The Academic as Public Intellectual: Examining Public Engagement in the Professionalised Academy (original) (raw)
Related papers
Beyond the ivory tower: the public role of the intellectual today
Phronimon, 2011
In this paper, I attempt to contextualise the question regarding the public role of the academic as intellectual in terms of the present, global, neo-liberal "govern-mentality". With the aid of thinkers such as Bourdieu, Foucault, Sennett, Arendt, but also social geographer, David Harvey, it becomes clear that neoliberalism radically attenuates the individual's capacity to enter the public sphere. This incapacitation leads to the inevitable depoliticisation of intellectual labour through the increasing individualisation of the self, on the one hand, and the rampant privatisation of the public, on the other hand. This is explained by laying bare the corrosive impact and pervasive nature of neoliberalism. Foucault and Bourdieu nevertheless believe in the possibility of resistance, which they locate in the individual and in his/her capacity as politicised intellectual. However, the repoliticisation of intellectuals and their role in the political sphere presupposes a more fundamental recovery of the public sphere. The tactical question regarding the possibilities of and means to resistance is therefore rooted in the ontological question regarding the freedom of the self that comes into being in the social space between the self and the other. In the final analysis, the thought of Levinas is used to argue that fidelity to the self is not realised through the pursuit of limitless freedom (although our freedom is undeniably at stake), but in the social dimension, which enables the self -via the other -to re-enter the public and eventually the political sphere.
The Institutionalisation of the Public Intellectual
Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal
As the way academics work becomes increasingly specified and regulated, the role of the public intellectual, as championed by Burawoy and exemplified by Jakubowicz, is changing. Engagement with the professions and industry is being proposed as a requirement for a research-active academic. Prescriptions for the way this might happen have the potential to remove the sense of responsibility inherent in Burawoy’s notion of the public intellectual and the suggested use of social media to promote new knowledge potentially dilutes the notion of ‘publics’ which is fundamental to the notion of the public intellectual, substituting the individual for the collective. This in turn has an impact on the kind of informed debate that can influence policy development. This paper explores the narratives of new academics as they seek to answer the questions Giddens asserted were fundamental to the creation of identity in late modernity – What to do? How to act? Who to be? It positions these narratives...
The Ethical Academic: Academics as Public Intellectuals
Online Submission, 2013
Twenty-five years ago, American sociologist Robert Bellah Bellah (Bellah, et al., 1986: 303) critiqued the growing isolation of intellectuals within universities and called for a return to "social science as public philosophy." Little seems to have changed. My thirty-seven year experience at the University of Alberta suggests that academics see self-isolation as key to career success. Today's academic seems to work alone, engage in esoteric researching or theorizing, and publish single-authored articles in high-impact journals. At the University of Alberta, and I assume at other tier one universities, working to engage a wide public does not rank highly on Faculty Evaluation Committee's (FEC) annual reviews of academic work. This paper asks whether university-based academics are becoming irrelevant to wider publics and whether our intellectual leadership is waning. Here, I trace the history and importance of public intellectuals and make a case that ethically university-based academic leaders must become public intellectuals who engage the larger public through writing, speaking, or acting. Rooted in both Renaissance and Enlightenment, a public intellectual is a learned person shining a light on a public sphere. Although our postmodern sense has eroded many Enlightenment myths, I make the case that active ethical academic leadership should not be thrown to that wreckage. Here, I discuss the tradition of public intellectuals-discussing who, where, how, and what they are. I review the tradition of some historic and more recent public intellectuals like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Edward Said, Henry Giroux, and James K. A. Smith. I discuss why public intellectuals must speak fearlessly regardless of antiintellectual traditions that might position academics as targets for ridicule. I discuss public ACADEMICS AS PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS 3 intellectuals as both teachers and outline a number of practical and collaborative ways that academics might engage the public. This paper is framed on the beliefs that a university is (1) a place where academics work to protect and extend the best of a society's culture and knowledge, (2) can be a living witness to how knowledge can positively infuse a culture and a society, and that (3) academics are meant to serve the general good.
The Public Intellectual vs. the Complicity of the University
Public intellectuals are indispensable to a healthy and thriving society, and intellectuals employed by public universities have a greater responsibility to the public. To be a public intellectual is to assume a responsibility to the truth. As Noam Chomsky, public intellectual for over a halfcentury, stated, "It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies." Unfortunately, many disciplines serve the powerful few at the expense of the many, distorting and corrupting the integrity of intellectual work in the process. Telling the truth, and exposing the lies, about our disciplines is the way to assume this responsibility.
