What do you think?
Rate this book
Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline
In this timely book, the first comprehensive study of the modern American public intellectual--that individual who speaks to the public on issues of political or ideological moment--Richard Posner charts the decline of a venerable institution that included worthies from Socrates to John Dewey. With the rapid growth of the media in recent years, highly visible forums for discussion have multiplied, while greater academic specialization has yielded a growing number of narrowly trained scholars. Posner tracks these two trends to their inevitable a proliferation of modern academics commenting on topics outside their ken. The resulting scene--one of off-the-cuff pronouncements, erroneous predictions, and ignorant policy proposals--compares poorly with the performance of earlier public intellectuals, largely nonacademics whose erudition and breadth of knowledge were well suited to public discourse. Leveling a balanced attack on liberal and conservative pundits alike, Posner describes the styles and genres, constraints and incentives, of the activity of public intellectuals. He identifies a market for this activity--one with recognizable patterns and conventions but an absence of quality controls. And he offers modest proposals for improving the performance of this market--and the quality of public discussion in America today.
416 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2002
7 people are currently reading
300 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
April 30, 2013
I’ve always been interested in the idea of the intellectual, and especially our ideas about whether or not the intellectual has special work to do in the public sphere. This idea of the “public intellectual,” which Richard Posner defines as someone who is brought up in the academy but often writes on topics outside their area of expertise or spends time popularizing their own work, seems to be a relatively new one. There have always been intellectuals who wrote for popular audiences and there have always been those who never leave the small islands of their balkanized academic specialties. Posner, however, isn’t interested in these; he’s only interested in those who have taught in in universities, but have somehow – whether through media popularity, popularizing books, or commenting on current events – made themselves known to an audience that would have been otherwise unreachable to them.
I was interested in Posner’s take on this subject because I know him as a sort of intellectual curmudgeon, fiercely critical of most ideas (not least his own), and independent political bent. In fact, most of the intellectuals that spend time getting raked over the coals in these pages are liberals – Martha Nussbaum, Ronald Dworkin, Paul Krugman, Stephen Jay Gould, and the list goes on. He does really get down on two well-known conservatives – Robert Bork and Gertrude Himmelfarb – for being public “Jeremiahs” (see below).
Perhaps the biggest problem with the book, and its most clumsy part, comes from Posner’s insistence on defining a marketplace for public intellectuals, and I use the word “marketplace” in the strict economic sense. He uses theories of supply and demand to analyze precisely why so many people who have such horrible predictive abilities often keep popping up over and over again in the media, and never seem to be held accountable for their inaccurate accounts of events. He harps on Jeane Kirkpatrick for saying in 1979 that “communist regimes, unlike right-wing autocracies, would never evolve into democratic societies” and Daniel Bell for suggesting that “traditional ideologies of the West were exhausted” (p. 139). Admittedly, Kirkpatrick and Bell weren’t the most public of public intellectuals, but we can see where he’s going with this. His response is that the decreasing size of academic specialization contributes to this and makes the “market” weaker. It does seem reasonable to point out that someone who has spent their entire life studying nineteenth century British poetry might not have that much interesting or new to say about, for example, U.S.-Israeli relations or gay marriage. However, the general public seems to be blinded by the idea that anyone in a position of academic authority must know everything about everything, when clearly they don’t. As the quote above points out, even Jeane Kirkpatrick made critical mistakes even within her area of specialty, international diplomacy.
There is a one-sentence summary hidden away on page 75 which adumbrates most of Posner’s discontents. Public intellectuals, he says, have “a proclivity for taking extreme positions, a taste for universals and abstraction, a desire for moral purity, a lack of worldliness, and intellectual arrogance” which work together “to induce selective empathy, a selective sense of justice, an insensitivity to context, a lack of perspective, a denigration of predecessors as lacking moral insight, an impatience with prudence and sobriety, a lack of realism, and excessive self-confidence.”
