The Enrichment Effect of Public Intellectuals
Depth of intellect, moral conviction and authentic leadership is what we crave right now. Generative AI is going to create a boom of public intellectuals
👋🏼 Hey, I’m Joanna! I’m an advisor and consultant sharing insights and ideas relating to democracy, wellbeing, AI, culture, spiritualism and the human condition…read on if this has piqued your interest.
Announcement:
I’m pondering the idea of recording my essays on The Breakout Room. Is this something that you would like?
If you asked the average teenager to name a public intellectual, whose name do you think they would mention and why? Do most teenagers even recognise what a public intellectual is?
I ask because a teenager I recently spoke to couldn’t distinguish between a person being perceived as a public intellectual and one that had the perspective of one. I don’t blame this particular teenager for being confused. When and where do we openly discuss and highlight the role of public intellectuals – and not the multi-hyphenate musician-turned entrepreneur-turned intellect – across mainstream culture? How can we identify them better and explain their significance throughout history? How do we feel their impact?
It would help if we defined them more clearly and called them by their profession – public intellectuals – instead of cringing at how serious sounding they are (at least in Britain – Americans tend to own their seriousness and relish in a bit of earnest discourse without the same sense of absolute awkwardness). We don’t hesitate to name a doctor a doctor or an economist an economist, so it seems strange to me that we don’t pinpoint who the intellectuals are.
Will we have to reach the stage where AI-generated content is beginning to overwhelm us for us to prioritise public intellectuals as the new guardians and icons of human intelligence? Giving a face to human intelligence strikes me as paramount when we all seek people we know, like and trust. This is why I predict that when generative AI becomes more mainstream, we will crave having more clearly defined public intellectuals in public life.
Information is information. Yet how information is chosen, communicated and crafted for us to feel and connect with is what distinguishes human intellect from AI. The public intellectual is the first-class expert of this. They know as humans what will resonate and what won’t, what resonates with our values and the collective consciousness – something which a machine could never replicate or impersonate. If it did, it would just feel energetically “off”. This is why the public intellectual will always be the first-class expert. Generative AI will remain the second-rate replica.
Public Benefits vs Corporate Commodification
In this piece in The New York Times a public intellectual is described as “someone deeply committed to the life of the mind and its impact on the society at large”. Emphasis is placed on cultivating information which nurtures and expands the mind, the focus is public, and the benefits are societal in nature. Unlike other professions within the public sphere whose end goals tend to be self-serving, the public-service orientated nature of a public intellectual is refreshingly independent. The essence of a public intellectual is about public service and collective ideals. This is why they are important and will remain so.
Highlighting the public nature of a public intellectual is especially vital when people within public life – from actors to musicians etc – are dancing and signalling to the rhythms of capitalism to keep themselves propped up and visible in the public eye. Understanding marketing and corporate trends such as this one on Gen Z and using it to pose under the guise of “public intellectualism” has led to a blurring of boundaries between an influencer posing for private gain and a serious intellectual who is driven by depth of thought and committed to improving public life in its unfiltered, messy reality.
This rise in gesturing towards and posing as an iNtElLeCtUaL – think of book shots on Instagram and writing using all lower case letters – suggests that intellectualism is a hot commodity that should be capitalised on for profit. Positioning intellectualism as a positive trait is great; attempting to sell it without understanding or explaining its importance is meaningless as it is vapid. So too is focusing on intellectualism as a secondary consideration to beauty and entertainment which is prominent on social platforms such as Instagram and TikTok.
These days anyone can pose as a serious thinker in the age of information overabundance. Because of this I predict that the current intellectual obesity crisis combined with the emergence of generative AI will lead to more attention being placed on high-quality human-intelligence in the years ahead. There is gravitas and weight to be found and felt in the presence of a public intellectual that can’t be easily replicated elsewhere.
As other writers here on Substack will know – minus the writers relying on ChatGPT of course – thinking and writing are heavy-weight human activities. Being clear on who is a public intellectual and the credentials they have is one way of distinguishing the real public intellectuals from the wannabes. If we don’t make this distinction, how do we decipher what is of intellectual value and what is not?
