The popularization of academic discourse in recent years has caused much debate about how to disseminate knowledge to the public without sacrificing a dedicated emphasis on research. Tenure systems within universities and academic associations have generally disparaged the involvement of academics in fictional writing, activist media ventures, popular journalism or corporate assignments. Nevertheless, there are still many notable scholars who have either chosen or allowed themselves to become popularizers. This volume is an attempt to relate and analyze the challenges which popular work presents to the academy and to try and tease out the intellectual costs and benefits of being a “public intellectual.” Inevitably the benefits, more so than the costs are often financially measurable as well. This raises important questions of social responsibility and professional ethics, which can cloud judgement on either side of the divide. In the words of Damrosch (1995), “the marketplace of ideas is indeed a market.”[i]
Theories exploring any form of human endeavor generally begin with
conceptualizing the position of individuals on the one hand and communities on
the other -- the time-tested tension between singularity and plurality. This
tension is perhaps inherent in human societies because of ostensibly
conflicting needs to have our own self represented while also exerting an
inexorable tendency to associate with other human beings -- and to exercise
authority. Generically, the former defines the private, or institutionally
circumspect, end of the spectrum of human existence, while the latter
constitutes the public, or institutionally indeterminate, domain. Freedom, in both its positive and negative
connotations,[ii] appears to
be the fulcrum over which we can balance public and non-public spheres of
existence.
At another level, the debate on popular academics reflects the
essential tension between analysis and synthesis. This tension has been
phrased in many ways – intensive versus extensive; reductionist versus
holistic; and most recently as disciplinary versus interdisciplinary. Our aim is to approach this relatively intractable topic at various
levels.
In Part 1, we present a
macroscopic view of the phenomenon that is being termed “popular academics.”
Implicit in this term is a belief that academia generally prefers to distance
itself from the public eye, and that popularizers are currently an exception
rather than the norm. However, the aim here is not to necessarily disparage
academic aloofness and applaud all public intellectuals. While in the past, the
distancing of intellectuals from the public has been a result of class
differentiation and elitism, this is often not the case in contemporary
establishments. Indeed, there may be
very worthwhile reasons for not getting too involved in popular endeavors.
Instead of presenting a unified
argument or a couplet of for-and-against responses, Part 1 aims is to survey
the conceptual quandaries and the professional dilemmas which arise in trying
to popularize academic discourse. We present disciplinary perspectives from the
most categorizeable academic trinity: the social sciences, the natural sciences
and humanities respectively. For each segment there is a conceptual chapter
which surveys the literature and presents various dimensions of popular
activity in that area. This is coupled with a chapter that analyses the work of
a notable public intellectual in that area.
In the first chapter Toby Huff lays out the groundwork for discussing
this topic from a sociological perspective. The social sciences are a “natural”
starting point for our discussion since the phenomenon of public
intellectualism is a manifestation of societal needs and aspirations.
Contemporary discussions of popular academics must also recognize the supreme
appeal of the electronic media and their critical role in revolutionizing the
role of the public intellectual. Therefore this chapter is coupled with a
chapter about a doyen of popular
academic discourse, and among the first sociologists to use the electronic
media as tool and a subject of study. Marshall McLuhan was among the first
intellectuals to address the impact of the electronic media on academic
discourse. His love-hate relationship with the media and how the academic
community reacted to his involvement in media ventures are analyzed with some
reverence by James Morrison. McLuhan was also a firm forecaster of academic
fortunes. This chapter thus sets the stage, both chronologically and spatially,
for the enactment of the professional lives of other public intellectuals.
We next move to the natural sciences with a detailed exposition of both
non-fictional and fictional literature in the natural sciences. The natural
sciences have come to embody a kind of credibility touchstone for academic
knowledge in general. Hence the delineation of non-fiction and fiction within
natural scientific discourse is in order. Indeed the genre of science fiction
has assumed an important place in popular literature on its own. This chapter
is coupled with the life of natural scientist who traversed both non-fictional
and fictional paths with distinctive aplomb. The life of Carl Sagan is perhaps
emblematic of the challenges which contemporary popularizers must face if they
are affiliated with an academic institution. Sagan’s accomplishments as a
professional academic and also his success as a popularizer of science
extraordinaire deserve special attention. How many academic institutions first
dismissed him as a grandstander and then later embraced him as a messiah of
science reflects the changing attitudes of the academy. Sagan’s story also
reveals how popular writings and media ventures are considered an appropriate
icing on a cake rather than the cake itself. In other words, popular writings
are often given more respect or at least indifference among intellectuals once
a researcher has established a reputation of doing “pure” research. In my
conversations with notable public intellectuals such as E.O. Wilson and S.J.