The second half of the book sets up five kinds of thought and criticism that is often produced by public intellectuals. The chapters are called “The Literary Critical as Public Intellectual” (which mostly takes down some of Martha Nussbaum’s much too egalitarian, liberal readings of several novels), “Political Satire” (which looks at Huxley and Orwell), “The Jeremiah School” (consisting mostly of conservatives who think the world is going to Hell in a hand basket – nota bene Kirkpatrick and Robert Bork), “The Public Philosopher” (Thomas Nagel and others), and “The Public Intellectual and the Law” (mostly a criticism of Ronald Dworkin, including commentary on his involvement with the Clinton impeachment).
At the end of the book, I didn’t feel like I had taken away much from what Posner had to say. It’s true that when you turn on the television or the radio, you seem to hear from the same public intellectuals repeatedly, and that they aren’t held responsible for their mistakes to the extent that they make them. I read this mostly for its witty, coruscating takedowns of some well-known thinkers. The few words he saves for Camille Paglia are priceless. He even vents toward some thinkers toward whom I feel some personal affinity, but this definitely isn’t a book-length polemic. Also, he must have a wonderful sense of humor, because in the Acknowledgements, he thanks many of the people he criticized most harshly for reading his first draft.
I was interested in Posner’s take on this subject because I know him as a sort of intellectual curmudgeon, fiercely critical of most ideas (not least his own), and independent political bent. In fact, most of the intellectuals that spend time getting raked over the coals in these pages are liberals – Martha Nussbaum, Ronald Dworkin, Paul Krugman, Stephen Jay Gould, and the list goes on. He does really get down on two well-known conservatives – Robert Bork and Gertrude Himmelfarb – for being public “Jeremiahs” (see below).
Perhaps the biggest problem with the book, and its most clumsy part, comes from Posner’s insistence on defining a marketplace for public intellectuals, and I use the word “marketplace” in the strict economic sense. He uses theories of supply and demand to analyze precisely why so many people who have such horrible predictive abilities often keep popping up over and over again in the media, and never seem to be held accountable for their inaccurate accounts of events. He harps on Jeane Kirkpatrick for saying in 1979 that “communist regimes, unlike right-wing autocracies, would never evolve into democratic societies” and Daniel Bell for suggesting that “traditional ideologies of the West were exhausted” (p. 139). Admittedly, Kirkpatrick and Bell weren’t the most public of public intellectuals, but we can see where he’s going with this. His response is that the decreasing size of academic specialization contributes to this and makes the “market” weaker. It does seem reasonable to point out that someone who has spent their entire life studying nineteenth century British poetry might not have that much interesting or new to say about, for example, U.S.-Israeli relations or gay marriage. However, the general public seems to be blinded by the idea that anyone in a position of academic authority must know everything about everything, when clearly they don’t. As the quote above points out, even Jeane Kirkpatrick made critical mistakes even within her area of specialty, international diplomacy.
There is a one-sentence summary hidden away on page 75 which adumbrates most of Posner’s discontents. Public intellectuals, he says, have “a proclivity for taking extreme positions, a taste for universals and abstraction, a desire for moral purity, a lack of worldliness, and intellectual arrogance” which work together “to induce selective empathy, a selective sense of justice, an insensitivity to context, a lack of perspective, a denigration of predecessors as lacking moral insight, an impatience with prudence and sobriety, a lack of realism, and excessive self-confidence.”
The second half of the book sets up five kinds of thought and criticism that is often produced by public intellectuals. The chapters are called “The Literary Critical as Public Intellectual” (which mostly takes down some of Martha Nussbaum’s much too egalitarian, liberal readings of several novels), “Political Satire” (which looks at Huxley and Orwell), “The Jeremiah School” (consisting mostly of conservatives who think the world is going to Hell in a hand basket – nota bene Kirkpatrick and Robert Bork), “The Public Philosopher” (Thomas Nagel and others), and “The Public Intellectual and the Law” (mostly a criticism of Ronald Dworkin, including commentary on his involvement with the Clinton impeachment).
At the end of the book, I didn’t feel like I had taken away much from what Posner had to say. It’s true that when you turn on the television or the radio, you seem to hear from the same public intellectuals repeatedly, and that they aren’t held responsible for their mistakes to the extent that they make them. I read this mostly for its witty, coruscating takedowns of some well-known thinkers. The few words he saves for Camille Paglia are priceless. He even vents toward some thinkers toward whom I feel some personal affinity, but this definitely isn’t a book-length polemic. Also, he must have a wonderful sense of humor, because in the Acknowledgements, he thanks many of the people he criticized most harshly for reading his first draft.
