intellectuals

Norman Birnbaum has an enjoyable piece in The Nation about the publication of The Politics of Truth: Selected Writings of C. Wright Mills a collection of Mills vast writings, edited by John Summers.  I was struck by one particular passage in Birnbaum’s account of Mill’s view of the role of the intellectual in promoting societal transformation.

the new bearers of a project of social transformation were the intellectual vanguard. Allowed by society to think, but told not to think too much, they resented being denied autonomy–or ascribed the role of court jesters. In the American ’50s, Mills and others across the political spectrum were described not as social thinkers but as social critics. The implication was that the major structures of society would remain intact, no matter what was said.

While Mills might have been too sanguine about the prospects of a revolution by intellectuals (see Paris 1968), these words struck me, particularly combined with the discussion we’ve been having here about Jon Stewart’s interview with Jim Cramer on the Daily Show.   it seems that we have an obligation to do more, but we hide behind a cloak of scientific objectivity.  Others have written more eloquently than me about the rationalization of the academy, and I’m just as squeamish as the next guy about activist academics, but it seems to me there is a third way.  We should be producting knowledge that is relevant, critical, and empirical at the same time.  But more importantly, we should be more intentional about promoting that knowledge rather than allowing others to do so.

I recomment people read Harold Wilensky’s article in Contexts (I don’t just blog for the company, I”m also a client!) about the impediments to making one’s research policy relevant and the role that institutional structure plays in that process.  Props to ASA for trying to move in that direction.  In my discipline I think there exists a nagging belief that policy relevance means sacrificing empirical purity. I think I can have my empirical cake and eat policy relevance too (I’ve never understood what that expression means).

Andrew DelBanco has a thought provoking article in the Chronicle of Higher Education about the possible renewal of the academic in public discourse as a result of the Obama election.  He summarizes the arguments Richard Hofstadter lays out in Anti-Intellectualism in American Life to explain why Americans periodically reject “eggheads” in public discourse.  But Just when you think he’s going to go into the traditional paean to the value of the academic, he doesn’t go out like that!

Rather than telling ourselves a back-and-forth tale of virtue versus vigilantism, academics concerned with the life of the mind generally, and the academic humanities in particular, might be better served by looking inward and asking what we can do to earn public trust.

Word!

We as academics need to engage in a broader discussion about how we should engage in public life before we proclaim our role as a birthright.  There is nothing wrong with a society that is reflexively mis-trusting of anyone making truth claims.  DelBanco rightly points out the inherent hypocrisy in much of the academy:

Academics certainly talk a lot about social justice, but how credible are we when, for instance, our wealthiest and most prestigious universities admit such a minuscule percentage of students (often fewer than 10 percent) from low-income families?

Our political culture is founded on a healthy skepticism of authority.  Rather than resist this role for the public or see ourselves as “society’s teachers,” we should embrace it as a challenge.

I hope and demand for my students that they see me as the authority figure in the classroom with skepticism and mis-trust.  They should be asking themselves “what am I getting out of this?”  I don’t think my jog is to challenge this question, but rather I think my job is to broaden out what our students mean by the question.  I want my students to reconsider the “what,” “I,” “getting,” and “this” part of that question.

I am particularly fond of this part of DelBanco’s article where he recounts a former student’s assessment of what he was taught in DelBanco’s courses:

“What you say about preparation for modern life and citizenship and all that is fine, but you miss the main point.” With some trepidation I asked what he meant. “What the core really taught me,” he replied, “is how to enjoy life.”

I think my public role is to help develop thinking, feeling human beings, and to be developed by the experience at the same time. I’m not sure that it happening all the time, but that’s the goal.