“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security” – Declaration of Independence
July 4, 1776, witnessed perhaps the first and greatest example of how public intellectuals have shaped the world at present. Never before, nor arguably since, have a collection of as great a minds as those who wrote the Declaration of Independence joined together to create a document that has formed the basis of politics across the globe. The authors of the Declaration reflected and incited the violent and revolutionary seams of the New English public, putting into words and political practice the necessary steps to create a legitimate, independent nation.
The American Revolution sparked the dawn of a new age of revolution and rebellion. It took only thirteen years for spirit of revolution to be unleashed against the French aristocracy, the very same people who had supported the Americans in their endeavour against the British Empire. Interred as a hero in 1794, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s political philosophy allowed the thoughts and discontent of the French people to be channelled into a slick and workable stream against the despotism of the French monarchy.
The American Revolution sparked the dawn of a new age of revolution and rebellion. It took only thirteen years for spirit of revolution to be unleashed against the French aristocracy, the very same people who had supported the Americans in their endeavour against the British Empire. Interred as a hero in 1794, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s political philosophy allowed the thoughts and discontent of the French people to be channelled into a slick and workable stream against the despotism of the French monarchy.
They provided the intellectual and mental manpower that was able to provide the basic tenants of popular rhetoric
Public intellectuals, therefore, were a factor that cannot be rendered negligible during the revolutions of history. They provided the intellectual and mental manpower that was able to provide the basic tenants of popular rhetoric. Freedom, equality, and a government formed of the people, provide the bases of a discourse that was more often than not disseminated from intellectual philosophers.
Additionally, public intellectuals enjoyed being part of an arguably well-defined group before the twentieth century. There were clear expectations that contemporary and retrospective critics would place on intellectuals – a high level of education, knowledge of classical works, production of literature in the form of pamphlets, treatise, or theses. Difficulties arise, however, with progression into the modern era. The public intellectuals of yesteryear set down a series of codes which, with the exception of Marx and his communist followers, have been little challenged, but rather taken as sacred societal rules. The public intellectual has lost its elite separation from the masses, but has it been lost altogether?
The medium of the public intellectual has changed dramatically from simply the written word. The arts have provided a channel through which public intellectuals are able to express opinions beyond through forms other than literature. Music, theatre, and film are three particular outlets through which the public intellectual can disseminate their views and ideologies.
Additionally, public intellectuals enjoyed being part of an arguably well-defined group before the twentieth century. There were clear expectations that contemporary and retrospective critics would place on intellectuals – a high level of education, knowledge of classical works, production of literature in the form of pamphlets, treatise, or theses. Difficulties arise, however, with progression into the modern era. The public intellectuals of yesteryear set down a series of codes which, with the exception of Marx and his communist followers, have been little challenged, but rather taken as sacred societal rules. The public intellectual has lost its elite separation from the masses, but has it been lost altogether?
The medium of the public intellectual has changed dramatically from simply the written word. The arts have provided a channel through which public intellectuals are able to express opinions beyond through forms other than literature. Music, theatre, and film are three particular outlets through which the public intellectual can disseminate their views and ideologies.
public intellectuals have found their role shaped increasingly by the largest modern medium of all: the internet
Such mediums, however, are no longer the paradigms in which public intellectualism solely lies. Two mighty new platforms have emerged, one literal, one metaphysical. The increased enshrinement of rights has resulted in the ability for public intellectuals to stand face to face not only with the masses with whom they affiliate, but equally in eye sight and ear shot of those they discuss. Whilst the concept of public speaking and rallies has existed as far back as the facts and fiction of Herodotus, it was never capable of so freely reaching the public as it was in the late nineteenth century onwards. Moreover, public intellectuals have found their role shaped increasingly by the largest modern medium of all: the internet.
The “public intellectual” is, therefore, a hugely shifting concept. The public intellectuals of the sixteenth century would likely have not recognised those of the twenty-first century. Some of the greatest and most famous public figures of modern history – Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi – men and women who not only wrote powerfully on society but were acting powerfully within society, are far removed from the men (as it was) who wrote four hundred years before. There were no university tenures behind them, they were not renowned scholars in their field, nor did they run in powerful circles.
