Noam Chomsky: The Definition of a Public Intellectual
More than ever, America needs public intellectuals. This country is in a time of turbulence with political unrest at the face of the nation. It is no secret that the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was one of the most cut-throat and divisive times in recent American history. The nation was divided and involved in both candidates campaigns to the point that physical violence occurred. During the second debate, the candidates did not even shake each other’s hand, and one candidate threatened to jail the other if he won. The two people fighting to be the most powerful nation on earth’s leader were so deeply rooted in their beliefs that they broke tradition and decorum. I believe that many people did not understand the platform or policies for which they were voting. Rather, they felt some type of allegiance to one of the candidates. Whether it be those who have followed Trump since his time with reality television or those who were huge supporters of Bill Clinton, I think it is safe to assume that some citizens voted for a name not a platform. By platform I mean a critical understanding of the issues that each respective candidate laid out in his and her campaigns. From climate change to health care and everything in between there are so many different issues that America is currently facing.
The problem is not only in America. As we saw in the United Kingdom, more than 17 million people voted to leave the European Union while just over 16 million people voted to remain a part of it. This result was a shock to many people involved with this issue, but the day after the vote something significant rose to the surface. All of the top five Google searches the next day in the United Kingdom revolved around the implications of leaving the European Union and the effect the leave will have on citizens. People only really got interested and began to understand this monumental vote after the outcome had already been determined. Citizens need guidance on current events, authority on complex issues, and ethical analysis that is applied to present problems. Urgency and real-time analysis are needed to combat less in-depth sources of information. In a vacuum of public intellectuals, things like fake news spring up. Where do people turn when there aren’t “smart” people engaged with present problems? Disturbingly, the answer has been demagogues and low-brow news networks: essentially, chaos. Is there a solution to be found? Does America even have public intellectuals anymore? Is there an equivalent to Thomas Payne, Mark Twain, or H.L. Mencken? To answer this pressing question, we must first decide what being a public intellectual entails.
Wikipedia has defined a public intellectual as, “An intellectual is a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection about the reality of society, and proposes solutions for the normative problems of society, and thus he or she gains authority as a public intellectual” (Author 2). I found this definition of a public intellectual to be too broad because under this definition all academics, journalists and politicians would be included. All of those individuals could argue that they have done “critical thinking, research and reflection about the reality of society” and therefore a distinction needs to be made between all of these individuals and a true, public intellectual. Still, the definition is useful as a basic minimum requirement for what it takes to be a public intellectual. Those in contention should certainly research and reflect on society’s problems and propose solutions.
The New York Times provides another definition that is closer to the truth of what defines a public intellectual. They write, “Public intellectuals were free-floating and unattached generalists speaking out on every topic that came their way...They might be journalists or academics, but only because they had to eat. At the most fundamental level, ideas for them were not building blocks to a career. Rather, careers were the material foundation that allowed them to define and express their ideas” (Gewen 1). This example demonstrates the idea that a public intellectual uses his or her career as a platform to speak out, not as in end in itself. The New York Times asserted the idea that these intellectuals were “free-floating” individuals and characterized them as taking advantage of the platform of their jobs to advance their idea. While the definition is mostly true, I do not believe that this is what defines a public intellectual. The New York Times’ definition lacks a crucial aspect of the power and necessity of having public intellectuals in any functioning democracy.
I believe that a public intellectual is someone who can take big, complex issues and break them down into digestible, actionable pieces for the average citizen. While journalists are highly intelligent individuals reporting on a variety of social and political issues, they are working on an agenda. They may have deadlines to reach and goals to meet and because of that they are not working purely for the pure, intellectual purpose that a public intellectual would be working for. A public figure in America who perfectly my definition and who is a central example of a useful and inspiring public intellectual is Noam Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky was born in 1928 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and he spent his undergraduate and graduate years completing a PhD in Linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania. Chomsky has received honorary degrees from numerous universities across the globe and continues to be an astonishing force in linguistics, philosophy and politics. Though Chomsky is a linguist by trade and highly regarded for his innovations in that field, he is perhaps more popular for his political views and activism.