Gould, I have been struck by the fact that they became popular writers after
securing tenure through technical writings.
This leads us to explore yet another important dimension of the
popularizer’s dilemma. Once recognition is achieved in one field, what are the
responsibilities of the intellectual to use the acquired fame and respect to
advance an understanding (or misunderstanding) of other unrelated issues and to
become a commentator on the human condition. This propensity is specially
prevalent in the humanities and perhaps most well-suited in this area as well.
Carol Flynn offers us a provocative view of how fame -- or infamy -- can be
achieved within the humanities and its consequences for the academy. This
chapter is coupled with Robert Barsky’s
chapter about Noam Chomsky, who
is often used as an example of how celebrity status in one field and an
academic cache can be used in an activist mode by intellectuals. This chapter
highlights Chomsky’s struggles and the political repercussions of being
associated with a particular opinion, as exemplified by the Faurisson affair.
The episode also reveals some of the differences in how public intellectuals
are perceived on either side of the Atlantic.
It may be useful for the reader to keep in mind that intellectual
credentials for the purposes of this volume are by no means confined to a
university. Nevertheless, there has been a tremendous appropriation of academic
capital by institutions and freelance academics are an increasingly rare breed.
Referring to Russell Jacoby’s book The
Last Intellectuals, an editorial in the Wilson
Quarterly (Spring, 1999) pointed out that many would-be public
intellectuals, in the mold of Lewis Mumford or Edmund Wilson, are “lost in
universities, caught in the tender trap of tenure, overspecialization and
comfortable irrelevance.” Thus inexorably our discussions will tend to revolve
around university settings.
The recognition of popular academics as a discernible phenomenon is
becoming increasingly visible. UNESCO has annually awarded the Kalinga Prize
for the popularization of science since 1952 (some contributors to this volume
are recipients of the award).[iii]
The acceptance of popular academics is perhaps most potently exemplified by a
new doctoral program at the Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton which is
offering a Ph.D. for “public intellectuals.” The establishment of this program
may also signal a profound change in how academic qualifications are perceived.
A doctorate has traditionally been a research degree to be used primarily for
procuring professorial appointments. A doctoral program for public
intellectuals by this measure may almost seem an oxymoron. Dr. Teresa Brennan,
who developed the curriculum for the program has articulated its objectives as
follows:
"The Latin word docere originally meant not simply to teach, but to lead. This dual meaning underpins this Ph.D. program. It is for those who want to change the social order as well as understand it. The pursuit of higher education can provide the space to identify that thing or area in which one excels, but this space is more and more restricted by the pressure of finding one’s own niche in the academic market. This space is also congested, because people who would once have gone into public life no longer do: the academy now seems a more attractive choice than a public life in which persecution by the less thoughtful media is all too common. Now, it takes a great deal of courage to sustain any visionary public ideals. The loss to public well-being of those who once would have been public intellectuals is great. We propose to try and return to public life some of its intellectual ballast by instituting a degree program which is precisely not geared to the specialized market and which leaves space to think.”[iv]
The information revolution has perhaps made it a necessity, alongside
the global aspirations for a well-educated public. Such developments are
gratifying to us insofar that they make the publication of this book timely.
Many questions remain unanswered about the motivation and efficacy of
popular academic communication. Bruce Lewenstein, editor of the journal Public Understanding and a professor of journalism at Cornell,
recently stated in an interview for The
Economist (May 9, 1998) that when he asks students to review a popular
science book, it is clear from their reviews that even those with a degree in a
science subject often don’t understand it. The article goes on to state that
popular publications often give “the authors the credibility to appear on
television or in the newspapers in order to explain the big, news-making issues
to the wider public.” This raises the important issue of whether public
intellectuals are in fact becoming “publicity intellectuals.” There are indeed
some scholars who are actively courting the media, often at the cost of
neglecting their teaching obligations. How should universities, students and
the public at large confront such issues?
