Becoming public characters, not public intellectuals

Abstract

Research into the sociology of intellectual life reveals numerous appeals to the public conscience of intellectuals. The way in which concepts such as "the public intellectual" or "intellectual life" are discussed however, conceals a long history of biased thinking about thinking as an elite endeavour with prohibitive requirements for entry. This article argues that this tendency prioritises the intellectual realm over the public sphere, and betrays any claims to public relevance unless a broader definition of what counts as intellectual life is introduced. By calling for a shift from the notion of public intellectuals to Jane Jacobs ' (1961) idea of the 'public character', a publicly-situated and affect-laden conception of intellectual life is articulated with the aim of redefining intellectual life as an ordinary, collective pursuit, rather than the prerogative of a few extraordinary individuals, as well as restoring the role of the senses in theoretical discussions on the life of the mind. The theoretical scope of this paper therefore is to cast the net wider in search for meanings of what public intellectual life is, can or may be in a larger context than "intellectualist" discussions currently allow. Full ArticleThis article sets out to discuss, critique, and repair the idea of public intellectuals as it currently informs the relevant literature in social theory. By arguing against and beyond the existing theoretical body of work on public intellectuals, an alternative conception of intellectual life is offered in the article's last section. The main argument here espoused, puts forward the view that the current interpretive framework with which social theorists approach intellectual life, reads like a rule book of exclusions which treats the life of the mind as an elite endeavour with prohibitive requirements for entry. For all its virtues and good intentions, such an understanding of intellectual life as beholden to a specific type of activity (thinking), an extraordinary kind of person (the intellectual), and a particular habitat (the world of letters), reflects a strikingly limited conception of what intellectual life is, may, or can be, a restricted sense of where intellectual life can be found, or made, and a puzzlingly stereotyped shortlist of potential candidates for the role.

Reflections from the Business School's margins: On doing engaged scholarship

“…Even though we feel like ‘outsiders’ within our academic department since our research style differs from the Business School's intelligentsia, local communities can likewise be suspicious of academics and their role in making places better. Such a challenge necessitates a shift to what Fatsis (2018) calls a ‘public character’, building on Jacobs’s (1961: 68) notion of a ‘person who is public, present and talks to lots of different people’ on the ground. This openness can also allow us to navigate people's passions and tensions in the urban sphere, through discussions that are open and inclusive (Davidson, 2020), as we have done in the hundreds of stakeholder workshops conducted across and beyond the UK.…”

Wicked problems in a post-truth political economy: a dilemma for knowledge translation

“…At a time when the views of scientific experts are regularly and publicly challenged, there is a growing need for them to explain and defend their views in the public sphere, which inevitably commits them to public discourse (Gattone, 2012 ; Lavazza and Farina, 2020 ). It is also increasingly difficult for them to assume the position of neutral observers while they are continuously undermined by populist figures and conservative media, and while the capacity for their institutions to promote the public good are diminished by neoliberal inspired corporatisation (Baltodano, 2012 ; Broom, 2011 ; Fatsis, 2018 ; Mintz, 2021 ). Ultimately, without a greater presence of qualified intellectuals in the public sphere who are willing to go toe-to-toe with the populists, we end up with what Robinson ( 2018 ) describes as the intellectuals we deserve.…”

An interventionist sociologist: Stuart Hall, public engagement and racism

“…Assessments of public intellectualism are subject to attempts to both breathe new life into it (Baert, 2015) as well as ongoing critiques. The latter, in both gentler and more forceful forms, tend see it as an outdated term, particularly in a multi-mediated landscape (Eyal & Buchholz, 2010; Fatsis, 2018). I share Eyal and Buchholz’s (2010) view that it is invoked in ways that tend to dichotomise the academic or scholarly from the real world or treat intellectuals as a specific class.…”

“…(Though this is not new and disillusionment with intellectuals has been a refrain since the beginning of the 20th century; see Kurzman & Owens, 2002). Hence, discussions around public intellectuals ‘often read like a recital of lamentations, jeremiads and dramatic tales that describe the fall, betrayal, disappearance, decline and absence of intellectuals’ (Fatsis, 2018, p. 269).…”