Chomsky is known for his depth of intellect. In a world where it is impossible to know everything in great amounts of detail, Chomsky does a remarkable job at comprehending and teaching his ideas, principles and values to a greater audience. He has the ability to take extremely complex issues and break them into smaller more manageable pieces of information for the public to consume. With his ability to hold such a high intellectual standard while still being able to connect to the public, I consider him to be a public intellectual.
One concrete example of Chomsky’s skill for sifting through a complex web of information is a recent statement on the biggest threats to humanity. In an interview with Democracy Now!, Noam Chomsky says that the two biggest threats to humanity are climate change and nuclear holocaust (Goodman 1). If more Americans listed to Noam, we would be better off and better informed. Noam’s analysis here is deceptively helpful. Not only is he outlining our problems as Americans, he is telling is which are the most important. Often what is lost in the 24-hour news cycle is a sense of scale. These two issues of climate change and nuclear holocaust are rarely covered, instead we get gruesome murders, school shootings, and urban crime. By listening to Noam, we can filter out the scare tactics and prioritize the real issues. We would then pick politicians who prioritize real issues, not whatever issue of the day CNN is running.
Clearly, Chomsky is able to sift through vast amounts of information efficiently and effectively. His speeches, books, and interviews continue to offer a high utility for the average citizen. Perhaps more importantly, however, Chomsky is very aware of the duty he has as a public intellectual to connect to the people and deliver important ideas. In a piece Chomsky wrote for The New York Review of Books, Chomsky writes:
“In the Western world, at least, they have the power that comes from political liberty, from access to information and freedom of expression. For a privileged minority, Western democracy provides the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation, ideology and class interest, through which the events of current history are presented to us” (Chomsky 1)
Chomsky clearly understands and feels the weight of the responsibility on his shoulders. With the ability to access information, comes the responsibility of sharing information and informing others. Chomsky is unique in his critical awareness of this issue and in the above quote he makes it clear that he is referring to more than just himself. He is addressing everyone who enjoys the security and freedom of Western democracy and who has the privilege of access to information. Chomsky seems to be making sure we are all aware of the weight for which we bear responsibility. This call to action contributes to his public intellectuality in that he is making the public aware of the intellectual responsibility that is placed onto them.
Chomsky’s understanding of his own responsibility that he passes on to common citizens is strong and persuasive, but fairly simple. He feels responsible for uncovering the truth through research and delivering it to the public. As Chomsky puts it, “It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies. This, at least, may seem enough of a truism to pass over without comment” (Chomsky 1). Here, we see Chomsky argue that the role of intellectual is very simple. Why, then, is the public intellectual a rare and disappearing breed? The answer is that, though the qualifications are simple, they are rare and difficult. It takes determination, time, and good intentions to uncover the truth and deliver it to the people.
In addition to making contributions to both philosophical and political theories, Chomsky is considered one of the founding fathers of modern linguistics. Chomsky’s major innovation is universal grammar, which points to a structural commonality in all languages. Mango Languages elaborates on Chomsky’s contribution, writing “Chomsky’s major contribution to studying language was that he made it scientific. He demonstrated that despite the observable variety of the world’s languages, there is in reality only one language. All other languages; dead, still spoken or even future ones, are variations of a single theme” (Mouma 1) This powerful and influential idea adds to Chomsky’s title as a public intellectual by showing that he can think critically and deeply about a range of different topics. While many people are experts and intellectuals in one field, Chomsky is set apart by adding so many new ideas to many different fields of thought.
How did Noam Chomsky find the strength and motivation to contribute so widely and deeply to many aspects of 20th century thought? Noam’s biographical information may shed some light on his creativity. Chomsky was exposed to politics from an extremely young age. Biography.com reports that, “His mother, Elsie Chomsky, had been active in the radical politics of the 1930s. His father, William, a Russian Jewish immigrant like his mother, was a respected professor of Hebrew at Gratz College, an institution for teacher’s training” (Unknown 1) Having an activist for a mother and a professor for a father certainly shaped Noam and his intellect by sparking his interest and awareness of radical politics and different cultures. Growing up in an intellectually stimulating environment surrounded by literature and different languages, it comes as no surprise that Chomsky’s mind was hardwired to think about important cross cultural issues. Today we can see both his father and his mother in Chomsky with part of him being a calm professor, and the other part of him a radical thinker. Together these halves make up a man who is among the most deserving of the title of public intellectual.