The “public intellectual” is, therefore, a hugely shifting concept. The public intellectuals of the sixteenth century would likely have not recognised those of the twenty-first century. Some of the greatest and most famous public figures of modern history – Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi, Aung San Suu Kyi – men and women who not only wrote powerfully on society but were acting powerfully within society, are far removed from the men (as it was) who wrote four hundred years before. There were no university tenures behind them, they were not renowned scholars in their field, nor did they run in powerful circles.
Edward Said stated a “real or ‘true’ intellectual is, therefore, always an outsider, living in self-imposed exile, and on the margins of society”
Some might question whether such figures qualify as public intellectuals, emphasising the latter word. Philosopher and intellectual Edward Said stated a “real or ‘true’ intellectual is, therefore, always an outsider, living in self-imposed exile, and on the margins of society”. Yet what once might have been true, circa monastic scholars locked in isolated libraries, has at times been violently upheaved. The public intellectual that focussed on ideologies has changed into one focussed on practicalities.
Ultimately, this shift has resulted in a modern history having a renewed reliance on public intellectuals. The Enlightenment gave ideas of peace, prosperity, economic liberality, and human rights. Later intellectuals helped give fuel to the fire of revolution, helped give goals and shape incentives upon which hungry peasants could feed their desire for change. Yet it has become the feat of the modern intellectuals to add a practicality to their work, to take ideologies and place them, into a viable and workable system.
Two key proponents whose intellectualism shaped history were Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler – two individuals whose public intellectualism offered what they perceived to be workable solutions, by which their ideologies could be achieved. It seems so simple now, but it is intriguing that all the public intellectuals listed earlier are known as much for the ideologies as their practical solutions. Ghandi, Suu Kyi, King – peaceful protest, Malcolm X – violence, black power. Public intellectuals have shifted their emphasis from the rights to which so much of the world are already aware, towards the issues of how such liberties are to be obtained. Did not King use the Declaration of Independence as the basis of his belief that “all men are created equal”?
Despite the changing nature of public intellectuals, it is still difficult to discern their role in perhaps the most important moments of history: revolution. The “Arab Spring”, a series of uprisings and revolutions across North Africa and the Middle East, provide rich testing grounds for both the role of public intellectuals and the nature of revolution in the twenty-first century.
Initial study of the role of intellectuals in the Arab Spring appears relatively critical. Syrian poet Ali Ahmad Said Esber, known more succinctly by his pseudonym Adonis, wrote in June 2011 an open letter to Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president. Perhaps once considered a form of confrontation that would help precipitate revolution, it instead disappointed Syrians in its lack lustre criticism. The letter includes the “pre-requisites for stable democratic systems” and “what a stable government needs”. Fundamentally, Adonis offers ideological advice, which rests upon notions that have been in full force in intellectual circles for hundreds of years (in some regions, thousands). His assertion “democracy was unknown to modern Arab States, as it was historically unknown in Arabic culture”, effectively admits that the bases of democracy are now well within the Arab sphere of knowledge.
Ultimately, this shift has resulted in a modern history having a renewed reliance on public intellectuals. The Enlightenment gave ideas of peace, prosperity, economic liberality, and human rights. Later intellectuals helped give fuel to the fire of revolution, helped give goals and shape incentives upon which hungry peasants could feed their desire for change. Yet it has become the feat of the modern intellectuals to add a practicality to their work, to take ideologies and place them, into a viable and workable system.
Two key proponents whose intellectualism shaped history were Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler – two individuals whose public intellectualism offered what they perceived to be workable solutions, by which their ideologies could be achieved. It seems so simple now, but it is intriguing that all the public intellectuals listed earlier are known as much for the ideologies as their practical solutions. Ghandi, Suu Kyi, King – peaceful protest, Malcolm X – violence, black power. Public intellectuals have shifted their emphasis from the rights to which so much of the world are already aware, towards the issues of how such liberties are to be obtained. Did not King use the Declaration of Independence as the basis of his belief that “all men are created equal”?
Despite the changing nature of public intellectuals, it is still difficult to discern their role in perhaps the most important moments of history: revolution. The “Arab Spring”, a series of uprisings and revolutions across North Africa and the Middle East, provide rich testing grounds for both the role of public intellectuals and the nature of revolution in the twenty-first century.
