Public Intellectual Part II: Technology and the Renaissance

In Part I of my series on the public intellectual, I talked about how public intellectuals are still thriving in our society thanks to democracy and religion. In this post, I will focus on how the internet has acted as a catalyst in the development of the public intellectual, as well as how the PI has been crucial in the development of such innovations .

Communicational innovations have been especially beneficial tools for the spread of public intellectuals, but more importantly, it has further enabled the effortless dissemination of their ideas. In turn, the PI's support and use of has been integral in the evolution of such creations. A striking resemblance can be made between Gutenberg's printing press and the current phenomenon of the internet.

The most glaring resemblance is the fact that both the printing press and the internet enabled sharing of information never before imagined. Similarly, both inventions caused massive effects outside of their original intention. Paradigms were not shifted - they were completely changed. James A. Dewar notes the many benefits of the printing press, noting,

“The printing press has been implicated in the Reformation, the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution, all of which had profound effects on their eras; similarly profound changes may already be underway in the information age.”

Dewar also draws a similarity between the press and networked computing, arguing, “The future of the information age will be dominated by unintended consequences” and “It will be decades before we see the full effects of the information age.” Certainly many consequences will go unforeseen(as they often do with inventions of such magnitudes), though a lengthy realization may not be as likely. Where 150 years ago, it could take months to reach someone across the country, people can now instantly interact on a global scale. And, of course, almost everyone has a computer.

These tools are byproducts coming from a need to learn more about our universe – that undying intellectual drive to know. In other words, these are inventions to help inventors. The underlying idea is information. By sharing and spreading information, people can know more, and more people can know more. We are living in an age where information is power - where the most informed and the most amount of informed people gain new relevances. It is the Information Age, and ubiquity is not a dream, but a very realistic goal.

Still, the internet's importance does not rely solely on the fact that the information is out there, but also the ease of access and dissemination on a personal level. To find virtually information on any topic, all one needs to know is what they are looking for and google's URL. Type in “the basics of quantum computing” and you'll get 170,000 results in 0.22 seconds – perhaps there may be a few intellectuals in that bunch.

If you happen to be looking for more narrowed results, or if you are such an intellectual that your esoteric criteria is too obscure, there is a plethora of places to look. Many sites offer unique and user-customizable search filtering. The multitude of scholarly sites typically post journals, articles, interviews, and other academic work of the highest caliber. Though some come at an expense, their availability is the crucial point.

Wikipedia has replaced the encyclopedia as a common store of knowledge and reference. Because of it's open source philosophy where the community submits and moderates content, accuracy is ensured to a percentile surpassing a printed encyclopedia and rivaling current online ones. The community of Public Intellectuals is out there, and they are very aware of each other. Wikipedia is not the only way that the current PI collaborates.

The blogosphere is the new global agora. A blog serves as a personal statement of identity, by sharing one's ideas with others in hopes of finding people with similar interests or relevant criticisms. Even the simplest of blogs can give insight to an outsider. The evolution has gone from the newspaper article to the blog address, only you don't have to be hired to write anymore. Furthermore, forums and discussion groups are even less formal, but just as common ways of sharing ideas, allowing users to post and comment on various topics.

The global aspect of the internet is truly unique. Never before have people been able to easily communicate regardless of location. Forget about the phone – email, instant messaging, video chat, and file sharing allow people to interact and share ideas instantly across various mediums. Teachers can teach classes with audio and visual tools, almost creating a completely virtual classroom environment. The fast transmission of information allows for quicker evolution of ideas. Physicist Paul Ginsparg said:

"The communication of research results occurs on a dramatically accelerated timescale... In addition, researchers who might not ordinarily communicate with one another can quickly set up a virtual meeting ground, and ultimately disband if things do not pan out, all with infinitely greater ease and flexibility than is provided by current publication media." Maybe telepathy isn't so far away...

It's about time for the first global renaissance. The internet and open source movement resemble the characteristic massive intellectual effort and rejuvenation of the arts that occurred in Italy around 400 years ago. People are getting smarter than ever, becoming experts in multiple areas. Intellectuals are hard to miss with so many people online. Countless coders and programmers have developed the open source movement, in hopes of most adequately refining man's greatest tool. The world's large network of computers has music and film are everywhere, as artists broaden their scope just by browsing online, and fans discover an exponentially larger selection than they are used to. And everything is done instantly! Just the idea of this type of sharing seems good a priori. If the net stays neutral, and all people are granted access, the scale of advancement mankind will achieve in the next 50 years alone will be unprecedented.

Public Intellectual Part I: Democracy and Religion

Currently, the term “Public Intellectual” is often construed as a vague notion of any semi-qualified person speaking his mind on a specific subject. This unclear meaning has a positive side – it allows the position to be appealing to many people - not just elite academia who believe they hold a monopoly on knowledge. Although Public Intellectuals are often thought of as a dying breed - or believed to be watered down - their existence and relevance has never been so widespread.

Stephen Mack seeks to lay these theories of decline to rest in his essay, “The 'Decline' of Public Intellectuals?” Mack traces the source of the supposed American anti-intellectualism to - ironically enough – the academics. He summarizes, arguing that this problem is a misconception, if not non-existent:

“Without replaying the whole debate, two points will suffice: One, the fact that academic institutions wield enormous financial, technological, and cultural power—and the fact that, more generally, education continues to be the centerpiece of some of our most cherished social myths (i.e., “the “American Dream”)—are both powerful reasons to doubt that Americans suffer from some instinctive hostility to intellectuals. Two, what is sometimes identified as anti-intellectualism is in fact intellectual—that is, a well articulated family of ideas and arguments that privilege the practical, active side of life (e.g., work) over the passive and purely reflective operations of the mind in a vacuum”

Mack then criticizes another academic, Richard Posner, for his attempt to categorize the position rather than explain it on a functional basis. He argues:

we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.

