Oh very droll.

On identifying suitable candidates for the Institute of National Self Importance, or Institute of Finger Wagging Nag, even Pompous Institute, perhaps we could start here at OLO?

One immediate method is to just look at the self proclaimed intellectuals - Anyone posting with a classical Greek tag, should be pushed volunteered immediately, (hint, many of them start with P)

Anyone who spends far too much of their life researching and posting links to win link battles with anyone else, thus proclaiming high ground based on search engine results - understanding what is posted is optional.

Anyone who responds.

At least the above mentioned should be in the pool for first elimination.

It would be interesting to trace the origins of this pretentious but amusing term. It's really a creation of the media's need for people who'll comment on anything at the drop of a hat, but at least one American university has a doctoral program to develop public intellectuals, so perhaps this should be a requirement for Ken's registration. On the other hand, perhaps we could identify public intellectuals by asking Ken to list the commentators he disagrees with.

I only hope the author is joking.

RE “the fact that the profession of public intellectualism is completely unregulated.”

I can think of nothing worse than “public opinion” being “regulated” especially by socialists operating under a manipulative troll like Krudd and his union sponsored brethren.

Of course the “free-market libertarians” would never pursue a strategy of pointless regulation anyway.

It reminds me of old Vladimir’s maxim

“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”

This proposal, assuming it is serious, is a request for the likes of comrade Lenin to intervene in the rationing of freedom of expression; remembering that several million Kulaks died when Lenin "rationed" and regulated their freedom.

I am working on the basis that this is a tongue-in-cheek article and not something which anyone would ever seriously propose.

Col, it's posted under Humor and Satire - it is just a dig at some of the puffed up ones amongst us and for some of the press who want to boost the credibility of their sources.

Not unlike the first Gulf War when journalists were left interviewing each other and scrambled to get quotes from the journalists deemed, by themselves, to be most important and knowledgeable. It was hilarious.

The whole public intellectual lofty viewpoint (sneering) and National Treasure label are just elitist terms, for self indulgence .. the riff raff merely use the term "wank*rs"

Some of them spend way too much time at the back patting machine, courtesy of the ABC and Age, New York Times, Guardian etc.

Is a person who writes a critique of "public intellectuals" a public intellectual?
Does the entering into the dialogue and deconstructing the notion of public intellectualism constitute public intellectualism?
Has the author registered their public intellectual status?
What safeguards have been explored re confidentiality issues with regard to this register?
And who knows where this will lead? Next thing he will be suggesting a register of right wing commentators guilty of hypocrisy.
I say stop now before we see the end of cvilisation as we know it.

I think he's being ironic Col, seeing as how most 'public intellectuals' like to propose new regulations.

I'm more worried about the 'Social Commentators' than the 'Public Intellectuals'.

I suppose they're basically different species of media whores.

rpg,

'On identifying suitable candidates for the Institute of National Self Importance, or Institute of Finger Wagging Nag, even Pompous Institute, perhaps we could start here at OLO?'

Indeed.

What about the Public unintellectuals? Like the parrot, ackerman, bolt, devine, henderson, sandilands et al. Spineless weasels with their hysterical sensationalism and fearmongering. Not to mention their sudden elevation to climate scholars. Talk about spouting off on things you know nothing about.
Do the abovementioned have any credentials or academic qualifications in anything?
Sure doesnt stop them spewing bile on any topic they feel will up their ratings.
These are the sort of miscreants who need regulating.

