Nick Thomas looks at public intellectualism during the 21st Century
When Zola penned J'Accuse in 1898, the vibrant political scene of late 19th century Paris could be relied on to debate his list of accusations. Newspapers and journals were the major vector for political discourse, and politically active persons not only read J'Accuse, but publicly debated its implications. This period arguably marks the beginning of the golden age of the public intellectual.
Look now at the present: technological progress in communications has led to the domination of the internet, leading to greater choice of material and less patience for complex material. Indeed, sensationalist, even dramatic, reportage by a 24-hour news culture has led to a further simplification of our major forms of political discourse.
Look now at the present: technological progress in communications has led to the domination of the internet, leading to greater choice of material and less patience for complex material. Indeed, sensationalist, even dramatic, reportage by a 24-hour news culture has led to a further simplification of our major forms of political discourse.
Public intellectuals and political campaigners must now compete with the entertainers and advertisers to draw and retain their audiences
In the words of Corey Ross, during the television and now internet age, we have witnessed the development of 'Politainment': public intellectuals and political campaigners must now compete with the entertainers and advertisers to attract and retain their audiences. Whilst Emile Zola's 'intellectualism' was acceptable, even effective, in the France of 1898, in our present his approach would probably be lost in the commotion. In the 21st century, has the public intellectual inevitably drifted towards populism in order to be heard?
Zola's great moral attack upon the French government and its unjust treatment of Alfred Dreyfus is regarded as a prime example of a public intellectual using their reputation and gravitas to in public affairs. The immediate and enduring impact of J'Accuse was huge. L'Aurore, the newspaper that printed the article, sold 300,000 copies. The next day, a list of extremely eminent intellectual figures, including Marcel Proust and Émile Durkheim, put their names to a petition demanding a retrial of Dreyfus.
In the longer term, Steve Fuller has even suggested this alliance of intellectuals uniting in moral support of justice left the republican foundations of France even stronger. It is even suggested that J'Accuse was politically crucial in propelling Georges Clemenceau, editor of L'Aurore when J'Accuse was printed, to the French Presidency during the First World War. It is clear that J'Accuse was an event of great significance, with the intellectual gravitas of Zola the writer effectively utilised within the political sphere.
What, then, is J'Accuse like as a physical document? It is a 4,500 word long article printed on six columns across the front page of L'Aurore. Reading the English translation, it is a highly emotive letter, written in the first person, and addressed to the French President Félix Faure. Zola was regarded as one of the great writers of his (or indeed any) time, and J'Accuse bears all the thrilling marks of a master author.
Yet, we are aiming to look at public intellectualism in light of the 21st century. That the article of such length and emotive in language immediately contrasts it to contemporary news articles. To compare, Paul Krugman used little over 800 words in a recent New York Times piece to make his point on US welfare cuts. Again, Zola’s personal tone and his direct ethical engagement with the Dreyfus Affair further demonstrate the disparity between J’Accuse and contemporary journalism. Zola's article, in its original lengthy format, would struggle to attract attention in 2013, and would likely do little to galvanize French society.
Zola's great moral attack upon the French government and its unjust treatment of Alfred Dreyfus is regarded as a prime example of a public intellectual using their reputation and gravitas to in public affairs. The immediate and enduring impact of J'Accuse was huge. L'Aurore, the newspaper that printed the article, sold 300,000 copies. The next day, a list of extremely eminent intellectual figures, including Marcel Proust and Émile Durkheim, put their names to a petition demanding a retrial of Dreyfus.
In the longer term, Steve Fuller has even suggested this alliance of intellectuals uniting in moral support of justice left the republican foundations of France even stronger. It is even suggested that J'Accuse was politically crucial in propelling Georges Clemenceau, editor of L'Aurore when J'Accuse was printed, to the French Presidency during the First World War. It is clear that J'Accuse was an event of great significance, with the intellectual gravitas of Zola the writer effectively utilised within the political sphere.
What, then, is J'Accuse like as a physical document? It is a 4,500 word long article printed on six columns across the front page of L'Aurore. Reading the English translation, it is a highly emotive letter, written in the first person, and addressed to the French President Félix Faure. Zola was regarded as one of the great writers of his (or indeed any) time, and J'Accuse bears all the thrilling marks of a master author.
