The differences between intellectuals: organic, public and traditional.

Following up on an earlier blog on the difference between a traditional and organic intellectual today I went searching for information on how a public intellectual fits into the matrix of intellectualism, and whether you can be both an organic and public intellectual. To refresh our memories:

An Organic Intellectual is someone from the non ruling strata of society that does not typically produce intellectuals and whom has increased their status through education, association or business and now disseminates information back to whence they came - the non dominant cultural group. They help their own understand what is happening that keeps the classes separate and they attempt to have the higher cultural class understand the needs of the populus. Brene Brown and Antonio Gramsci are examples of Organic Intellectuals.

A Traditional Intellectual is someone from the privileged or ruling, higher culture strata's of society that continues to reinforce the values, and culture of the higher classes by preaching that such traditional values, philosophies and culture are best for everyone. Priests are a classic example of a traditional intellectual - they may have come from a lower cultural background but they adopt and reinforce the moral and philosophical culture of the ruling class and treat the Bible as their national book of worth. Non clergy examples of traditional intellectuals are Jordon Peterson (psychologist) and the currently disgraced Andrew Tate (educated at Luton Sixth Form College but became a kickboxer). 

A Public Intellectual is an academic who presents their research, or views on popular topics, in a way that is easily understood by everyone. They make use of popular culture and not just peer reviewed articles and books. With social media, public intellectuals can use multiple forms of dissemination: sonic, visual and digital. They may use third party celebrity verification such as Oprah or specifically publish their research as books sold at airports and in categories/genres other than academic. Both Social Work Research Professor Brene Brown and Professor Tara Brabazon are examples of public intellectuals. They disseminate their research as popular media across multiple platforms and in multiple mediums and their audience is wider than a purely academic audience. Despite the dissemination method, their research remains robust and peer reviewed to meet the requirements and integrity of professional research.

Is it possible to cross into other categories of intellectualism? Yes, it is possible to be both an organic and a public intellectual. Brene Brown is an obvious example. She has risen from a non dominant class and through university education positioned herself in the academies and institutions supporting research.

Gramsci argued that we are all intellectual. His method of Socratic questioning tugs on inbuilt curiosity. Many people have never been afforded the opportunity to think beyond the status quo because they are too busy trying to earn a dollar and just survive. They may have missed exposure to others who think critically about what, why and who the status quo serves. They may have never even heard the voice of dissention or an alternative view. Socratic questioning provides an opportunity of deeper thinking without lecture or charismatic manipulation. Similarly, and to keep with the Psycho-education sub theory of my thesis, Motivational Interviewing questions from the Focused Psychological Strategies could be considered Socratic as they are designed to make the individual reflectively think and form their own opinions after introspection.

The new Public Intellectual

The connectivity and immediacy of social media platforms has changed the face of Gramsci's framework on categories of intellectualism. Life is vastly different to the 1920's when Gramsci was imprisoned because of his socialist ideals against Mussolini's fascist government. By imprisoning him, he was silenced and unable to easily or expediently spread his ideas.

In 1926, he was only thirty-five years old. He was arrested, and at his trial, a prosecutor said, “we must prevent this brain from functioning for twenty years... Denning 2023

Nowadays, ideas spread quickly, from jail or from the lounge/board room, and social media influencers are seen by many as the new age Public Intellectuals - secular content developers interested in the injustices of social and economic institutions juxtaposed to those pious accomplices of political elites. These influencers may have no academic background but because they have a tenacious view and a large following, their view becomes accepted as main stream resistance. What the general public may fail to realise though is that these influencers are often the unwitting moral voice of an existing status quo that says, for example, women should be one way and men the other; parents one way, singles the other; people of colour one way, whites the other; climate change one way and progression the other. Gramsci would perhaps have asked these influencers, and their followers, Socratic type questions to elicit their deeper thinking around moral, social, cultural and economic issues.

The emergence of a new public intellectual perhaps asks a question around credentialling verses experience verses amplification of impact; whether there is a correlation or are they stand alone signifiers of intellectualism in the 2020's?. Unlike the Gramscian definition of a Traditional Intellectual, many very successful and influential people either dropped out of university or just didn't go. Does this mean their ability to influence is any less worthy that an academic? Nine years ago in The Scholar as Public Intellectual, Tyson (2015) illustrated the musings of a University Professor: 

Ideas no longer score points...Their impact must be amplified to be noticed in an increasingly complicated world.

Contemporary history shows us that you don't have to have a degree and the luxury of the academies to have a good idea. This complicates the theoretical framework for my thesis: on one hand I am using Gramsci as one of my philosophers and want to stay with his pure definition of a Public Intellectual as an academic that promotes and disseminates research in an easy to understand way that promotes a body of knowledge for the benefit of society. On the other, the literature and times speak of a new wave of Public Intellectuals who cannot be ignored but whose influence speaks to me of the status quo and of them as being the moral voice of a "would-be" ruling class. I argue that Lived Experience as a discipline embeds storying as evidence but I choose to ignore the evidence of many so-called public intellectual influencers confusing their private interests with the broader public interest.

At Confirmation of Candidature, one of my assessors suggested I spend more time teasing out the nuances of Gramsci...and so I go back to his Prison Notebooks to immerse myself in a social, political and cultural understanding of his words at that time. In the mean time, I'll use this blog as my research diary and thought companion.

What are your thoughts on what a Public Intellectual is? Drop them below so we can both grapple this issue.

👵🏼 Megan Bayliss, Social Worker

👩🏼‍🎓 PhD candidate: social and cultural resistance to the status quo.

References