February 19, 2021
A book written by one of the most illustrious living public intellectuals about how bad modern public intellectuals are (at least when they act in this capacity rather than writing as academics for academics in purely academic publications).
They are biased, partisan, inaccurate, partial. Even the most distinguished among them, like Nobel laureates. Their predictions almost never realize. Particularly when they try saying something about issues that do not fall within the immediate area of their very narrow expertise.
A very funny example that Posner provided was about an open letter signed by fifty Nobel science laureates in response to President Clinton’s proposal for a national antimissile defense saying that such a system “would offer little protection.” Half the signatories were either biologists or chemists, and many of the physicists were in branches of physics unrelated to the science relating to anti-missiles defense systems. As Posner puts it, "[t]he opinion of these distinguished nonexperts was as pertinent to the debate over the antimissile defense as a celebrity endorsement".
Expert opinion is in disregard these days from wider public. Well, after reading this book you will become even more sceptical of it (at least of publicly expressed expert opinions).
Posner does a great job of analysing the fallacies in public intellectuals' works and the causes of such a bitter state of their products.
It's not surprising that some intellectuals didn't like the book (eg. Noam Chomsky) who were dismissing and disregarding about the conclusions made by Posner. As David Brooks from NY Times said about the book: "You might as well try to build an economic model to explain prayer." (yes, Posner applies economic analysis literally to everything, not just law).
Certainly the book should not turn you completely against all public opinions expressed by well known "celebrity" intellectuals. But it rather makes you think even more critical about anything you hear from them, regardless of whether they are left- or right-wing.
They are biased, partisan, inaccurate, partial. Even the most distinguished among them, like Nobel laureates. Their predictions almost never realize. Particularly when they try saying something about issues that do not fall within the immediate area of their very narrow expertise.
A very funny example that Posner provided was about an open letter signed by fifty Nobel science laureates in response to President Clinton’s proposal for a national antimissile defense saying that such a system “would offer little protection.” Half the signatories were either biologists or chemists, and many of the physicists were in branches of physics unrelated to the science relating to anti-missiles defense systems. As Posner puts it, "[t]he opinion of these distinguished nonexperts was as pertinent to the debate over the antimissile defense as a celebrity endorsement".
Expert opinion is in disregard these days from wider public. Well, after reading this book you will become even more sceptical of it (at least of publicly expressed expert opinions).
Posner does a great job of analysing the fallacies in public intellectuals' works and the causes of such a bitter state of their products.
It's not surprising that some intellectuals didn't like the book (eg. Noam Chomsky) who were dismissing and disregarding about the conclusions made by Posner. As David Brooks from NY Times said about the book: "You might as well try to build an economic model to explain prayer." (yes, Posner applies economic analysis literally to everything, not just law).
Certainly the book should not turn you completely against all public opinions expressed by well known "celebrity" intellectuals. But it rather makes you think even more critical about anything you hear from them, regardless of whether they are left- or right-wing.
June 23, 2021
I am one of those people who, though with some training in economics/statistics, balk at the thought that economic/ statistical analyses should be applied to everything. So despite my profound respect for Posner (I think he has, perhaps, the most profoundly all encompassing intellect I’ve ever encountered- his oeuvre moves from law to analytical philosophy to economics, to literary criticism and to all other sorts of disciplines without missing a beat), I was already somewhat prejudiced coming into this, since he basically seeks to use economics to study public intellectuals.
