The essay we read for this week is particularly complex; Warner jumps from a discussion of stylistics (common language, defamiliarization, precision, and opacity), to a problematizing of the public intellectual (is the public intellectual actually a part of the public? ),to a description of three different types of discussions by which publics exchange ideas and ideals (polemics, problematization, and journalistic style), and finally ends by saying that changing how publics function is difficult because "it is a way of imagining a speech for which there is yet no scene, and a scene for which their is no speech."
While the entire essay is fascinating, I am realizing that I cannot, in one blog post, discuss all of the issue that he tackles in this chapter. Instead, I need to focus my efforts to one of the above sections, and since you are all burgeoning scholars (at the very least being doused into the academy for the next four years), I figured that a discussion of the function of the public intellectual might be the most beneficial to you.
Warner's discussion of public intellectuals begins with by showing the traditional understanding of the term, which he defines as a group of experts who reach a mass audience and guide their audience towards the right/just/prudent political path. For Warner, this conception is flawed. Warner argues that by virtue of their "expert status" (if they are in fact experts on the particular topic being discussed) intellectuals cannot be a part of the public.
Warner states that "expert knowledge is in an important way nonpublic: its authority is external to the discussion. It can be challenged only by other experts, not within the discourse of the public itself" (145). For Warner, experts work in a type of meta-public that is not really a part of the public (think about how in class we discussed scholarly secondary sources as existing in a meta-discourse, in which they write about what is being discussed in the public of which our primary sources are a part.) Finally, Warner asserts that even if public intellectuals could enter into public discussion, there is no reason to believe that they would be more effective than anyone else (147).
Of course, for intellectuals this is a scary proposition. First, in the type of publics that Warner describes the intellectual seems impotent. The intellectual has the ability to discuss political issues, but she is unable to influence the public discussion. Even if she could enter the discussion, there is no guarantee that her voice would be any more important than any other voice, since publics aren't based on rational critical debate but are instead based on "uptake, citation, and recharacterization" (145).
In class recently, we discussed the absence of intellectuals in the public sphere. However, we did talk about the diffusion of intellectual ideas through others in the public, which (when viewed from a certain light, while squinting) looks like intellectuals are actually influencing the public.
Of course, this entire argument really hinges on how the word intellectual is defined; a definition that Warner does not provide us with. Despite the unclear definition of intellectual, it seems that Warner uses the term primarily to talk about academics and those who work in think tanks--what he calls the "professional class of intellectuals" (147). I think it could be argued that there are other intellectuals who are reaching the public. As usual, lets explore this idea by looking at some music videos.
I would first like to look at "Prison Song" by System of a Down from their 2001 album Toxicity in which they criticize the war on drugs and the prison industrial complex:
Of course we can't just look at this utterance on its own, but should see this as a part of a public conversation, let's look at "Get By" by Talib Kweli from his 2002 album Quality. This song seems to deal with the same issue as System, but in a way that seems a bit more holistic:
Still, this does not exhaust the amount songs about the prison industrial complex and what many believe are the social problems that it attempts to sweep under the rug. The song "Money" by the band Choking Victim on their 1999 album No Gods No Managers. Is an interesting take on the issue being discussed. This song is particularly interesting because of the introduction by the famous public intellectual Michael Parenti:
So here we have three artists who, in the early 2000s, were discussing political issues in a very public manner, the question is: are these artists intellectuals? As an aside, I am also curious if you believe that the American academic still has a place in the public sphere.
I personally believe the term intellectual is overused and misused. I think it does not just refer to those who have what some might call “book smarts”, which is often what the term is used to describe. I believe an intellectual is someone who has some sort of philosophical stance, an inspirational idea, or a new unique way of looking at a problem. I believe an IQ or a strong educational background does not independently affect whether or not someone should be deemed an intellectual. Therefore, these artists are of course intellectuals for the fact that they are discussing an issue that they have a very strong stance on, and to further support them as intellectuals they present their ideas in ways that make them seem credible as well.
ReplyDeleteI believe the academic will always have a place in the public sphere but I find it hard to believe in our modern society that it will ever go beyond generally being below the surface. Academics will forever influence and be the cause and effect of the utterances that we are inundated with on a daily basis, the problem is that we will more than likely always be receiving their academic information from a less academic source. For example, I get most of my information from facebook, which is hardly considered an academic website, but there are many ideas that surface on facebook that can originally be traced back to an academic author. As of now, I don’t see this phenomenon changing any time soon.
In the above post, you write, "The intellectual has the ability to discuss political issues, but she is unable to influence the public discussion." If that is the truth, then these artists aren't intellectuals. They are most definitely discussing political issues, but I believe they are also influencing public discussion. These songs are entering many publics -- publics which are consumed by their fans. I think that music can very strongly influence discussion at the very least, as well as opinion and action.
ReplyDeleteAs part of the American academic sphere, I think that our public definitely still consumes a space. Even though society may not actively be involved directly in the original Academic source, like Gabby said, there is still lots of academic information being circled through the media, institutions, medical clinics, and more. Schools are obviously a huge example of how academic information largely involves our public. But even by entering a hospital, one can see the research and knowledge that is behind all of the practitioners and the facility. Furthermore, TV and radio is a huge passageway to information and even things like the history channel or the news can lead to informative, educational discussions that are often led by "intellectuals" themselves.
I do not believe these artist are intellectuals. Just because they discuss politics just means they are stating their opinion. It does not necessarily mean they are intellectuals. These artist's are entering many publics, but just the public consumed by their fans. I believe that music can influence discussion amongst the public and can also alter someone's opinion and their beliefs on a specific topic.
ReplyDeleteI do believe the American academic though does still have a spot in the public sphere. Like Gabby and Paige stated there is still a lot of academic being circulated around daily. The media is a huge role in keeping the American academic sphere alive. They feed the mass public academic knowledge everyday. I also believe schools play a huge role in keeping the academic public alive as well. A lot of things in society today help keep the academic public alive and I believe it is still apart of the public sphere today.
Personally I believe that these individual artists aren't really trying to be intelectuals, therefore they are not. However, they are discussing politics and their ideas brought forth through utterances and other discourse with in the public. This can contridict things because the artists are approcaching an intelect which is their fan base. Although, with the music it is hard to say if the artists know the depth and specifics of the political and intelectual discourse let alone the fans. I do think that the American Academic does have a place in the public it just seems to be much more difficult to notice. Some how all of the important information and discourse is pushed aside and ignored more then it is noticed within the public.
ReplyDeleteHow can these artists not be seen as intellectuals? They get there information the way the rest of us do, from the media in the public. From there they form questions and ideas only to dig deeper on political issues that make them more informed from others. There they put in in song form to reach the public again but with their personal twist on how they view things. We all can be intellectuals if we put in the effort to find answers to our questions.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with Rachel. I think that all of these artists are definitely intellectuals. They use information that they have gathered through the media and personal research and question and have their opinions on it. Those opinions are based off of facts and current ideas/politics. The put those ideas and opinions in song which therefor reach a wide fan base that might not otherwise be aware of these issues. The academic still has a place in the public and it always will but I think it lives in the shadow of other media.
ReplyDeleteI think that these artists can be seen as intellectuals because they are informed about the issue and have an opinion about the issue. They are stating their opinion through songs and are therefore making it public. By making their opinion public they are attempting to enter the public of these politics. If they are looked at from the view point of an intellectual being a person that is informed about an issue and not just someone who is educated then they are definitely considered an intellectual. I feel that in a sense the American academic does have a place in the public sphere, but not as large as it used to have. I think in the past academics were more easily seen in the public eye, but in today's society people aren't necessarily going to look to an academic. So I think the academic is still present but not as much as they used to be. I think this is due to how our society receives information today. Our information comes through media that is fast, and not through academics which is more of a slower paced form of information. The American academic still has a place in the public sphere but I feel that place is slowly diminishing.
ReplyDeleteMy stance on whether or not these artists are intellectuals is a combination of Paige Foster's view and Gabrielle's view. I agree with Gabrielle's view of what an intellectual is. I believe that they aren't just people who are "book smart". An intellectual is philosophical. They research topics that interest them and form opinions based on what they discover. I feel that these artists did exactly that. However, as Paige pointed out in her response, Warner says, "The intellectual has the ability to discuss political issues, but she is unable to influence the public discussion." With this definition, the artists are not intellectuals because they can influence the public.
ReplyDeleteThe American academic does have a place in the public sphere, but it normally goes by unnoticed. The ideas and discoveries of the American academic influence many of today's utterances. We don't know where the source for these utterances come from because American academics are not very popular. Most of their work is uncredited because the mass public does not care about them. The public is not interested in scholars. They pay more attention to celebrities.
I don't like the idea that being an intellectual is dictated by a piece of paper that says, "So and so has this degree." I also think this is a weakness when it comes to the academic sphere because of how it limits what perspectives are bringing in fresh, new ideas that could add meaningfully to the discourse on any given subject. Which seems a little counterproductive to me when the goal of academia is to learn and /understand/ what is happening in our world, isn't it? With that perspective in mind, yes, I would say that all three artists are intellectuals. I also think that if American academia definitely has a place in the public still because even if we're not getting the information straight from the original source, the way information travels nowadays will probably get it to me eventually.
ReplyDeleteI do not think these artists can be seen as intellectuals. They get ideas and form opinions about them, and then proceed to create a song expressing their thoughts. This may be a different way than the rest of us but we all do this. Does this mean we are all intellectuals?
ReplyDeleteI do think the the American academic has a place int he public sphere because it is a very trustworthy source of information. If you see something on the news and want to learn more, you can use academic text to learn more about it and to help with your research. We also still use academic writing in school so I think it will always have a place in the public since schools are part of the mass public.
Overall, I do think that these artists are intellectuals. However, I think that might just be my opinion. I don't think you need to be highly educated to be an intellectual. I think you have to be aware of your surroundings especially when it comes to politics but overall they seem to be involved, at least in terms of discussion so I would say they are intellectuals. As far as the American academic, I believe that they do have a place in the public sphere. I think that they always will, however, I'm not sure how much. I think that there will always be people in the public sphere interested in what an academic has to say however, I don't believe the academic has as much of a place in the public sphere as they used to.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that these artists would be considered as intellectuals. Just because they might be well informed about the topic that they sing about doesn't mean that it's an academic viewpoint. If they were looked at as intellectuals for that then I would also be considered an intellectual about a subject that I have a good amount of knowledge on. Intellectuals, in my opinion, are those who are professionals on a subject and prove that they have expert knowledge. These artists still are very influential to the public.
ReplyDeleteAcademics should have a place in the public because without their ideas or opinions being hear, a lot of progress wouldn't happen for society. It might not leave a lot of room for other people's inputs, but the public can decide if they either want to acknowledge the new information or dismiss it. Their ideas become utterances that may grow into actions.
I agree i believe that this artists are all intellectuals. But they do all have their own opinion on a lot of different things. and how they sing/discuss it reaches a certain type of public. I think that even their own views are based on society, because in all honesty non of us really have our own opinion it is all based off of what certain people or society puts in our head. They are just people people with different opinions and expressed it in very different ways. But its very odd to me that you have a degree to be and intellectual. Not a lot of new different ideas are coming from the Academics or in this public, so that is something i strongly a agree with.American Academic has a definite place in the public sphere but not nearly as much as they use to.
ReplyDelete