The underlying point being stressed in Robin’s article is the importance of an intellectual’s ability to not only present her ideas to a public, but to most crucially, create an enduring public that is currently nonexistent. I found this article quite confusing because of the somewhat philosophical and almost cryptic writing style and explanations. For instance, it is stated that “She never speaks to the reader as he is; she speaks to the reader as he might be. Her common reader in an uncommon reader.” A public intellectual must present novel ideas, which summon a unique public that is interested in getting involved with the intellectual’s core values.
A way in which a public intellectual is able to mobilize a public is by presenting an idea which unifies a group of individuals who were previously not associated with one another. The example provided in the text is that something as simple as shouting, “workers unite!” will subsequently result in the creation of a new public of those interested in this issue. I found this point quite interesting, due to the fact that it asserts that the concept of a “public” is quite malleable and fluid in the fact that “publics” can be created around virtually any idea. Previously, I had believed that the term “public” was a vague term used to simply describe a general group of people or audience. However, this article stresses the fact that there are different “publics” and that it is the intellectual’s job to create new ones through the presentation and deliverance of their ideas.
As an example, one concept introduced in this article is the concept of “liberitarian paternalism”, proposed by a public intellectual, which argues that the state should guide citizens to make better decisions, rather than have them simply argue their own beliefs. The government would essentially push citizens to choose options that would be most beneficial to society. Although this concept seems great on the surface, I feel as if this would be quite a problematic system in practice. For instance, the government’s responsibility to dictate what is “good” would prove to be an issue, due to the fact that the term is subjective. Although I do not entirely agree with the intellectual’s ideologies, I suppose he was definitely successful in creating a public, due to his beliefs’ ability to stratify and therefore, establish “publics” based on peoples’ opinions of his ideas.
As for the future of public intellectuals, the article states that they currently fail at creating a public since they simply rely on speaking to audiences that already exist. However, Robin stresses the importance of public intellectuals in society. If there are no public intellectuals, new publics will not be created, which will hinder the intellectual growth of society.
Question: Will public intellectuals of the future be able to mobilize new publics or has this trend died off forever?