Intellectual and Wellbeing Wealth
As well as generative AI and information abundance, the elections taking place this year will force us to seek out experts and intellectuals for guidance as politicians fail to lead and offer solutions to the severe challenges we face. As well as being wary of intellectual influencers without the credentials to back it up, we also need to be mindful of the emergence of social engineers and political technologists – in other words, propagandists – who attempt to create a political theatre of sorts by intellectually influencing and coercing for a certain direction of thought for their own advantage, political or otherwise.
Whilst populists dismissed the authority and power of experts a few years ago, most of us deeply appreciate the authority that experts possess, especially when it poses a risk to our life or quality of life. This may explain that despite this criticism of experts from within the political arena the popularity of podcasts such as The Diary of a CEO, which interviews a different expert every week, suggests that people have a thirst for intellect, moral conviction and authentic leadership. They also have a hunger for nuanced and thoughtful discussion, complex and engaging ideas explained in simple and relatable ways – something which is sorely lacking in politics and mainstream media.
We can identify public intellectuals as they enrich society rather than taking from it. They explore the ways of the past, where we are now and how we can shape the future. They cultivate knowledge and enrich future generations with their ideas. Take, for example, how relevant Hannah Arendnt’s book The Human Condition is today with its ideas on diminishing human agency and political freedom. Without her reference points we wouldn’t be able to make as much sense of where we find ourselves today alongside AI and technology and the all-encompassing nature of capitalism. Her intellectual contribution is society’s gain.
Public intellectuals also enrich society beyond intelligence and knowledge. Personally speaking, they’ve made me laugh out loud to the point of oblivion on many occasions. Wisecracks from a public intellectual often pack more punch than a comedian’s. Maybe it’s because public intellectuals have, under the surface, an edge of likable nerdiness and awkwardness that academics usually possess, but also a sense of earnest chirpiness and playfulness that is hard to find in other walks of life. I mean, who else but Mary Beard could playfully, skillfully and persuasively talk about the emperors of Rome and how it applies to modern leadership and management for Google?
The Future of Public Intellectuals
Unlike politicians or celebrities whose careers are attention-grabbing and short-term by design, the intention of public intellectuals is to improve society with their thoughts and ideas for the long-term. Style over substance can only get you so far; substance over style lasts a lifetime. Yet how we fund public intellectuals remains questionable in an era where the commercialisation of people’s personas and people’s expertise is the norm.
Academia was once the typical training ground for a public intellectual. But as universities see the shrinking of tenure opportunities and stable employment opportunities for academics become less common, what is the alternative? Are “Substackademics the new public intellectuals?” Does this mean that we need a new criterion for a public intellectual in the 21st century? Do viral ideas equate to quality of thought? I would say no. But until we slow down how we process and consume information – which is where intellectual life blossoms, ideas and knowledge take time to ripen after all – Substack seems like a good option in the interim. And as David Speed wisely observes, “Substack actually feels like a nourishing meal after decades of fast food.”
Whilst some may say that contemplation and thoughtfulness are no longer cool, I say that it’s a short-term fad in comparison to the essential human need to connect and think about the world and one another. Nobody cares about cool when humanity’s basic needs are being unmet.
If we didn’t have public intellectuals, who else would (or could) urge us to ruminate on ideas and have the courage to advocate change through culture, business and politics?
Public intellectuals provide the public service led-leadership and intellectual gravitas which encourages wisdom, learning, healthy debate and hope – qualities and behaviours that enrich us by fostering self-awareness on an individual level and nourishes connection and contribution on a societal level. Without them society would be depleted of intelligence and hope. Public intellectuals offer different visions for the future, and it’s up to the public to choose which one resonates. Individually, we would feel more powerless is their absence.
What say we give public intellectuals more of our time and attention?
This is optimistic and I hope we move in that direction. Social media and now AI have overwhelmed us with the wrong kind of values (I think), that it will be a difficult path to go back to seeking and taking the - uncool, uninstagrammable - time to listen to our public intellectuals.