While the likes of Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray, Malcolm Gladwell, Beau of The Fifth Column, Alex O'Connor (this list could be a lot longer) differ in how many books they have written, their core concerns, and whether they are (or were ever) invited to speak in auditoriums and college campuses, such dudes (I am aware they are all dudes) now set and carry forward the discourse of ideas in a fashion that demonstrates (in case you had any doubts) that a public intellectual today does not gain influence through the articles they publish or ideas they propagate through “professional” or academic pathways but rather through how well they are known on YouTube. Subs equals credibility.
Maybe that’s great. Maybe we should be glad William Shawn has been replaced by Joe Rogan. In 1960 you had to “get it,” including how elitism made fun of itself with cover art satirizing a New York dandy. Only the clever need apply. Now, when personal pyrotechnics eviscerates gates and gatekeepers, all are welcome so long as you can accept that the next rodeo will include Alex Jones or Andrew Tate offering their takes on, say, decency.
In any case, I think it might serve those who proffer themselves to be honest brokers in this new reality to not enter the parasitic world of meta commentary and sports like play by play analysis that has grown up around them.
Since a great way for me to boost my own status in the “I said it, therefore it has validity” world of the internet is to get one of these stars on my podcast, I will naturally want to ask some kind of “who’se winning?” question.
Or “who won?”
To pick a specific recent example you can now find both Sam Harris, whose ideas and eloquence I admire, and Douglas Murray, whose ideas and eloquence trouble me, commenting on Gladwell’s personal failing in a recent debate.
Maybe they are right and maybe, since all these guys appear to know one another and must hang out in various green rooms around the broadcasting world, they know that Gladwell is a big jerk behind the scenes and deserves shade.
But the result is something else, something dangerous because it capitualtes to the the idea that personality trumps truth, the idea they pretend to be guarding against.
Obviously the internet has made expertise a joke already, but if these guys want to continue stand up as champions of how open debate can improve our understanding of what’s what, they should go out of their way to avoid any wink-wink or on camera nod of what is no better than bathroom graffiti.
In an age when everything is personality and small talk to begin with, gossip, I am saying, is not something the public intellectual should engage in.
Wait - aren't you hoist by your own petard? Why gratuitously insult Gladwell if you're interested in ideas and not personalities? Or does your 'maybe' extend to that negative judgment of G? In any case, it's good to hear your engaging - and characteristically cryptic - voice.