The Philosopher as Public Intellectual
The philosopher as public intellectual brings up images of, say, Jean-Paul Sartre and Bertrand Russell, speaking to huge crowds of students and affecting the politics in their respective countries and beyond. It is my contention that this type of public intellectual, epitomized by those two iconic characters, is no longer as viable today as it was in the middle part of the twentieth century. But this is not to say that there is no scope today for philosophers as public intellectuals, or that there is less space for public intellectuals in general. Too often commentators have mistaken the decline of a particular type of public intellectual for the fall of the public intellectual in general. It will become clear that the current climate encourages a type of public engagement, whether from philosophers or non-philosophers, which is of a very different kind from the one exercised by the likes of Sartre and Russell. In this paper, I will try to outline this shift and provide some tentative explanations.
The Educational Researcher as a Public Intellectual*
British Educational Research Journal, 1999
As education and schooling are themselves repositioned and restratified in the new global work order, so research on education is itself repositioned. In such a situation, even if people go on researching as they researched before, their work may have been repositioned: sometimes so as to substantially shift, or even invert, the relevance and effect of that work. A crisis of positionality arises at this point because of the reconstitution and repositioning of the social relations of production. The importance of this for educational researchers, as public intellectuals, is clearly of great concern. Through a case study, some of the implications of this repositioning are assessed. In the final section, new strategies for rejuvenating public intellectual work are assessed. Certain aspects of New Right overreach are explored. Firstly, the attack on professional groups in general; secondly, the general attack on public life and the disinvestment in local communities, and thirdly, the 'dumbing down' of public media. These struggles are seen as central arenas in which public intellectual life can be repositioned and rejuvenated.
Introduction: a Special Issue on Public Intellectuals
International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 2012
This special issue is devoted to the contemporary phenomenon of the public intellectual. Since the 1980s, historians and social scientists have lamented the alleged decline of the public intellectual in the course of the twentieth century (e.g., Jacoby 2000), but more recent commentators rightly contend that there is little empirical evidence to support this "declinist" argument, at least in its rudimentary fashion (e.g., Collini 2006; Baert and Shipman 2012). Of course, compared to the era of Sartre or Russell, there is no longer as much scope for the authoritative public intellectual-that is, a generalist who speaks out with moral vigor about a wide range of disciplines and who is steeped in a high profile discipline like philosophy. However, it would be wrong to treat the decline of the authoritative intellectual as the fall of the public intellectual altogether (Baert and Shipman 2012). As some of the contributions in this issue argue, new possibilities for public engagement have emerged, thereby creating new relationships between intellectuals and their publics. Some of the contributions to this issue pay attention to the role of new institutions and new technologies in the motives and means by which intellectuals engage publicly. The papers by Peter Dahlgren and by Patrick Baert and Josh Booth both explore the effect of online media and blogging which have become prevalent especially in the last decade. Dahlgren explores the potential effects of the "digital age" for democratic institutions and the public sphere, whereas Baert and Booth analyze in detail the changing nature of the relationship between the public intellectual and his or her publics. Whilst both contributions acknowledge that the new technologies are rapidly evolving and can be used for different purposes (which makes the future an unknown quantity), they are also keen to emphasize the genuinely democratic or dialogical potential of online media and the extent to which this potential has been incompletely realized. These two papers also draw attention to the continuities with earlier periods: for instance, Baert and Booth show how deep-seated tensions within the notion of the public intellectual, which go back as far as the late nineteenth century, reappearperhaps with renewed force-in its current manifestations. Whereas those two papers analyze the new media, Barbara Misztal pays attention to novel institutional formations, in particular think tanks. As research centers devolved from
There is no more urgent intellectual task for anyone committed to public education than resisting the enclosure of knowledge currently being advanced, all around the world, through ‘neoliberal’ higher-education policies. But if we want to combat contemporary attacks on universities, we should start by refusing the way that their the pseudo-rationalities already determine so many aspects of the intellectual and institutional regimes that we consider under threat. This short paper sketches an analysis of those aspects of the internal practice of academia that reinforce the interests at the origin of the attack on public education, and that make it possible, and indeed expected, for universities’ leaders to oversee the betrayal of their institutions’ very raison d’être. How has the physical and intellectual geography of academic professionalism prepared the ground for ‘neoliberal’ reforms? How do the varied dispensations of modern higher education work against the ideal of open, democratic universities? How would university education, especially in the humanities, still exacerbate the privatization and enclosure of knowledge in our societies, even if it remained public and accessible to everybody?