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.
Comments 4
andrew m. lindner — February 24, 2009
A very interesting article. I agree that people should be skeptical of "anyone making truth claims." What concerns me is not that the public doubts me as a person; I find it troubling that they doubt our very method (i.e., science). Of course, people should be critical of scientific methods, too. But much of the public isn't questioning academics on a critical and reflective level, so much as a reactionary (Colbert-style) gut level.
Many people have mourned the now long ago loss of the sophisticated "general reader" -- a citizen (college educated or not) who read widely, even on difficult subjects, and displayed an interest in civic affairs. Public intellectuals like George Orwell, J. K. Galbraith, C. Wright Mills, and Edmund Wilson had it easy, man. They had to convince readers of their own personal legitimacy, but the public accepted their model of knowing. In the age of doubt about evolution, we're fighting an uphill battle.
Don Waisanen — February 26, 2009
What a great discussion point, and you're right, it's a critical time to be arguing, reflecting, and amending our views on this issue.
I'd propose that as we look forward, we've really got to rearticulate a public vision of looking back. I've heard several critics argue that we Americans tend to have "historical amnesia"--it seems to me that intellectualism is one particularly prominent example of this trend.
One way I've been trying to communicate the value of public intellectualism to others is by addressing the good aspects of the Enlightenment. Before Horkheimer and Adorno (and a slew of postmodern theorists) straw-personed/reduced the Enlightenment to nothing but a veritable maniacal, dictatorial power play (I grant that some parts surely were, but...), there was the version of the Enlightenment that was all about breaking 1000 years of the church's hold on human knowledge. When we go back through Enlightenment readings, we find it was a highly contested period in which ideas flourished. That was a big beginning for the university system, human knowledge, and expanded cultural production. I think we've got to find good ways of re-proving the relevance of this period to everyone's life. Everything from the light-bulbs that light our rooms, to the ability to visit doctors who largely know what they're doing, to the actual choice (rather than forced decision) to vote proceeded from this amazing period, to which we all owe an intellectual and very human debt.
Consequently, given the above, I've sometimes raised the point with others that "attacking intellectualism goes against how you live your life."
jose — February 26, 2009
Great points on both posts. I'm a Dewey/pragmatic when it comes to this question of whether the public should accept "our model of knowing." While I agree with Don about the virtues of the enlightenment and modernity, I'm not sure that we can or even should go back to a rationalist/empiricist view of the world. I appreciate the postmodern critique in the same way that I appreciate Marx critique of capitalism...(i.e. cool, but now what). I guess my point is that I want to produce students who develop a reflective "way of being." If they want to reject science, I want them to understand what they are rejecting and why. Thanks for making me think more about this!
jose — February 26, 2009
BTW...would you guys be interested in doing a podcast on this subject? Andrew, maybe we could bring you in by phone?