Intellectualism and Ideology at Harvard
By Nathan Kahana
On Thursday, George Scialabba, Jesse McCarthy, and Anastasia Berg participated in a panel discussion on the role of public intellectuals in American life. The discussion was organized by the Public Culture Project, an initiative of Harvard’s Division of Arts and Humanities that aims to “revive our shared public life by placing existential, moral, and spiritual questions at the center of our public conversations.”
Scialabba is a critically acclaimed book critic and writer on contemporary social issues. McCarthy is a professor of English and African American studies at Harvard, and Berg is an assistant professor of philosophy at UC Irvine. Both McCarthy and Berg are editors at The Point, a literary magazine that aims to apply philosophy to societal, cultural, and political questions.
Their conversation focused on the distinctiveness of the American idea and its effect on public intellectualism, while addressing the role of public intellectuals in any society and time period. It suggested that while much of the academy is aware of the importance of intellectual dialogue and the exchange of well-reasoned perspectives, others use their “intellectualism” as a mere weapon in a moral battleground.
McCarthy cited Plato’s argument that an egalitarian society is inherently suspicious of all forms of expertise and authority, including intellectual authority. While recognizing the limitations of egalitarianism, McCarthy argued that our country is bound through ideas rather than shared ancestry; America is thus a country rooted in intellectualism. “Intellectuals,” he said, “are people who have the conviction that ideas matter, even when they’re not recognized.” His remarks constituted a clear-sighted diagnosis of the possibilities not only of American public intellectualism, but of the American experiment as a whole.
Berg offered insights into the role of a public intellectual in any society and time period. She suggested that social conventions prevent genuine moral discourse, leading not only to shallowness, but to evil. She cited Hannah Arendt’s concept of the banality of evil, arguing that conventions and stock phrases allow us to inhabit a comfortable but morally deficient posture. She noted that artificial intelligence, in its use of such phrases, is “the particular guise of this old and ancient threat.” Public intellectuals, Berg argued, can subvert this state of complacency by questioning societal assumptions. But while recognizing the potential of the role, she acknowledged its dangers; when we begin questioning long-standing assumptions, we can fall into destructive ideologies.
Scialabba’s arguments were more pessimistic towards the American experiment and reflected a narrower attitude towards the possibilities of public intellectualism. He argued that the problems of our society can be traced to “neoliberalism,” while their answers lie in Marxism. In his view, the role of a public intellectual is not to foster dialogue or subvert convention; rather, it is to “pound with the hammer of simplicity” in an attempt to mobilize support for socialist causes.
The event was successful; the speeches displayed a wide range of ideas, and the conversations that followed were spirited and fruitful. But it also showcased the least sympathetic elements of the left, and, more broadly, those who see themselves as the public intellectuals of America. As long as such individuals use their intellectualism as a “hammer” to impose doctrine rather than as a means to enliven debate, this nation will reject both them and their values.