains the ethical framework he’s made for himself. Using the same nuclear waste story as an example, Oliver also calls out America’s past shortcomings regarding nuclear waste disposal and our failure to, even now, come up with appropriate plan to get rid of it. Oliver is never shy to tell us about our pitfalls in history and how they are affecting us now; in fact, it is a fundamental factor in how he relates his research to the public. By steeping his arguments in historical juxtaposition, Oliver forces the audience to think about their past and how it will affect their future. Oliver’s style of reporting thoroughly covers Elshstain’s criteria for public intellectualism on a weekly basis and his in depth coverage coupled with clear arguments being made separates him from other popular political satirists, most notably The Daily Show’s newest host, Trevor Noah.
Although Oliver now has had four researchers and ten writers on the series over the course of its four seasons, Oliver has been the primary researcher and writer of the series throughout its run. Because he is able to combine the research he has done with his unique rhetoric and comedic style, Oliver is able to not only hilariously present information, but also provide a cohesive narrative that engages the audience and causes them to truly think. He logically connects the information from his myriad of sources to generate a complete, striking finals statement that discusses the tangible implications of the story he has discussed. It is a public intellectuals job to step back from the overwhelming storm of information that is generated each day and issue thoughtful warnings and arguments about the issue that information is concerned with. Oliver has not only proven that he can do this, but has excelled at it and has truly earned the right to be classified as a public intellectual.
The public intellectual has not died. The public intellectual has been revived, rebranded, and renamed. As our culture moves forward and paradigms shift, we must also recognize that what the public views as an intellectual also shifts. The settings of debate of shifted and so have the sources of our information. The rise of the political satirist as a public intellectual has begun and the so called “decline of public intellectualism” has come to an end.
Sources:
Eshstain, Jean B. “Why Public Intellectuals?” The Wilson Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 1, www.jstor.org/stable/wilsonq.38.1.38.
Comments