The Public Intellectual

After reading an article from the Nation, The Future of the Public Intellectual, we debated the concept of the public intellectual in class. The debate made me question whether or not public intellectuals exist and if they do, how long they will continue to exist?

Now here is what I think: Intellectuals exist. Knowledge is available by the click of mouse. There are many people out there who are educated. They have studied through universities, or read on their own time. Yet they are not always in the public. Case in point: professors. John Donatich, in the article, also makes the point that “scholars and thinkers have retreated to the academy.”

Now there are also public figures that are not intellectuals. Take public figure Fukuyama who regularly contradicts himself in arguments. Samuel P. Huntington argues that Islam is the root of conflict in the post Cold War era: a blatantly racist, ethnocentric and prejudice theory.

And how does one discern between simply a public figure and an intellectual. Well, one would consult an intellectual, yet if the intellectual were not a public figure how would one know he or she is an intellectual. And if the figure were in the public eye, how would one know he or she is an intellectual?

Specifically, when a politician argues against an academic for having “extreme” views, which should the public follow? And if the public follows the politician, and a particular view becomes mainstream, does it become true? Does the academic’s view indeed become something “extreme”?

The circular logic makes me dizzy. If wordsmiths can validate any point, then it seems the public intellectual is already dead. How does one come to any conclusions when knowledge itself is subject to bias?