In the eternal discussion about what science is, there is at least one point in common among all scientific communities in different areas of knowledge: the members of each community communicate with each other in a way that, in the overwhelming majority, only they understand. This form may vary somewhat between communities, but the variations have this exclusivity in common. This is how science has developed enormously in the last few centuries, and perhaps it could not be otherwise, but, during this period, scientists or academics (generally professors at universities) did not always limit themselves to communicating only with themselves. And so, crossing the border between academia and the public, they ended up suggesting a new mission for universities, the mission of engagement, defined by Ernest Boyer in the 1990s. I already wrote about this[I], as well as about one of the important border crossings, scientific dissemination, and how training in the academic world is still to speak only for ourselves[ii]. However, it is necessary to return to the topic, expanding border crossings, since scientific dissemination, as mentioned, is just one of them.
This issue is continually discussed, both in blogs, books and articles for a wide audience, and in academic articles and books, two of the ways for scientists to communicate with each other. The “public academic” in the title above is an idiosyncrasy of this author, since the current expression is “public intellectual”, which is still a pleonasm: the word intellectual originally referred to the academic (or writer or artist) who spoke out on social issues and general public interest. Over time, however, “intellectual” began to refer to academics, generally within universities, and the expression public intellectual became necessary[iii]. Leaving aside the dispute over terms, the discussion is about the role of the public academic, who, according to French historian Pierre Rosanvallon, “is the one who links analytical work to a citizen concern. If not, he is an expert”. The importance of this academic who is not limited to being a specialist was seen during the Covid-19 pandemic, a crisis that led several scientists to cross borders with the public, playing a crucial role in combating misinformation that is so harmful to society.[iv].
The perception of the relevance of this action is, on the other hand, something intangible, not as simple to measure as communication between scientists, which is easily counted for the purposes of hiring, promoting and financing researchers. How to evaluate the impact of communication with the public? Without easy answers, the rewards for academics accrue to those who communicate with each other rather than with others. This would be one of the reasons for the sensation of the decline of public intellectuals in universities. The perception of this decline is shared by different fronts since Ernest Boyer's manifesto for the mission of engagement, fronts that also reinforce its growing need, as write by Nicholas Behm, Sherry Rankins-Robertson and Duane Roen, in the article “In defense of academics as intellectuals public”, published by the portal of the American Association of University Professors[v]:
“While the work of public intellectuals may not be easy, it is crucial. By interacting with the public, academics can strengthen democracy and reinforce the position of higher education in a democratic society. Through this engagement, we tell the stories of our disciplines and our institutions as we want them to be told, not as people outside academia would tell them. As public intellectuals, we have the opportunity to help shape the future of higher education and make an impact in the communities in which we live.”
The rigor of the academy cannot abandon the intellectual who becomes public, as sociologist Pierre Bourdieu precisely observes about the
"hasty thinkers […] prone to valuing commercial success and its rules, to the detriment of the rules of the academic field, transforming the market into a 'legitimate instance of legitimization' of their ideas. […] these media intellectuals end up harming – or at least hiding – the work of real thinkers, […] making public action difficult for those who really have something interesting to say".
In other words, there is always the risk that, by being too “public”, the academic becomes too “intellectual”. There is at least one academic study with empirical data on this. This is a delightful book chapter by Swedish sociologist Olof Hallonsten, entitled “Innovationism and the new public intellectuals”[vi], whose summary echoes what Bourdieu said:
“Public intellectuals were once honest, well-informed academics who engaged in critical debates to bring credibility to power, but today they are more like celebrities who make a lot of money, selling an oversimplified message to policymakers and the public.”
Leaving the new intellectuals aside, I return to honest academics. Affective memory reminds me of my childhood favorite, the British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), with his popular essays. I particularly remember the essay “In Praise of Leisure” (in fact, I discussed it in class recently), which anticipates by decades what has become fashionable in recent times such as creative leisure and the society of tiredness. Russell influenced Noam Chomsky, who is perhaps the greatest example of what a public intellectual is.
Whether or not there are still public academics and how many there would be in universities is also the subject of research, such as the recent article (2022) by Christopher Marsicano and colleagues on whether or not there is a decline in the number of public intellectuals in higher education institutions in the United States[vii]. In the introduction, the authors recall definitions and scopes of these public intellectuals and the ways in which they communicate. The data suggests that, in research-intensive universities, these intellectuals would only make up 0,8% of professors. If it were possible to transfer this data to Unicamp, for example, we would only have 15 teachers who would fit into the activity. In other categories of higher education institutions in the United States, they can reach 6%, and, on the general average, just under 3%.
In this entire discussion, it is good to remember that the public intellectual is the academic who regularly dedicates himself to this activity, as well as continually dedicating himself to teaching and writing his scientific articles and book chapters. If occasional participation in round tables and interviews are also considered, the percentages above should be higher, there and here too.
For a university professor to address a wider audience, beyond their specialty, columnism on university portals, newspapers and magazines proves to be an interesting strategy, which can also be enjoyable. It has become, for example, an activity that I carry out with great affection. This is precisely the space where this text appears. It is the space that has already seen the participation of public intellectuals par excellence, such as Roberto Romano[viii] and Reginaldo de Moraes[ix]. It is no coincidence that a collection of Moraes' texts, largely published in Jornal da Unicamp, is titled “Palavra Engajada”.
I am merely an apprentice to these masters, but I continue to work in columnism. The pleasure of the activity is the first reward, but the insistence offered to me began to bring others, which overlap the indicators for which we, academics, strive: invitations to lectures, round tables, citations in articles and books, use in bibliographies of courses at other universities, reproduction of texts in other media outlets. Several colleagues tried this pleasure, but ended up giving up after a few columns. When asked why, lack of time was the most frequent answer.
The search for rewards, which govern academic life as it is, seems to take up all of everyone's available time in academia. Interestingly, lack of time seems to have been diagnosed more broadly. An editorial in Nature magazine, published recently (July 2024), begins by commenting on computer scientist Cal Newport's most recent book: “Slow Productivity”. Communication between peers (scientists) has always been essential for science, but digital possibilities have started to take up too much precious time, which is underestimated: time to think. The title of the editorial is exactly “scientists need more time to think”[X]. One thing I know: to communicate with others you have to think a lot, and it doesn't always work.
This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Unicamp.
[I] https://unicamp.br/unicamp/ju/artigos/peter-schulz/quarta-e-quinta-missoes-da-universidade/
[ii] https://unicamp.br/unicamp/ju/artigos/peter-schulz/para-quem-os-cientistas-escrevemos/
[iii] Wikipedia summarizes the evolution of these uses.
[iv] The most notable example is probably Luiz Carlos Dias, who reports his intense activity in the book “There is no safe world without science”, published by Paraquedas.
[v] https://www.aaup.org/article/case-academics-public-intellectuals
[vi] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-49196-2_5
[vii] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/he.20464
[viii] https://unicamp.br/unicamp/noticias/2021/07/22/brasil-perde-lucidez-de-roberto-romano/
[ix] https://unicamp.br/unicamp/noticias/2019/08/26/unicamp-lamenta-perda-de-reginaldo-de-moraes/
