The
Humanities and the Public Intellectual
by Tu Weiming
(rating #)
Review and Commentary (# of posts)
PDF
COMMENT ON IT!
The humanities are the academic disciplines most directly and immediately
relevant to human self-reflexivity. Such fields as language, literature,
classics, history, cultural anthropology, philosophy, and religion help us,
individually and communally, to come to terms with our own modes of
expression, feelings, traditions, memories, symbols, thoughts, and ultimate
concerns. To be sure, a knowledge of social and natural sciences is also
necessary for our humanistic self-awareness, but the directness and
immediacy of the humanities make them particularly relevant to our
understanding and appreciation of the human condition. This may explain
why, in the humanities, the boundaries between the knower and the known are
often blurred and the roles of the outside observer and the inside
participant are often indistinguishable.
The humanists' commitment to dealing with values as well as facts enjoins
them to be critically aware of the interpretive perspectives they bring to
their subject matter and to be self-conscious of their own ethical and
religious convictions. Furthermore, there is no safe haven of quantifiable
objectivity which, while an imagined possibility for natural and social
scientists, is not realizable in the pursuit of humanistic scholarship.
Humanists, however, are blessed with a feeling of relevance, engagement, and
participation and, in this sense, ought to be professionally trained public
intellectuals. Yet, the relationship between the humanities and the public
intellectual is laden with fruitful ambiguities.
Although the idea of the intellectual in the modern West emerged in Tsarist
Russia in the 19th century, Western European and American intellectuals have
tapped a much wider cultural source for their self-definition.
Etymologically, the term "intellectual" is derived from the social stratum
of the Russian intelligentsia. Members of this group, attracted to the
French Enlightenment, were dedicated to the Westernization of Mother
Russia. In their conception, an intellectual is an activist, if not a
revolutionary, who is politically concerned, socially engaged and culturally
sensitive. Such a person is neither a philosopher in the Greek sense nor a
prophet in the Hebraic sense, but a reflective person with a farsighted
vision who is dedicated to the creative transformation of society from
within.
A Russian intellectual is, by definition, a critic of the status quo and
thus often a political dissident, but the idea should include not just the
Westernizers but also the Slavophiles who advocated a return to the
spiritual values of the Russian tradition. In the Western European or
American context, the stance or position of the intellectual within society
is more complex. While the intellectual should not be identified with the
status quo, she or he need not be alienated from the structure of power
dominated by the political process. The Western European or American
intellectual's attitude toward politics is often ambiguous. Surely, the
spirit of protest is a defining characteristic of the intellectual mind, but
it may express itself in a variety of forms. The American spirit may find
its realization in the enhancement of a civil society, the British in social
criticism, the French in cultural reflection, and the German in national
identity. None of them is reminiscent of the Russian case where the spirit
of protest is primarily directed against the political establishment. In
this particular connection, the East Asian idea of the educated person
offers a better reference to the discussion of Western intellectuals in the
public domain.
In the Confucian tradition, concern for politics, engagement in society and
sensitivity in cultural matters are salient features of being educated.
Scholar-officials in China, samurai-bureaucrats in Japan, and the
yangban (civilian and military degree holders) in Korea were supposed to
be responsible not only for their own self-cultivation but also for the
regulation of families, governance of states, and peace under Heaven. In
short, they were obliged by their power, status and influence to serve as
guardians of the social fabric. They shared a common faith in the
improvability of the human condition and in the efficacy of a communitarian
effort to bring about peace and prosperity. Motivated by a strong moral
sense to transform the world from within, they tried, through exemplary
teaching, to inspire an ever-expanding network of people to involve
themselves in the educational process of human flourishing.
If the intellectual is distinguished not by ideological affiliation but by
self-understanding and social function, the academic humanists seem the
logical inheritors of the idea of the intellectual whether specifically
defined in Russian, Western European, American, or East Asian terms..