On a serious note, its only the poor who are intensively regulated. In recent years, regulation of business has receded, as its well-connected and powerful lobbyists ply their mates in power with party donations, tantamount to bribery. In our free-market authoritarian state, billions are expended on the poor to keep them poor, and regulate and control them. From our hopeless employment/job network system that operates mainly to keep dole people under the thumb, to money spend on wasteful case management and micky mouse courses for essentially unskilled occupations, its all a waste but hey, it keeps em down and allows the mediocre progeny of the rich, favored by their parents that is, to ascend rapidly. Yet a pauper can't get many courses of study funded where they're not at TAFE or University, paupers don't get anyone paying for their books, paupers have no mates in power, paupers are shunted into serfdom and immigration keeps the labor supply in overflow so house prices stay high and a liveable wage becomes just a dream.

mikk: my proposal does not involve anyone - right, left, or elsewhere; qualified or unqualified - being prevented from speaking or writing. Free speech is an important part of our culture. All I am suggesting is that the right to hold oneself out as a Public Intellectual should be regulated. As it is for vets, quantity surveyors, carpet layers and plumbers.

First requirement of a public intellectual is to be condescending to the public.
Second is the ability to sneer at those members of the public who may not share the view of the usually self appointed intellectual.

I much prefer Michael Leunig's term "screeching ninny".

Calling oneself, or being hailed as, or actually being intelligent enough to be considered a "public intellectual" does guarantee that one actually has anything worthwhile to say, or that one is a particularly insightful, moral, or even agreeable person.

Consider, for instance, Noam Chomsky or Richard Perle. No doubt highly intelligent, and widely hailed as intellectuals by folk of their respective ideological stripe, but both utterly monstrous human beings.

I can see a South Park episode, actually two!

After a self-induced head trauma Cartman is found to posess a psychic crime fighting ability and is recruited by the SP police department to catch the left hand serial killer. He then finds himself hounded by 'real' psychic detectives who insist that to ply their trade he must "fill out the form on the back of the comic book and pay the $25 fee for the degree from the Psychic Detective School."

Then there was Butters as 'boy with balls on chin' who got in to hot water with the Union of Talkshow Freaks (no fakers allowed).

In our free society it's fine if people want to claim intellectual superiority, they can also wear tin foil hats and live in a bunker waiting for the green men to save them from the apocalypse... free society. This phenomenom of self-assumed authority though does become a problem when our media and government start being parties to the deception. If this is going to happen, and to an extent it is, then yeah it makes genuine sense to regulate the racket.

Um, that should have read ...

"does NOT guarantee that one actually has anything worthwhile to say"

The final requirement is to talk on subjects that are popular with the public and present old information in a new format. This is normally preceded by "it has been shown that..." but what is ommitted is that this was true in 1960 but not today.

This is then published widely as new without any requirement for accountability, but because of the topic, the intellectual then gets labelled as an expert, and paid to present on the topic.

Popular subjects for this tactic are nuclear power and genetically modified food, and climate change is a close third.

the pseudo intellectuals think it's christmas, just look at that response !

I'm not intellectual enough to decide whether someone expressing an opinion is an intellectual or a wank.er.

But I'm realistic enough to know real intellectuals would reject labels.

Wank.rs wouldn't.

some famous character once said "intellectuals are largely ineffectuals". Anyone know who it was ? Whoever he was certainly had a firmer grasp on reality than himself.

I think a public intellectual should be visionary, wise, and of course must have nous and not be a slave to political correctness. This takes courage. In these times this is not easy. But I do think Stephen Crittenden should come out of his closet. Tanveer Ahmed could also be a contender.

Regulation by the government - no thanks.

Personally I've never understood what 'intellectual' means.

Someone who can string words of more than four syllables together?
Someone who has read the 'right' list of classic books (with bonus points for reading them in their original languages)?
Someone who has spent more time at a university than in a workforce?

It's a real mystery to me.

Public is much easier - it's someone who's prepared to stand up and give their views in a place where people may listen (rather than sharing their deep insights with their cat) - and I heartily applaud everyone who is willing to expose their genius and their misconceptions in forums where they can be challenged and stimulated.

Philistines!

Youse all should bow before my righteous intellectualism. Seeing as there's no requirements for public intellectualism, I hereby appoint myself as the Grand High Poobah of What Is Right.

Hrm, actually, I guess the one requirement of public intellectuals is that they're willing to identify themselves. I'm not.

Alas.