Yet, we are aiming to look at public intellectualism in light of the 21st century. That the article of such length and emotive in language immediately contrasts it to contemporary news articles. To compare, Paul Krugman used little over 800 words in a recent New York Times piece to make his point on US welfare cuts. Again, Zola’s personal tone and his direct ethical engagement with the Dreyfus Affair further demonstrate the disparity between J’Accuse and contemporary journalism. Zola's article, in its original lengthy format, would struggle to attract attention in 2013, and would likely do little to galvanize French society.
a ‘public intellectual’ is simply something one becomes, through a complex mix of both intellectual position and public attention.
In this case, how has the approach of public intellectuals changed between 1898 and now? Crucially, have public intellectuals retained the attention of, and moral 'power' over, society whilst still retaining their intellectual credentials?
Stanley Fish's portrayal of the public intellectual is crucial here, as he states that the public intellectual is not simply an intellectual who takes interest in public concerns. Any university professor would qualify for that accolade. Fish asserts that a true public intellectual is the one who 'has the public attention'. Christopher Hitchens’ explanation in Prospect furthers this idea, by explaining that a ‘public intellectual’ is simply something one becomes, through a complex mix of both intellectual position and public attention. Crucially, we must remember that the role of the public intellectual is to 'speak truth to power' and be heard by wider society. If they are not heard, they remain mere intellectuals. If their opinions are not deeply respected, they are mere political pundits.
In 1968, at the apex of the television age, Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley were given, as ‘intellectual’ figureheads of left-liberalism and conservatism, 22 minutes of primetime ABC coverage with which to debate. The results are legendary: Buckley warned Vidal to 'quit calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face'.
Regardless of the intellectual credentials of the debate, we must appreciate that two respected public intellectuals were given a significant chunk of primetime TV to debate American politics. During this ‘golden age’ of television, some public intellectuals were able to capture the mostly highly sought after slots, maximize their visibility, and substantially increase their ability to be heard. For whatever reason, this seems very distant prospect.
Yet, were these television 'intellectuals truly great minds comparable with the Zola's and Keynes' (see 'The Economic Consequences of the Peace') of the past? Or, had these television intellectuals sacrificed some of their high intellectualism for a more populist brand, in order to draw attention in this new era of 'Politainment'?
In 1968, publicity was still a scarce commodity, broadcasting television to wide audiences was expensive and newspapers were still the dominant political forum. Crucially, the 'public intellectual' still communicated through the medium of writing, and could captivate a wide audience through the written word.
Look now to the 21st century, and it is clear that the global reach of the internet has changed everything. Political issues and figures 'trend' for moments, replaced daily by fresh issues. No single person or organisation has any control over this process. The attention span of politically active members of society is ever shortening. Will the intellectualism of figures such as Tony Judt or Noam Chomsky survive the globalisation and commotion of the internet age?
There are two 21st century thinkers I would like to draw attention to now: Richard Dawkins and Elon Musk. Both made prospects top 10 global thinkers in 2013. Both, I also believe, are examples of a 21st century public intellectual successfully 'getting heard', even if they bear little resemblance to the French intellectuals that defined this category.
Richard Dawkins is a character the bitterly divides opinion, as all contemporary figures who speak strongly on spiritual issues inevitably do. However, his intellectual credentials are certainly proven, as his position as emeritus fellow of New College Oxford demonstrates.
Dawkins' defining success for this article is his application of 21st century technologies to ensure he gets heard: Dawkins' Twitter account has 816,153 followers, his Youtube documentaries have hundreds of thousands of views and www.richarddawkins.net is sleek in design and full of content. Traditionalists might cringe at that previous sentence, but Richard Dawkins is undoubtedly 'getting heard’.
At the mention of Elon Musk, those traditionalists who were previously cringing may now completely disregard this article. Musk has won no Nobel Prizes and written no pamphlets championing left-liberalism. Yet his credentials are highly impressive: trustee of the California Institute of Technology, member of the Stanford University Engineering Advisory Board and inventor of PayPal amongst many other achievements. He is a modern entrepreneur concerned with the Common Good and is heavily involved in its advancement.
Stanley Fish's portrayal of the public intellectual is crucial here, as he states that the public intellectual is not simply an intellectual who takes interest in public concerns. Any university professor would qualify for that accolade. Fish asserts that a true public intellectual is the one who 'has the public attention'. Christopher Hitchens’ explanation in Prospect furthers this idea, by explaining that a ‘public intellectual’ is simply something one becomes, through a complex mix of both intellectual position and public attention. Crucially, we must remember that the role of the public intellectual is to 'speak truth to power' and be heard by wider society. If they are not heard, they remain mere intellectuals. If their opinions are not deeply respected, they are mere political pundits.
