This is something rare in the history of this humble blog: a post from a guest blogger.
I give you the thoughts of Paul D. Van Pelt. Neither he nor I have any responsibility for the illustrative cartoon, though.
useful in its' brevity and can refer to all manner of facility with concepts, ideas, facts, numbers
and algorithms. When used in reference to itself, the word is elegant; when used by those
who only believe it describes someone they know of, it is empty rhetoric. Few geniuses are
notable in their lifetimes. Clever people rarely turn out to be geniuses, and, strange as it may
seem, a genius is rarely clever. Clever people who disguise themselves as geniuses are
called charlatans. Even so, they may be well-remembered by historians and public
intellectuals: facility with language gains traction in the public market and political genres.
Genius is, at once, a gift and a burden. One displaying it may be revered or reviled,
depending upon where the reviewer stands; what interests, preferences and motives he or
she holds.
The public intellectual (PI) resides somewhere on the border between clever and genius.
This person must have the skills to read, write, and speak effectively and persuasively. A
journalistic resume is mandatory. Teaching credentials are valuable. Some level of political
acumen is helpful, depending on where the PI wishes to stand. There are many who earn a
decent living in this sector of the public market. They speak, write, read, teach and write some
more. They can smile at adversity as easily as a wet duck in a rainstorm. And they
understand the value of resiliency; the demands of vulnerability. Should a PI turn out to be
charlatan, that facade emerges, sooner than later.
As purveyors of truth; defenders of justice and the common good, PIs have less flexibility
than fiction writers: you can't just make it up as you go...not if you expect to continue earning
a decent living. Contextual reality holds little potential for credibility. These well-heeled,
creative educators do not need genius to successfully ply their trade. All they really need do is
keep the story straight. And, interesting.
In an initial draft of this essay, I mentioned several people whom I admire, weighing their
strengths against weaknesses. They are all skillful in what they do. But, on polishing this
piece, I decided to omit the names. Why? Well, had I mentioned them, there would have
followed an expectation that I categorize them in some way: genius; public intellectual; clever;
charlatan or even some unlikely combination. Such an exercise would have potential for
adverse consequences. The possible fallout was not worth the effort. One does not create
fallout for one's self or for any of those he admires.
Thanks for this opportunity.
ReplyDelete