But that still places them one step above most online commentators, including myself, who hide behind a cloak of anonymity.

I'd also say that a Public Intellectual (because really, don'cha just think it should be a proper noun?) shouldn't be allowed to subscribe to half-assed conspiracy theories, full-assed conspiracy theories, nutty conspiracy theories, or conspiracy theories involving Vegemite*. Most of which can be pretty easily disproven by those with half a functioning adult brain and a reasonably recent copy of Encarta.

Which also disqualifies many online commentators. Both on the conspiracy bit and the brain bit, also possibly due to a lack of non-pirated copies of Encarta.

So sayeth the Grand High Poobah of What Is Right. Go forth and spread the word.

-

*Marmite and that hideous gunk Promite however, remain well within the accepted topics of conspiracy theories.

Absolutely top grade guidance for OLO, Ken. Real laugh-a-minute stuff.



"No, the test must be of the ability to write plausibly on an area the candidate knows absolutely nothing about. The essays would be judged by people who also have no knowledge in the subject matter. What the examinators must be convinced of is that the writings sound appropriate and believable even if, objectively studied, they are nonsense."



Boy, has Ken got the measure of the standard for being a 'public intellectual'! I wanna be one!




"It will be important for candidates to develop the direct, confident, brook-no-objection writing style that is used by the Pope. Humanae Vitae from 1968 would be an excellent model though of course only for its tone, not its substance. As with the encyclicals, a good public intellectual piece must be sufficiently authoritative to end debate on a particular question."



Magnificent! Couldn't have said it better myself. He's not beyond, our Ken, is he!?

Enough of my mischief for the day. Better hop on my encyclical and pop e-democratic thoughts into a few heads somewhere else.

I've not found the list but a bit more time devoted to searching should turn up a list of those qualified to be public intellectuals - start at http://www.australia2020.gov.au/ 1000 people approved by the PM. Some might not need the tag, awarded actress probably outranks public intellectual etc.

Some may have fallen out of favour since that event but as a starting place it's the list approved by the PM.

R0bert

Perhaps the supporters of a Charter of Rights could specify that only registered public intellectuals would have the right to inform the rest of us of their wisdom. And of course, opinions should be expressable only if they have fairly general support. This would represent a much more efficient distribution of information and wisdom across society, without the irritation of people expressing opinions that upset other people or about which they do not really know much.

Committees of experts could be appointed to vet applications for public intellectual status, which would confer salaries and perhaps be the basis for a hierarchy of public intellectuals, juniors at the bottom being allowed to express opinions on a limited range of topics, while seniors (or elders) would have access to a wider range of topics, with a extremely intellectual senior elder having oversight of the whole structure of opinion management, somebody with immense knowledge and wisdom like Clive Hamilton.

Just joking. No really - just joking.

Good post love it.

Bags being the chief examinator. ;-)

TurnRight TurnLeft, how dare you?

Promite is every bit as marvellous as Vegemite!

It's only Marmite that's revolting gunk, but that's because it's made by Poms.

Vegemite Mk II, or whatever silly name it's called by at the moment, is completely beyond the pale.

I think -in the interests of free market libertarianism- perhaps a prerequisite would be more digestible than nasty old regulation.
Perhaps public intellectuals should first qualify as either meteorologists or economists; two pursuits which offer very adequate returns for being consistently wrong.
This offers a very good opportunity for relative success. If you are consistently wrong about that which you are trained in, there is a very real possibility you could inadvertently stumble across something useful as you waffle along about something you know even less about.
Take heart; it always rains after a drought.

Hi Grim,

I think that, with respect, you may be missing the point. In a democratic and open society, everybody has - should have - the right to express their opinion. Others can decide if they waffle along, or if they don't know what they are talking about, or if they say or write something objectionable to someone else, and say so - that is THEIR right. But I hope that there will never be any restrictions on the freedom of speech or expression merely on the grounds of ignorance, or in deference to some bunch of self-appointed and self-important 'public intellectuals'.