Nevertheless, what I found upon reading was very fair criticism in all its (unsurprising) erudition. The fact is, as Posner points out, that most of our public intellectuals are simply unqualified to speak on what they speak on - and so they do a shoddy job of it. Martha Nussbaum’s insistence on locating her public intellectual work within the illustrious list of the philosophers of antiquity does not hide the fact that philosophy does not really have much to tell us about the practicable actions and practical results of the things Nussbaum involves herself in. An abstract theory of capabilities (inspired by Aristotelian ideas about eudaimonia) does not give us much concrete understanding of the interventions and practical considerations necessary for understanding long- held cultural practices; does not tell us what opportunities should be provided to what women in what ways in which third world countries so as to ensure their “flourishing”. At best, such a theory is simply an expression of chauvinism: this is what we do where I’m from, we like it there, thus it should be done everywhere. Neither does a (mis)reading of The Symposium and The Phaedrus tell us much about the current plight of homosexuals.
Despite all his erudition and his talents as a writer, Richard Rorty’s theorizing, his antiquated calls for a return to the union politics of his childhood as a way of “achieving our country”, cannot speak for nor offer much to the political moment as it is right now. Nor can such public intellectuals coming from within other fields, like Allan Bloom in the classics, or Robert Bork in law, George Steiner in criticism etc., offer us much meaningful guidance.
Nevertheless, what I found upon reading was very fair criticism in all its (unsurprising) erudition. The fact is, as Posner points out, that most of our public intellectuals are simply unqualified to speak on what they speak on - and so they do a shoddy job of it. Martha Nussbaum’s insistence on locating her public intellectual work within the illustrious list of the philosophers of antiquity does not hide the fact that philosophy does not really have much to tell us about the practicable actions and practical results of the things Nussbaum involves herself in. An abstract theory of capabilities (inspired by Aristotelian ideas about eudaimonia) does not give us much concrete understanding of the interventions and practical considerations necessary for understanding long- held cultural practices; does not tell us what opportunities should be provided to what women in what ways in which third world countries so as to ensure their “flourishing”. At best, such a theory is simply an expression of chauvinism: this is what we do where I’m from, we like it there, thus it should be done everywhere. Neither does a (mis)reading of The Symposium and The Phaedrus tell us much about the current plight of homosexuals.
Despite all his erudition and his talents as a writer, Richard Rorty’s theorizing, his antiquated calls for a return to the union politics of his childhood as a way of “achieving our country”, cannot speak for nor offer much to the political moment as it is right now. Nor can such public intellectuals coming from within other fields, like Allan Bloom in the classics, or Robert Bork in law, George Steiner in criticism etc., offer us much meaningful guidance.
August 23, 2020
A Federal appeals court judge in Chicago until 2017, the Judge Richard A. Posner is a prolific author and interesting character. In a New Yorker interview he described himself as being like his cat, nice but capable of cruelty. That latter trait shows in Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline. His definition of a public intellectual is one who "expresses himself in a way that is accessible to the public, and the focus of his expression is on matters of general public concern of (or inflected by) a political or ideological cast." The book ranges widely in topics and disciplines, his discussion of literature, perhaps, being the most interesting point of entry for Goodreads participants, although questions of politics and policy hold great interest also.
While public intellectuals were once drawn from many environments, arts, literature, bohemians, and private sector voices, Posner is concerned that the field is increasingly dominated by academics. He feels that the public is not being fairly served, in that many times the academics are
preaching outside their area of expertise, they are not held accountable for what they say or write when they are acting beyond the scholarly setting of peer review. Further, the work they produce is not necessarily factual; they may be acting "on Holiday" from their day jobs. He offers some suggestions for increasing the pressure for greater accuracy. He does note that readers have their own way of dealing with the lack of a responsibility: they ignore what the writers or speakers have to say.
Posner takes many of these Public Intellectuals to task on their positions and shortcomings. His attacks are sometimes prolonged, and, like his cruel cat, he is not content with battering his prey
senseless, he comes back a chapter later and tosses the lifeless forms into the air and swats them again. This overkill is the reason for only four stars, not on moral grounds, but because it becomes tiresome for the reader. "Enough is enough. I get it." is what the reader is inclined to say.
Nonetheless, a most interesting book that spends a chapter doing a comparative analysis of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Huxley's Brave New World. That alone is worth the price of
admission. Fortunately, he returns to Orwell several times as an exemplar of the non-academic intellectual. Radical environmentalism, the Bush-Gore election crisis, the Twin Towers tragedy, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, are among the topics where he analyzes the postures of the public Intellectuals, right and left. Most come away scarred, sometimes only by being quoted: self inflicted injuries.
