What is the Role of a Public Intellectual in A Democracy

In a liberal society as ours, we cherish the individual. The American Constitution protects the rights to individual freedoms. The Supreme Court has even interpreted the Constitution to provide an individual right to privacy (though it may seem to be quickly disappearing). Further, democratic government has been established, in the first place, because of the individuals’ attempts to protect private property and personal interests. It would seem, then, that modern life in our democracy is focused on the individual. “I” want, “I” need, and “I” desire – I have an ego.
In America, unlike many parts of the modern world, free speech reigns free. In fact, America is the destination for many important intellectual dissidents of tyrannous regimes and unethical leadership. This fact is true because the United States provides the means for public discourse on the major issues concerning humanity. Yet in a land where each individual is just that – an individual – how can such a discourse occur without conflicting egos and interests?
In a panel discussion on the issues concerning the public intellectual, John Donatich asks this question:

What does a country built on headstrong individualism and the myth of self-reliance do with its people convinced that they know best?

In a country where Senator Barack Obama is he who will provide “change we can believe in”, a country where Sen. John McCain and his running-mate Gov. Palin are the “Ticket for America”, a country where individuals try to bring about their own change, it would seem that Donatich’s question is a troublesome one. What, in fact, is the role of a public intellectual in a democracy – a land full of individuals?
Often, leaders of their respective fields – everything from economics, chemistry, philosophy, law, even leaders of countries – are represented within the intellectual elite. Now, this is by no means always the case, but to an extent, it is arguable that those leaders are often some of our highest regarded scholars. Well, we all know where this argument leads…anti-intellectualism. In a nutshell, this argument slowly develops into the elitist view of the intelligentsia within a society. But is there merit to this argument? Because, if the “intellectual class” in fact exists, then the argument follows that the laypeople fear these intellectual leaders. Their fear is, as Adam Smith famously notes:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public…

That those with knowledge will use it for personal gain, so on and so forth. In accordance with the warning of Smith’s statement, the public sentiment of fear is rather well grounded. Stephen Mack addresses this issue of anti-intellectualism in his article The “Decline” of Public Intellectuals:

As to what Donatich derisively calls a “headstrong individualism and the myth of self-reliance,” it’s worth noting that he’s not giving us full-fledged descriptions of real political ideas but caricatures of an imagined psycho-cultural disposition. An “immature” disposition, at that. One can almost hear the sit-com dad railing against his willful, stubborn, impetuous kid who has once again gotten himself in trouble because he refused to heed Pop’s unwaveringly wise advice. And in this myth, common-folk (like kids) always get into trouble because they lack what all paternal intellectuals have by birthright—impulse control. The infantile common-folk who comprise the “mob” has been the star of elitist melodrama for centuries; they’re also “exhibit A” in nearly every hand-wringing, anti-democratic treatise in the western tradition. Now, are some people ill-equipped for self-government? Of course. But the strongest alternative argument, the best argument for democracy, is not that the people are “naturally” equipped for self-government—but that they need to become so, and, moreover, experience is the only teacher. So here’s the point: Any argument for the public intellectual that, like Donatich’s, rests the assumption that common citizens are forever childlike and must be led by a class of experts is politically corrosive and historically dangerous.

Now, let’s investigate as to what the public intellectual is. This country cherishes the individual, but the arguments promoting headstrong individualism and self-reliance have been debunked, so what does that leave us with?
Recent trends show that record numbers of students are attending College. The number of educated individuals within society is on the rise. Though there exists the “educated poor” within society, those who attend a university, as compared to those who only complete high school, often make substantially more money over their lifetimes. Statistics show, though not guarantee, that higher levels of education lead to better paying careers. Because it is argued that there is a high correlation between education and income (though not a guaranteed relationship), it would seem that we hold educated individuals in high esteem. We pay them a lot to do what they do so well – whatever it may be.
So, the country regards both individuals and educated peoples as important within society. Well where do you slip in the ego, the individual, the “I”? Here we have the public intellectual. The educated leaders within society, those that lead their fields and use their voices to question social and humanitarian issues. Now it’s not to say that ego is necessarily a bad thing – how else can one stubbornly (for lack of a better word) stand up to political and social leaders. For those intellectuals that want to voice their opinions and ideas for social and political change, ego is necessary.
A public intellectual is can come from any realm of study. Steven Levitt, for example, is a University of Chicago economics professor. But, the reason he is considered a public intellectual, in a nutshell, is because of the work he does with regard to social change. The role of the public intellectual is not to necessarily be an activist, but to be an informant. If knowledge is power, then the intelligentsia has power. It is the necessary duty of the public intellectuals to wield this power with caution. It is important that the public intellectual is constructively critical of social progress and change. It is important that he constructs his criticism on rational arguments and reasoning. So why is it the role of our intellectuals within society to wield this power? It is not just because of their power within society but as Stephen Mack argues, “[It is] because learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment. It’s what we [intellectuals] do at our day jobs.”