In Part 2 we are graced with the personal perspectives of some notable popularizers who share their trials and triumphs along the way. David Suzuki has established himself as a well-respected geneticist in his own right, while rising to fame as the host of the award-winning television series The Nature of Things. Suzuki’s story reveals an almost accidental inclination towards popularization. On the other hand Alan Chartock’s story reveals a much more concerted attempt to institutionally communicate to the public at large by establishing a network of radio stations alongside his academic job. These personal narratives reveal some of the particular characteristics which popularizers often possess and may be essential prerequisites for success in the eyes of the public.
The chapters by Gerald Early and Margaret Mead highlight the significance of broader societal issues in the rise of public intellectuals. Gerald Early discusses how the politics of race relations figure prominently in academic discourse and how they have influenced his own work and that of other notable African-American intellectuals. The development of Africana as an area of great public interest, and how the evolution of American culture is influenced by this field is often not underappreciated. As the process of racial healing continues, not only across America but, in the post-colonial era more generally, Early’s comments are particularly prescient.
The compilation of Margaret Mead’s narrative was undertaken particularly for two reasons. First, Mead was a unique public intellectual who spanned media, subjects, institutions and peoples in her intellectual activity and was active at a time when human society was truly at the most dynamic stage of technological development and societal emancipation. Second, Mead’s story brings out the unique challenges which women academics have faced in scaling the ivory tower. Indeed, in the list of UNESCO’s Kalinga Prizes for the popularization of science since 1952, there are only 3 women thus far (Mead being the first woman to receive the prize in 1970). Therefore, even though she is not among us, and her academic work has been challenged time and again, her presence as a public intellectual extraordinaire remains unimpeachable in the halls of academe.
In the final chapter William Calvin, inductively uses the example of an important interdisciplinary field -- cognitive neuroscience and presents a “niche theory” for how academic discourse may find a public audience. As a prominent public intellectual himself, Calvin acts as synthesizer of narratives and his chapter concludes with a series of quotations which is perhaps analogous to a series of credits at the end of a movie.
Finally,
the epilogue presents the encapsulation of some critical themes in this volume
through the words of two public intellectuals at MIT, Alan Lightman and Steven
Pinker, who participated in a colloquium to discuss the role of the public
intellectual in the academy and in society.
The Ivory Tower is certainly becoming less isolated
and the ubiquitous allure of the popular media has the potential to dazzle as
well as truly enlighten society. How the academic community at large and
individual academics in particular decide to communicate and inform the public,
and to what extent they professionalize their discourse will have long-term
implications for society in general. Knowledge has been the most indispensable
capital for human civilization and this book is fundamentally about exploring ways
of optimally managing knowledge for individuals and for society. The chapters
and the narrative may at times be discursive and are by necessity eclectic in
their coverage and approach. However, we hope that in the end this volume will
provide broadly applicable insights about the academy and will be of interest
to those who are within, and those who are “outside” the academy. Our ultimate
aim is to help bring about a sense of collective ownership of human learning –
so we come to appreciate the academy as our
ivory tower.
[i] Damrosch, A. (1995). We Scholars. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.
[ii] To use Isaiah Berlin’s typology from his Four Essays on Liberty.
[iii] The Kalinga Prize was endowed by Mr. B Patnaik from the state of Orissa in India in 1952. The
ancient name of Orissa was Kalinga. The four-member jury plus Director General represent various
continents. Every member nation of UNESCO may nominate one candidate every year. Normally, one prize
is awarded every year; exceptionally the prize is split ex aequo or not awarded at all.
The prize consists of the Diploma and silver medal of Albert Eistein or Niels Bohr plus the sum of 1,000
British pounds. The Prize is given to the laureate[s] in Delhi, India in the year following the announcement
of the award.
[iv] From the Web site of the Public Intellectuals Program. http://www.publicintellectuals.fau.edu/main2.htm Accessed January, 2000.