I’m still being interviewed (by email) for a journal article. In response to one question, I proposed a general definition of a ?public intellectual.? This is someone, I said, who tries to help (or even prod) concrete groups of people to become self-reflective and thoughtful about their own problems and interests; conscious of their own opportunities, choices, limitations, and tradeoffs; aware of their disagreements and the reasons for them; and capable of ?political? action (broadly understood).
Monthly Archives: October 2003
analytic versus continental philosophy
Ten to 15 years ago, when I first studied philosophy, the great divide was between the “analytic” and “continental” traditions. Some people wouldn’t talk to colleagues in the opposite camp, and departments fell apart as a result. I think the conflict is dying down today, partly because of the waning significance of the French postmodern thinkers. They were the figures in the continental canon who provoked the deepest contempt from the analytic side. Many analytic philosophers can understand why one would study Hegel, Nietzsche, or Husserl, but not Derrida or Baudrillard.
China in outer space
Today, the Chinese put a man in space. US newspapers explain that the Communist Party is trying to establish China as a great power?rich and technologically advanced?and to impress its own people. Much the same was said about America’s motivations for the Apollo Project. Allegedly, presidents Kennedy and Johnson sent people into space to impress the world with the superiority of democracy and capitalism. I don’t know if this is the best historical explanation. However, assuming that NASA was created for propaganda purposes, that doesn’t strike me as the worst thing. Our system was superior to the Communist alternative, and demonstrating its success may have been worthwhile. Space travel was harmless; it had some scientific value; and the symbolism was cosmopolitan or humanistic as well as nationalistic. (“One great step for mankind ….”) To be sure, we could have spent the money impressing the world by reducing misery and diseases. In fact, we did launch the War on Poverty and the War on Cancer in the same era, only to falter in the eighties. We also fought a shooting war in Vietnam that didn’t work out too well. In that context, the Apollo project seems reasonably honorable to me, even if it was primarily for show. Similarly, the Chinese space program is not as wise as spending the same money on poverty-reduction; but it’s far better than showing off by invading Taiwan or testing new nuclear weapons (the approach India has chosen).
the evils of “districting”
I think that the process for drawing legislative districts is the single worst feature of US democracy today, worse than the scandalous campaign finance system. Politicians have drawn congressional districts so that fewer than 50 out of 435 are at all competitive. This means that in the remaining 385 districts, there really isn’t any point to voting. That’s one reason why turnout is so low. Meanwhile, incumbents in uncompetitive seats are not accountable to the voters for anything but the grossest misbehavior. Nor is there any public political debate in these districts. As a result, Americans tend to see disagreement as something that only arises far away in Washington; they interpret it as a sign that professional politicians love to argue instead of solve problems. Citizens don’t realize that we Americans have real disagreements that need to be addressed.
conservatives on campus
David Brooks’ Sept. 27th New York Times column, “Lonely Campus Voices” claimed that conservative graduate students face job discrimination, mainly because of the topics they prefer to study (e.g., warfare instead of social history; Churchill instead of Ghandi). These students can’t survive in academia, although some make their way successfully in Washington. My favorite line was at the end: “Last week the professors at Harvard’s government department reviewed the placement records of last year’s doctoral students. Two had not been able to find academic jobs, both of them [students of the conservative scholar Harvey Mansfield]. ‘Well,’ Mansfield quipped, ‘I guess they’ll have to go to Washington and run the country.'”