Posner is famed for his linking the fields of economics and law, so the reader will find many instances of that interaction and of the role of economics in many social and political issues.
I would recommend spending time with this articulate polymath. The subject matter is broadly inclusive, the tone opinionated, and some of the topics covered already stored in the reader's mind, ready to be jarred into a rethink.
While public intellectuals were once drawn from many environments, arts, literature, bohemians, and private sector voices, Posner is concerned that the field is increasingly dominated by academics. He feels that the public is not being fairly served, in that many times the academics are
preaching outside their area of expertise, they are not held accountable for what they say or write when they are acting beyond the scholarly setting of peer review. Further, the work they produce is not necessarily factual; they may be acting "on Holiday" from their day jobs. He offers some suggestions for increasing the pressure for greater accuracy. He does note that readers have their own way of dealing with the lack of a responsibility: they ignore what the writers or speakers have to say.
Posner takes many of these Public Intellectuals to task on their positions and shortcomings. His attacks are sometimes prolonged, and, like his cruel cat, he is not content with battering his prey
senseless, he comes back a chapter later and tosses the lifeless forms into the air and swats them again. This overkill is the reason for only four stars, not on moral grounds, but because it becomes tiresome for the reader. "Enough is enough. I get it." is what the reader is inclined to say.
Nonetheless, a most interesting book that spends a chapter doing a comparative analysis of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and Huxley's Brave New World. That alone is worth the price of
admission. Fortunately, he returns to Orwell several times as an exemplar of the non-academic intellectual. Radical environmentalism, the Bush-Gore election crisis, the Twin Towers tragedy, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, are among the topics where he analyzes the postures of the public Intellectuals, right and left. Most come away scarred, sometimes only by being quoted: self inflicted injuries.
Posner is famed for his linking the fields of economics and law, so the reader will find many instances of that interaction and of the role of economics in many social and political issues.
I would recommend spending time with this articulate polymath. The subject matter is broadly inclusive, the tone opinionated, and some of the topics covered already stored in the reader's mind, ready to be jarred into a rethink.
November 25, 2024
most of the Posner books are a mixed bag, since they're mash-ups of all kinds of random stuff he's written (often with rather sophomoric quantitative analyses of this or that...this one, which attempts to rank public intellectual output based on his made-up list of these people circa 2000/2003, takes the cake). sometimes, that makes for great work, when the topic is tightly focused, as on the function of the federal courts.
here, there are some excellent sections, as when he ridicules public intellectuals (academics working as such, really...that's his focus here) saying silly stuff when supporting their partisan interests in various SCOTUS briefs, controversies like the Clinton impeachment, Bush v. Gore, 9/11, and so on. there are also a few interminable sections, particularly his discussion of Brave New World and 1984. but you take the good with the no bad, and in this case, given that 2003 now feels like 1903, it's a nice nostalgic effort too.
one big point of contention: he seems to think academics working "in their school" are going to be more careful, checked by peer review, etc. this clearly wasn't the case in 2003 and it isn't the case now. the social sciences, with which he would associate himself, have had a particularly rough go of it given the "falsification crisis" and whatnot.
nevertheless, a fun toilet read, all things considered. recommended.
here, there are some excellent sections, as when he ridicules public intellectuals (academics working as such, really...that's his focus here) saying silly stuff when supporting their partisan interests in various SCOTUS briefs, controversies like the Clinton impeachment, Bush v. Gore, 9/11, and so on. there are also a few interminable sections, particularly his discussion of Brave New World and 1984. but you take the good with the no bad, and in this case, given that 2003 now feels like 1903, it's a nice nostalgic effort too.
one big point of contention: he seems to think academics working "in their school" are going to be more careful, checked by peer review, etc. this clearly wasn't the case in 2003 and it isn't the case now. the social sciences, with which he would associate himself, have had a particularly rough go of it given the "falsification crisis" and whatnot.
nevertheless, a fun toilet read, all things considered. recommended.
January 24, 2017
(Note: it is not a true "read" for this book. Just a fast glance-through.)