Initial study of the role of intellectuals in the Arab Spring appears relatively critical. Syrian poet Ali Ahmad Said Esber, known more succinctly by his pseudonym Adonis, wrote in June 2011 an open letter to Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president. Perhaps once considered a form of confrontation that would help precipitate revolution, it instead disappointed Syrians in its lack lustre criticism. The letter includes the “pre-requisites for stable democratic systems” and “what a stable government needs”. Fundamentally, Adonis offers ideological advice, which rests upon notions that have been in full force in intellectual circles for hundreds of years (in some regions, thousands). His assertion “democracy was unknown to modern Arab States, as it was historically unknown in Arabic culture”, effectively admits that the bases of democracy are now well within the Arab sphere of knowledge.
The Arab Spring was instead the work of the everyman – young male and female protestors who had until such a point been part of an anonymous mass
Said, his distance from Syria – being in exile in France – and his ideological stance hark to public intellectuals of old, whose notions of democracy and government would have been change enough to excite. He does not, conversely, offer a means by which this can be achieved. Only latterly has he expressed a wish for non-violence, in retaliation to the ensuing civil war and rising death toll. Adonis no longer fits the contemporary public intellectual, showing few signs of the former word. His lack of contact with the society, and his ideological approach, are in fact hindrances to such a title, as opposed to staples.
The Arab Spring was instead the work of the everyman – young male and female protestors who had until such a point been part of an anonymous mass. This is typified extravagantly by the Facebook campaign led by Wael Ghonim, a Google marketing executive, in the early stages of the Egyptian uprising. After learning of the death of Khaled Mohamed Said, a 28 year old beaten to death by Egyptian police, he created the Facebook page “Kullena Khaled Said” – “We Are All Khaled Said”. The Facebook page received enormous interest, earning over two hundred and fifty thousand likes, and helped spread not only the news of the police’s brutal methods, but also that change was required.
The Arab Spring was instead the work of the everyman – young male and female protestors who had until such a point been part of an anonymous mass. This is typified extravagantly by the Facebook campaign led by Wael Ghonim, a Google marketing executive, in the early stages of the Egyptian uprising. After learning of the death of Khaled Mohamed Said, a 28 year old beaten to death by Egyptian police, he created the Facebook page “Kullena Khaled Said” – “We Are All Khaled Said”. The Facebook page received enormous interest, earning over two hundred and fifty thousand likes, and helped spread not only the news of the police’s brutal methods, but also that change was required.
no longer must individuals be preceded by their qualifications and formal degree titles
Whilst Ghomin might not be considered an “intellectual” in the academic sense of the term, there is no denying that he embodies the “public” persona required. His campaign represents the changing nature of the public intellectual – no longer must individuals be preceded by their qualifications and formal degree titles. The public intellectual has fast moved from people who can create for themselves an isolated niche from which to criticise, towards those who speak, philosophise and tap into the emotions of their society.
The Arab Spring in its essence was a revolution led by the young, led not out of intellectual principle but human principle. They believe that they deserve a say in society’s decisions, that they should not continue to live in fear that they could be whisked away by police and government under almost any pretence. They are, in many ways, reacting as the original French intellectuals reacted over the Dreyfus Affair; they are reacting to injustice. The “public intellectual”, therefore, must change its definition over time, or else be totally obsolete to the issues affecting the globe. Yet fundamentally, they are they basis of our revolutions. They provided the ideologies upon which people would and still do fight and die, and increasingly they provide the practicalities of such. Public intellectuals do still have a place within society, but it must be within society. Change can no longer come from theoretical debates in the privy chamber, but rather from intellectuals whose talent lies in their ability to speak for the people and with the people.
The Arab Spring in its essence was a revolution led by the young, led not out of intellectual principle but human principle. They believe that they deserve a say in society’s decisions, that they should not continue to live in fear that they could be whisked away by police and government under almost any pretence. They are, in many ways, reacting as the original French intellectuals reacted over the Dreyfus Affair; they are reacting to injustice. The “public intellectual”, therefore, must change its definition over time, or else be totally obsolete to the issues affecting the globe. Yet fundamentally, they are they basis of our revolutions. They provided the ideologies upon which people would and still do fight and die, and increasingly they provide the practicalities of such. Public intellectuals do still have a place within society, but it must be within society. Change can no longer come from theoretical debates in the privy chamber, but rather from intellectuals whose talent lies in their ability to speak for the people and with the people.