It's the actions, not the man that matters.

With so much modern development, it's hard to believe some scholars think Public Intellectuals aren't popular anymore. Still, the core idea is resonant. Alan Lightman begins his own contemplation of the function of the Public Intellectual by analyzing Ralph Waldo Emerson's own concept:

“Emerson put forth the idea of the "One Man," by which he meant the complete person, or the person who embodies all dimensions of human potential and actuality”

Lightman then compares this idea to a more modern Public Intellectual, Edward Said:

“According to Said, an intellectual's mission in life is to advance human freedom and knowledge.”

Lightman goes on to create a hierarchy of levels of public intellectuals(while Stephen Mack cringes), defines their responsibilities, and even lists a few examples. Lightman also recognizes a new trend in the sphere of Public Intellect: “...many more such people, these days, have come from the sciences.” I would disagree with the belief that this trend is recent, though it is clear Lightman does not see any lack of intellectuals in the public sphere.

By default, Americans will always be aware of this position because the Public Intellectual is a byproduct of both democracy and religion, the important foundations of our country. The United States is the world's largest and most successful democracy, making it an apt measure for the status of the Public Intellectual. America is a breeding ground for thinkers – an elite technological culture with a large reliance on information flow and creative ideas – an arena for the daily battles between religion and science.

With the increasing importance of knowledge and information comes the reliance on and need for effective distributors. The Public Intellectual carries this burden – he must transmit vital issues and messages, however seemingly taboo, to his audience while accepting criticism or possible ostracization. Noam Chomsky, a current PI, explains the dilemma:

In fact one of the reasons why I am considered "public enemy number one" among a large sector of intellectuals in the U.S. is that I mention that the U.S. is one of the major terrorist states in the world and this assertion, though plainly true, is unacceptable for many intellectuals.”

Perhaps the notion of waning existence has been mistaken for a common unpopularity of the Public Intellectual. Regardless, this notion is way off the mark.


The religious figurehead is one of the earliest examples of a Public Intellectual. Humans have always had metaphysical questions, and because of the oligarchical tendency of previous cultures, religion has been a main source for guidance and answers. Whether it is the Pope, Martin Luther, the Dalai Lama, or some other revered spiritual leader, these people are considered to have the required specialization and ability to transmit their knowledge required of a Public Intellectual. Now, many academics question whether experts of religion, arts, and humanities qualify as a Public Intellectual. Stephen Mack points out the error in this judgement:

One of the great ironies of this debate is that historically, public intellectuals in America are a product of both our secular and religious traditions

The dissidents hold an elitist view, believing that only experts in the academic community should be considered as qualified to lead people in this role. This rift between science and religion can be traced back to the first extra-religious Public Intellectual in the first democracy, where modern logic was conceived.

To find the first non-cleric Public Intellectual, one must think back to the first democracy in ancient Athens. The new concept of openly discussing important issues necessitated that people had the ability to negotiate and communicate in public situations, as well as be aware of what was transpiring in the community. These circumstances gave rise to the original expert on intellect, Socrates. The new system needed to be tested – and Socrates would do just that.


Famous for his paradoxical ideal stated, “One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing”, Socrates epitomized the Public Intellectual before any existed, and successfully communicated his message to people more than 2000 years after his death. Socrates strongly believed that thought is the highest human function, emphasizing “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Even during his time he was widely known and regarded for his intellectual prowess- The Oracle at Delphi claimed that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens. Socrates developed a method of learning where one embarks on a dialectic, playing devil's advocate to whatever topic is being discussed, regardless of personal stance. He would engage in his method with many citizens of Athens, constantly searching for truth and knowledge. This process has developed into what is now called the scientific method and has been critical in the development of logic. Socrates held no double standards when performing this analysis, and often made enemies for it. He went so far as to question the meaning of natural phenomenon beyond religious explanation, a dangerous endeavor. Though many people followed him for his brilliance of teaching, he was eventually tried and sentenced to death for teaching heresy. Even when the court offered amnesty for an apology, he refused because he firmly believed his teaching and questioning of the world was not wrong. He was so popular among the citizens of Athens that a group of supporters arranged to have him freed prior to his execution. Socrates refused, arguing that escaping is an injustice and that two wrongs don't make a right – he would be guilty of two crimes. He felt he had agreed in principle to live under the law in Athens, and by breaking those laws he was subject to the consequences like any other citizen. Further, Socrates added that one should not fear death. He accepted his punishment for the good of the many and the integrity of the democratic system. By drinking the vile of hemlock, Socrates martyred himself and set a key precedents for the Public Intellectual. Despite all his achievements, it was his inquisitiveness that made him an intellectual and a his open sharing of ideas that qualified him as public.

Considering he only discoursed and never recorded any ideas, it is amazing that Socrates' message has survived so long. Conversely, one can see the immense effects that developing modes of communication have had on the Public Intellectual. Instead of being restricted to the people within hearing distance, a PI can now reach any audience on a global scale. One can transmit his ideas very effectively using not only words, but sound, pictures, and film too. The ease in communicating allows intellectuals to be aware of each other so they can share information. With a a computer, a blog or a website, a Public Intellectual can make his message available at any time of the day to any person, anywhere. Consequently, education and intellectualism no longer hinges solely on the institutions – a person can become an expert through curiosity alone.

The religious and democratic framework of our country coupled with our technological communicative abilities creates an atmosphere ideal for intellectualism. Since the United States remains successful, and because the integrity of our system relies on people actively debating important issues, it is evident that intellectualism is thriving. It is just ridiculous to think the most advanced country in the world is a nation full of idiots.