In 1968, at the apex of the television age, Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley were given, as ‘intellectual’ figureheads of left-liberalism and conservatism, 22 minutes of primetime ABC coverage with which to debate. The results are legendary: Buckley warned Vidal to 'quit calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face'.
Regardless of the intellectual credentials of the debate, we must appreciate that two respected public intellectuals were given a significant chunk of primetime TV to debate American politics. During this ‘golden age’ of television, some public intellectuals were able to capture the mostly highly sought after slots, maximize their visibility, and substantially increase their ability to be heard. For whatever reason, this seems very distant prospect.
Yet, were these television 'intellectuals truly great minds comparable with the Zola's and Keynes' (see 'The Economic Consequences of the Peace') of the past? Or, had these television intellectuals sacrificed some of their high intellectualism for a more populist brand, in order to draw attention in this new era of 'Politainment'?
In 1968, publicity was still a scarce commodity, broadcasting television to wide audiences was expensive and newspapers were still the dominant political forum. Crucially, the 'public intellectual' still communicated through the medium of writing, and could captivate a wide audience through the written word.
Look now to the 21st century, and it is clear that the global reach of the internet has changed everything. Political issues and figures 'trend' for moments, replaced daily by fresh issues. No single person or organisation has any control over this process. The attention span of politically active members of society is ever shortening. Will the intellectualism of figures such as Tony Judt or Noam Chomsky survive the globalisation and commotion of the internet age?
There are two 21st century thinkers I would like to draw attention to now: Richard Dawkins and Elon Musk. Both made prospects top 10 global thinkers in 2013. Both, I also believe, are examples of a 21st century public intellectual successfully 'getting heard', even if they bear little resemblance to the French intellectuals that defined this category.
Richard Dawkins is a character the bitterly divides opinion, as all contemporary figures who speak strongly on spiritual issues inevitably do. However, his intellectual credentials are certainly proven, as his position as emeritus fellow of New College Oxford demonstrates.
Dawkins' defining success for this article is his application of 21st century technologies to ensure he gets heard: Dawkins' Twitter account has 816,153 followers, his Youtube documentaries have hundreds of thousands of views and www.richarddawkins.net is sleek in design and full of content. Traditionalists might cringe at that previous sentence, but Richard Dawkins is undoubtedly 'getting heard’.
At the mention of Elon Musk, those traditionalists who were previously cringing may now completely disregard this article. Musk has won no Nobel Prizes and written no pamphlets championing left-liberalism. Yet his credentials are highly impressive: trustee of the California Institute of Technology, member of the Stanford University Engineering Advisory Board and inventor of PayPal amongst many other achievements. He is a modern entrepreneur concerned with the Common Good and is heavily involved in its advancement.
the great intellectuals of the internet age will be those who master communicating with their audience online
Most importantly for us, Elon Musk undoubtedly gets heard, although his most successful efforts at publicity are not traditionally intellectual. Footage of his SpaceX designs successfully operating is hugely popular. On the controversial but immensely popular website reddit.com, Musk has achieved a devoted and powerful following.
I understand that many will see my examples here as a brutal devaluation of intellectualism, particularly with my inclusion of Musk. Yet, as the great intellectuals of the print age were those who were masters of the printed word, is it not possible that the great intellectuals of the internet age will be those who master communicating with their audience online? When Zola penned J'Accuse, 300,000 copies of L'Aurore were sold, and he helped produce a wider public reaction within the French nation. Arguably, a future Zola will have not even 4,500 characters with which to reach his audience, and may be on film rather than on paper. Yet the public intellectuals of the 21st century must adapt their techniques to communicate with their audience. They must do so without sacrificing the intellectual characteristics that differentiates them from an increasingly sensationalist press. Otherwise they will ultimately fail in their chief responsibility, in ‘speaking truth to power’ in the quest for justice.
I understand that many will see my examples here as a brutal devaluation of intellectualism, particularly with my inclusion of Musk. Yet, as the great intellectuals of the print age were those who were masters of the printed word, is it not possible that the great intellectuals of the internet age will be those who master communicating with their audience online? When Zola penned J'Accuse, 300,000 copies of L'Aurore were sold, and he helped produce a wider public reaction within the French nation. Arguably, a future Zola will have not even 4,500 characters with which to reach his audience, and may be on film rather than on paper. Yet the public intellectuals of the 21st century must adapt their techniques to communicate with their audience. They must do so without sacrificing the intellectual characteristics that differentiates them from an increasingly sensationalist press. Otherwise they will ultimately fail in their chief responsibility, in ‘speaking truth to power’ in the quest for justice.