The matter is complicated by the professionalization of modern life as
conceptualized by Max Weber. As the "disenchantment of the magic garden"
has been replaced by the "iron cage" of modernity, our ordinary daily
existence is shaped by parallel spheres of interest--science, technology,
economy, politics, society, aesthetics, and religion. Moreover, our own
professional life places great demands on our time and energy. In our
fragmented, if not disintegrated, lifeworlds, it is painfully difficult to
organize our interests and desires around a unitary life-orientation.
Nevertheless, while the hope for total integration is neither possible nor
necessary, the need for coherence in daily existence and meaning of life is
often compelling. Weber's personal existential choice: "science as a
calling" and "politics as a calling," is indicative of the predicament of
the modern intellectual.
"Science as a calling" may be perceived as the detached solution to the
predicament. By committing oneself to pure scholarship, the modern
intellectual can find solace, indeed a sense of purpose, in the
disinterested academic pursuit. The well-protected ivory tower, not unlike
the cloister for the medieval monks, provides a sanctuary for basic research
and cultural transmission. Alternatively, "politics as a calling," the
involved solution, enables modern intellectuals to take part in public
service, exerting profound influence on society beyond the imagination of
philosophers or priests. According to Weber, the ethic of responsibility,
as differentiated from the ethic of ultimate ends, is required for political
participation. The intellectual, equipped with professional expertise and
proper self-knowledge, can serve politics well. However, these two kinds of
calling are so diametrically opposed that they cannot be easily reconciled.
Actually, Weber may not have intended to combine the detached and involved
solutions for the modern intellectual. He himself personally suffered from
their irreconcilability. Since the tension and conflict between them is
unresolvable, the idea of a scholarly politician seems contradictory in
terms. The humanists are often caught in this dilemma.
To be precise, the word "humanist" may connote two significantly different
meanings: a scholar of the humanities (linguist, literary critic,
classicist, historian, philosopher, cultural anthropologist, religionist and
so forth) and one who possesses profound humanistic concerns and
convictions. The former are professionals in the academy, whereas the
latter, as a rule, must transcend professionalism. Strictly speaking,
professional humanists, like social and natural scientists, are primarily
academicians. Whether they are, by self-definition or educational
function, researchers or teachers or both, their profession does not in
itself compel them to become intellectuals. A professor of transformational
grammar, Shakespearean literature, Greek philology, Tokugawa Japan, German
idealism, African kinship, or ritual studies is not necessarily more
politically concerned, socially engaged and culturally sensitive than an
economist, political scientist, sociologist, physicist, chemist, biologist,
or mathematician. Indeed, a sociologist or biologist may choose to assume
the role of the public intellectual, a role that an overwhelming majority of
scholars of the humanities do not care to consider.
That some humanities scholars advocate for public theology or public
philosophy suggests that certain intellectual-minded academicians feel a
need to move beyond their professionalism to bring their expertise to bear
on public issues as a legitimate contribution of their disciplines to
society. This articulation of a fruitful interaction and close alliance
between scholars of humanities and citizens with humanistic concerns and
convictions is reminiscent of the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of some of the
most illustrious exemplars of "the human sciences" such as Gambattista Vico,
Karl Jaspers and Hannah Arendt.
Nowadays, the idea of the humanities as the most direct and immediate
academic disciplines for human self-reflexivity reemerges as a standard of
inspiration for concerned citizens. The caveat is, of course, that only a
tiny minority of scholars of humanities are motivated to become public
intellectuals. The rest, intent on pursuing humanist scholarship for its
own sake, are by no means inspired by the Weberian appeal to "politics as a
calling." Whether or not they subscribe to "science as a calling," in both
theory and practice, they lead their mental life as professionals. Their
identification with the work of the academy is comparable to that of their
colleagues in social and natural sciences. They may not feel compelled to
defend their raison d'être and their self-interest in the public eye. They
are not and have never intended to be public intellectuals. Yet, it is
vitally important to note that their research and teaching are critical to
the health of institutes of higher learning which, in turn, benefits society
at large. Obviously, the argument for the relevance and significance of
humanities for a vibrant democracy lies elsewhere. Scholars of humanities
themselves are not obligated by their professional demands to act as their
own public defendants.