Otherwise where would I be :)

How about private intellectuals - should they be regulated too?

Just checkin' :)

My point exactly, Pynchme.
While even the most humble artisan such as I can aspire to the epithet 'private intellectual' (particularly if I manage to keep my mouth and my pen shut), in this age of creeping credentialism two credentials which would serve the more lofty 'Public' intellectuals would be the ones I have already mentioned, for the reasons listed.
Imagine reading an article which -at first glance- appears impressive. A quick skiz at the byline confirms the author is a meteorologist. Immediately you think, "well, this person must be intelligent enough to have something interesting to say about economics, I shall definitely peruse this article more thoroughly!"
And of course, vice versa; witness all the economists who speak so volubly (and voluminously) about impending changes in future weather patterns.
Loudmouth, I thank you kindly for taking me so seriously. Just proves there really is a first time for everything.

Thank you, Grim, but my point was that you and I and everybody else have the right to spout rubbish, including offensive rubbish, on or at any public venue that we like (although we might be risking a physical expression of opinion in the face). In a democratic, open and free society, there should never be some self-created category of 'public intellectual' (or 'pubic intellectual, as I first typed: it's still early and we haven't got much sleep in Adelaide).

Of course, nobody has the right to shout 'fire!' in a crowded theatre for no reason, but there should be no restrictions on, or 'credentials' required for, the expression of views. So rest assured, Grim, no matter what rubbish you write, no matter how fatuous or offensive, I for one will try to defend your right to express it. If we couldn't defend that right, most OLO contributors would be silenced, or locked away in a Hamilton re-education camp out Oodnadatta way.

Joe

Loudmouth, you're really not into humour and satire, are you?

Hi Grim,

No, I take the threats of Platonic guardianship and channelling of free expression by elites very seriously. Like Karl Popper, I suspect that there is a very easy slide from 'good society' or utopian propositions to fascism (think 'public intellectuals' like Mussolini), because they so often degenerate into prescriptions for closed societies, closed minds and the 'necessary' removal of 'contaminants'. Such 'ideal' societies inevitably need the vigilant and sweeping hands of the guardians to protect the 'people', if only from themselves. And I don't think there is anything funny about the reinvention of that wheel all over again.

But that wheel keeps turning: one current tactic to silence people seems to be to call anybody with a different opinion from one's own, a 'denier': i.e. like Irving and Tobin, who deny the Holocaust, whoever disagrees with a widely-held opinion must be a 'denier' pure and simple. This tactic stops discussion dead: we're all terrified of being thought of as a denier of something so manifestly dreadful. Another tactic is to call someone a neo-liberal. Funny, it used to be 'communist' that was used as a label, as a way to stop discussion. Different words, same tactics.

Yes, I apologise for the over-use of quotation marks :)

Joe Lane

Lo and behold ! One of our own philosopher-kings has just had a story on Crikey about climate-change 'deniers'. Worse than Nazi apologists, he suggests: climate change will cause hundreds of millions of deaths, so how could anybody 'deny' it ? Or even debate it ? Brilliant !

So what is the difference between a sceptic (permissible, under strict conditions, in the brave new world) and a denier (utterly impermissible under a Charter of Rights) ? Is it permitted to raise questions about sea-level rise (or lack of it) in Adelaide or Sydney or Melbourne ? Is it permitted to point out that the Arctic Ocean freezes over in winter and much of it melts in late summer every year ?

Yes, I'm persuaded that CC is occurring by the almost universal shrinking back of glaciers, and that turbulent weather events are probably more likely and more severe now than fifty years ago (is that really so ? Just asking) and I can't see anything wrong with wind turbines, but we all should still be able to raise legitimate doubts and concerns about causation and consequences without being slagged as 'deniers': that's called the scientific method and it's available to all, not just the Precious Few.

Scepticism is a universal right, even an obligation, not to be chipped away at by some self-appointed bunch who think they know what is good for the rest of us and who take in each other's washing.