Posner's critique of "Public Intellectuals"lies in today's twin forces: saturation of media and the ever narrowing of academic specialties. The symbolic goods that public intellectuals are providing to through the mass media is a combination of information, opinion, entertainment and formation of solidarity. Posner called the supply and demand of this symbolic goods in the economic terms of pricing equilibrium. There are two chapters that warrant a careful closer read for this reader:
(1) Ch. 6 - the literary critics as public intellectuals. Posner mentioned Wayne Booth and Martha Nussbaum as exemplars. Posner separates literary critics into three piles: the Aestheticists: Oscar Wilde, Benedetto Croce, George Steiner, Helen Vendler; the Moralists: Plato, Tolstoy, Samuel Johnson, Matthew Arnold, Georg Lukàcs; the Middle: T.S. Eliot, Edmund Wilson, Trilling.
(2) Ch. 9 - public philosophers. In particular, Posner discussed Martha Nussbaum and Richard Rorty's work, their similarities and differences. In his view, Nussbaum believes in the central Western philosophic tradition from Plato, Aristotle, Stoics to Locke, Hume, Kant, Mills and Rawls, which Rorty has more negative views on traditions being the obstacles.
The whiff of irony of Posner himself being a public intellectual has not lost on the author himself. Knowing little of Posner as well as majority among the phalanx of individuals he cited, this reader tables this book for future read.
Posner's critique of "Public Intellectuals"lies in today's twin forces: saturation of media and the ever narrowing of academic specialties. The symbolic goods that public intellectuals are providing to through the mass media is a combination of information, opinion, entertainment and formation of solidarity. Posner called the supply and demand of this symbolic goods in the economic terms of pricing equilibrium. There are two chapters that warrant a careful closer read for this reader:
(1) Ch. 6 - the literary critics as public intellectuals. Posner mentioned Wayne Booth and Martha Nussbaum as exemplars. Posner separates literary critics into three piles: the Aestheticists: Oscar Wilde, Benedetto Croce, George Steiner, Helen Vendler; the Moralists: Plato, Tolstoy, Samuel Johnson, Matthew Arnold, Georg Lukàcs; the Middle: T.S. Eliot, Edmund Wilson, Trilling.
(2) Ch. 9 - public philosophers. In particular, Posner discussed Martha Nussbaum and Richard Rorty's work, their similarities and differences. In his view, Nussbaum believes in the central Western philosophic tradition from Plato, Aristotle, Stoics to Locke, Hume, Kant, Mills and Rawls, which Rorty has more negative views on traditions being the obstacles.
The whiff of irony of Posner himself being a public intellectual has not lost on the author himself. Knowing little of Posner as well as majority among the phalanx of individuals he cited, this reader tables this book for future read.
June 19, 2013
The book started with a far fetched aim: to establish analysis of public intellectuals' interventions as an academic field of study. I'm not sure if the effort is worth it, but that's just my opinion.
The book itself is an illustration of the old saying about the honesty of Cesar's wife. If people in general, just by being humans, do not care enough about their public intervention in order to make them a reasonably serious business, I do not think that much can be made about it.
I would like to see the book carry also good examples, instead of just the more shocking ones; I would also like to see the author include some (self-)opinion about his own public intervention.
That said, it's an entertaining reading that does the thing that the author mentions in the last lines: it alerts us to the low quality of many interventions in the public sphere by people that should know better. Maybe we don't notice (or don't care) too much that sort of interventions, but the book takes home some points that may change that opinion.
The book itself is an illustration of the old saying about the honesty of Cesar's wife. If people in general, just by being humans, do not care enough about their public intervention in order to make them a reasonably serious business, I do not think that much can be made about it.
I would like to see the book carry also good examples, instead of just the more shocking ones; I would also like to see the author include some (self-)opinion about his own public intervention.
That said, it's an entertaining reading that does the thing that the author mentions in the last lines: it alerts us to the low quality of many interventions in the public sphere by people that should know better. Maybe we don't notice (or don't care) too much that sort of interventions, but the book takes home some points that may change that opinion.
to-read-per
June 22, 2018Recommend by Christian Alejandro Gonzalez on 6/22/18
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews