![[decorative spacer]](/images/bq.jpg)
October 03, 2005
Who are the top five public intellectuals in the world? Damned if I know, but the periodical Foreign Policy wants to find out. Or at least, they're running an internet poll on the question, The Prospect/FP Top 100 Public Intellectuals. They've thrown together a top 100 list of historians, political theorists, writers, scientists, and 10 (!) philosophers who they think make the cut, and are calling for votes on who makes the top 5.
While on the one hand I'm rather proud of the fact that I know maybe 50% of the people who made the list, it also marks the distressing fact that there are 50 or so people whose names I've never even heard. Even that rough 50% figure counts a lot of people I've just heard a reference to here or there, but know almost nothing substantive about who they are or what they do. Assuming the average reader is even moderately better informed than me (say, they've read a book or article by 50% of those on the list), it seems like this will come down to a popularity contest. Should I be voting for Dennett just because I've read his books and like them alot? This doesn't seem like a fair criterion to prefer him over, say, E.O. Wilson, who I hear great things about but haven't gotten a chance to read. The same goes for Jared Diamond, who I'd vote for in a second, except that Guns, Germs and Steel remains on my to-read list. And then there's people like Jeffrey Sachs (American economist) and Shintaro Ishihara (a "Politician" and author from Japan). Should they fail to make the cut simply because I have no idea who they are?
Not that FP is offering any advice, since they don't even recommend criteria for what makes someone a good "public intellectual". Seeing as it's left open to reader interpretation, everyone go and vote, and I guess just use whatever insights you have about the people on the list. We all know the Pope is going to win anyway.
Just one final note on the list: I'm happy to see Christopher Hitchens' occupation listed as "Polemicist". I find myself wondering "is that how he styles himself?" only momentarily, before I realize the answer is pretty obviously yes.
But that raises some other interesting questions. I joke about the Pope and Hitchens, but why shouldn't they be on top 10 lists? You can phrase good arguments that they shouldn't based on things like the declining power of the papacy and the fact that Hitchens is a occupies a minority position consisting of exactly him, but that doesn't prove the case. And you can sidestep those concerns by moving to someone like Wolfowitz. Here's someone in a policy-making position, who's actions are of immediate consequence in world affairs, and who is yet one of the intellectual heirs of Allan Bloom (and Strauss by association, I suppose, although I don't know how much deviation there is once you get down that far).
Of course, Wolfowitz probably won't be on my list, because I don't like the guy. But is that true to the spirit of what makes a public intellectual?
What's revolutionary is just how much of a role in history they're allowing geography. They claim that geopraphy directly determined history. Much moreso than the usual "this general won because he took advantage of that geographical feature." Environmental determinism attempts to find what environmental factor produced a general that was destined to take advantage of that particular geopraghical feature. That the general was merely smart or bold is not a sufficient explanation.
It essentially removes any sense of free will or individualism from history.
No, you're right, that's a good point. What do you think, Keith? Diamond in your top five picks?
I'd place him in the same category as Krugman or Gardner; I'm fairly certain they aren't the 100 best intellectuals, but probably still belong in a "top" 100 list. "Top" invites me to consider influence, fame, personality, power, etc.. So yes, I might put Diamond in my "top" 5 list. I decided not to vote, though. I know nothing of the academic world outside the humanities, and have only a limited knowledge of even that. I also wasn't especially satisfied with my choices. I actually had to google a few of the historians-- not because they're too obscure or cutting-edge, but because they haven't really done anything in the past 10 years. Plus, the whole "top" consideration ruins any attempt to make a satisfactory list. For example, I'd say Wolfowitz is the "top" foriegn policy academic on that list, but could anyone say he was the best?
Monica: It says you created this rule. Why is that?
Other than the fact that Summers gets oppurtunities to address rooms full of academics and stir up shit there, I can't think of reasons why he made this list. It's not that the points Summers made shouldn't have been made, and couldn't have been made legitimately, but there are certainly better platforms for it, and shock value alone doesn't make one an intellectual.
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