The public intellectuals in the academy can come from all disciplines. The
articulators of the importance of the humanities need not be historians or
philosophers; they can very well be physicists, chemists, sociologists, and
political scientists. Indeed, conscientious administrators, thoughtful
journalists and informed politicians are far more influential in conveying
to the general public why the humanities are not merely dispensable luxuries
but essential subjects for a liberal arts education, which is the grounding
for a vibrant democratic society. Nevertheless, the centrality of liberal
arts education in accumulating social capital, enhancing cultural
competence, and cultivating spiritual values for citizenship is not
self-evident. It requires constant enforcement and continuous emphasis.
While humanities scholars are not enjoined to present the "cash value" of
their disciplines to the general public, they can be helpful in making what
they do informative, accessible, and inspiring to the people in the street.
The humanities faculty may provide a large reservoir of potential public
intellectuals in the academy, but the pull of professional pressure makes it
difficult for them to address issues confronting family, nation and the
world. "The professional intellectual" coined by Judith Shklar is a rare
species among academicians in the humanities. The Russian intelligentsia's
ethic of responsibility, Weber's idea of " politics as a calling," or Jean
Paul Sartre's sense of existential engagement is not practicable and does
not have universal appeal among academic humanists. Social scientists,
especially those in law, public policy, business administration, and
political economy, are often pushed by their disciplines to address public
issues, but as consultants or advisors, their expertise is an integral part
of their professions. As a result, they may not be politically concerned,
socially engaged or culturally sensitive enough to assume the role of the
public intellectual. Natural scientists, notably those in environmental and
medical fields, can very well perform the function of the public
intellectual for society. However, when they choose to do so, they are not
only scientists in the professional sense but also expertly informed
conscientious citizens.
While public intellectuals still congregate in academic institutions,
increasingly the print and electronic media offer the most dynamic and
influential forum. Freelance writers, columnists, social critics, and
political commentators, whether or not affiliated with any institute of
higher learning, shape the agenda for and initiate the discourse on specific
issues for public debate. Social movements, especially those organized by
environmentalists, feminists, consumer advocates, human rights activists,
and religious pluralists, have also caught the attention of the general
public and thus created a variety of public space for intellectual
discussions. Civic organizations, including foundations, non-profit
institutions, and philanthropical endeavors for ethnic minorities, the
economically underprivileged, and the socially disadvantaged, characteristic
of the dynamism of American civil society as noticed by the sagely Alexis de
Tocqueville, are often the conscience of American democracy. They are the
breeding ground as well as the platform for the public-minded intellectual
voice.
The business community provides an increasingly significant public forum for
addressing critical issues of family, nation and the world. The dynamic
transformation of corporate culture in response to the globalization of the
market forces compels business leaders to be seasoned in political, social
and cultural affairs. The recent inclusion of courses on leadership,
including character-building with a strong emphasis on ethics, by leading
business schools throughout the country suggests that the idea of the public
intellectual is not only relevant to business education but also important
for business leadership.
In the information age, business leadership must be able to accumulate
social capital as well as financial gain for the company, cultivate cultural
competence as well as technological expertise and inspire spiritual values
as well as materialist motives for all employees. The humanities education
is eminently relevant to the cultivation of future business executives.
Leaders in commerce, trade and finance who are politically concerned,
socially engaged and culturally sensitive are raising a challenging question
to scholars in the humanities: to the extent that liberal arts education is
still the most cherished humanist tradition in American institutes of higher
learning, what kind of cultural message should the humanists impart to the
"new humankind," to borrow a fashionable Japanese expression, who have been
brought up in sound bytes and multimedia virtual realities to think
efficiently, pragmatically, instrumentally, and hurriedly?
Similarly, government, or more appropriately the political process, is also
an important arena for meaningful activities of the public intellectual.
The Russian idea that members of the intelligentsia, as critics of the
status quo, are necessarily alienated from officialdom may have inspired the
socially engaged modern French intellectual from the existential Jean Paul
Sartre to the post-modernist Michele Focault, but the spirit of protest, a
salient feature of the modern Western intellectual, can very well be
realized through government service. German, English, Italian, and American
intellectuals are often consultants and advisors of government agencies. In
traditional East Asia, Chinese scholar-officials, Japanese samurai-bureaucrats
and Korean yangban were the functional equivalents of modern Western
intellectuals. In France, a political insider such as Raymon Aron, may have
been a better exemplar of the ethic of responsibility of the public
intellectual than either a Sartre or a Focault.
As a consequence, it seems obvious that public intellectuals are not
confined to the academy. They serve as professionals in mass media, civic
organizations, social movements, business, and government as well. The
recent appearance of ideas of public press, humane civic organizations,
empowering social movements, responsible business, and accountable
government points to a new ethical discourse of the public intellectual.
The humanities, directly and immediately relevant to the cultivation of a
communal critical self-awareness of the public intellectual, ought to be the
core curriculum of the liberal arts education.
An important benefit of the liberal arts education for the public
intellectual is the cultivation of the spirit of disinterestedness. Public
advocacy is often contentious. Issues that arouse the attention of the
general public are invariably controversial and tension-ridden. Public
intellectuals are not merely interested lobbyists. They must have a
transcending vision that guides their advocacy from a long-term perspective
and a moral awareness that what they advocate will eventually benefit the
well-being of the republic, indeed the human community as a whole. Despite
the veil of ignorance that may impair their vision and the professional
loyalty that may compromise their impartiality, public intellectuals are
constantly guided by what the best of the liberal arts education can offer:
a common sense rooted in the spirit of disinterestedness. Truly,
disinterestedness enables public intellectuals in the academy, mass media,
civic organizations, social movements, business, and government to
communicate above professional lines, to negotiate across special interests
and to take part in an on-going conversation to address critical public
issues for the society at large.
Scholars of the humanities as responsible citizens, including those who are
not at all interested in becoming public intellectuals, must recognize that
their calling as educators compels them to extend their intellectual horizon
beyond the ivory tower. Certainly, a professor of English poetry or a
research in Chinese archeology is not necessarily well-suited to serve as a
public defendant of the humanistic scholarly pursuit. One of the blessings
of academic freedom, of the tenure system or of the vitality of privately
endowed institutions of higher learning in the United States is that they
make it possible for scholars who wish to avoid public debate to do so.
While the scholarly community protects those who are so inclined to hide
within the ivory tower, their privileges actually depend on the ability of
the public intellectuals to mount the case in their behalf. Thus, even the
most private of scholars actually owes a debt to the public intellectual.
On the other hand, non-academic as well as academic public intellectuals are
obligated to ensure the well-being of the humanities, including scholarly
pursuits that are, on the surface, irrelevant to the burning issues of our
times, so that the life of the mind which purifies and enriches the soul of
the republic will endure and flourish.
This preliminary effort to articulate a correlation between the humanities
and the public intellectual shows the social significance of the humanities
in shaping the value-orientation of the public intellectual who, in turn,
exemplifies the vital importance of the humanities for modern society. The
humanistic concerns of the public intellectual are profoundly personal, but
they are not merely private matters. Indeed, it is precisely because they
touch our shared lifeworlds with such depth of meaning that they must be
communicated as issues demanding public attention and accountability. The
public intellectual is socially engaged without losing sight of the spirit
of disinterestedness, for the message he or she delivers is ultimately
inseparable from the civic ideal in which our societal values and
aspirations lie.
(Based on
an oral statement presented at the meeting on "the role of humanities in the
United States," held on June 5, 1996, at the Rockefeller Foundation)
Commentary
COMMENT ON IT!
