What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Why do drug dealers still live with their moms? What kind of impact did Roe v. Wade have on violent crime? Co-authors of Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner instantly landed in the “New York Times Bestsellers” section. Steven Levitt, in particular, is a great example of a modern day leader in his field.
A 1989 graduate from Harvard University, he received his Ph.D. at MIT in 1994. In 2003, he was awarded the John Bates Clark Medal which is awarded bi-annually to the most promising economist under the age of 40. He is quite an intellectual, and he is also one of the most recognized economists amongst laypeople. Today, he is a Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago.
When I hear the word “economist”, I think of Alan Greenspan and a group of old, boring conservatives who raise and lower the interest rate. Luckily, Steven Levitt crushes this stereotype. Jokingly calling himself a “rogue economist” Levitt is not just concerned in the interest rate. He applies his mathematic equations to questions that have social impact. What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common? Would you believe that they are both…cheaters? Levitt finds pretty convincing evidence of teachers cheating for students on standardized tests and sumo wrestlers throwing matches for a payoff.
Or, what about drug dealers’ living situations? Well, as they say in the book, “if you ask enough questions, strange as they may seem at the time, you may eventually learn something worthwhile”. The crack dealers that the study focus’ on worked in a gang that is structured like a corporation with franchises (different gangs in different areas) all under a (they literally were called this) “board of directors”.
Levitt likes to ask questions. One of the most controversial studies he did in 2001 in a paper titled Legal Abortion and Crime Effect. Levitt, and co-author Jon Donohue, argue that since Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion can account for almost half of the decrease in crime that occurred in the 1990s. Now, this is not a truth, this is just an argument. And it is a very interesting at that. There is much criticism to this argument. In 2005, two economists published a paper arguing against the methods used in determining the findings. The Economist notes the debate in a December 1, 2005 article:
Abortion, legalised throughout the United States by the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade ruling in 1973, prevents unwanted pregnancies from becoming unwanted children. Higher abortion rates from the 1970s onwards thus help to explain why crime rates fell in America about two decades later.
That's the theory. But a paper published last week by Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz, two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, finds an embarrassing hole in the evidence. Messrs Donohue and Levitt subjected the data to a battery of tests, some suggestive, others more systematic, in an effort to prove the links in the chain. The challenge is to distinguish the role of abortion from other potential influences on crime, many of which cannot be observed directly.
Donohue and Levitt have since responded to the argument. A key statement made to NPR by Steven Levitt is:
The numbers we're talking about, in terms of crime, are absolutely trivial when you compare it to the broader debate on abortion. From a pro-life view of the world: If abortion is murder then we have a million murders a year through abortion. And the few thousand homicides that will be prevented according to our analysis are just nothing—they are a pebble in the ocean relative to the tragedy that is abortion. So, my own view, when we [did] the study and it hasn't changed is that: our study shouldn't change anybody's opinion about whether abortion should be legal and easily available or not. It's really a study about crime, not abortion.
He shows himself as one who is both a humanitarian and a scientist. The duo has re-subjected their statistics to more tests in order to prove their legitimacy. But regardless, Steven Levitt is working not just to develop his field for the future, but also to change the public view of his field. So, is he a public intellectual?
Being that he has graduated from both Harvard and MIT, works as the director of University of Chicago’s The Becker Center on Price Theory, and is considered one of the best economists under 40, it is easy to call him an intellectual. So let us take it a step farther. In response to Stephen Mack’s piece The “Decline” of the Public Intellectual, I wrote a piece asking what, in fact, is a public intellectual? Really, the public intellectual evades a description and rather must fulfill a set of requirements. Among these requirements, Mack notes the importance of criticism. Steven Levitt is a social critic, though an economist. Through questions ranging in topic from the Ku Klux Klan to the drug trade to cheating teachers, Steven Levitt finds a way to contextualize the ways that these groups function and act within society. And he does it in a way that the layman can understand.
So to re-ask the question, is Steven Levitt a public intellectual? Yes, by all means. And not only is he a leader within his field but he is also helping others rise to level. After publishing his first book Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and his co-author Stephen Dubner created a blog. Since picked up by The New York Times, they continue to run the site and they have expanded their influence even farther. Steven Levitt is not only a public intellectual, but he is also a young leader who has many more years of thought provoking social criticism that only an economist can give.
Showing posts with label Public Intellectual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Intellectual. Show all posts
Saturday, September 13, 2008
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.”
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
