I was referring to a fairly broad notion, I think, that postmodern theory has
separated intellectuals from the public. I agree that America seldom does
seem to care about the views of intellectuals, professorial or not, hence
derogatory words like "pointy head" as if it were somehow an elitist
disgrace to think or read or study. But I do think that it is possible to
write, as did Ambrose, for a larger public without letting go of a
commitment to knowledge and ideas. It is sad that he and Doris Kearns
Goodwin, for example, damaged their own credibility.
As for W, as far as I can see, he is not troubled by ideas at all. He does
have advisors like Condoleeza Rice, who are, in fact, intellectuals, but who
seem to function as apologists by giving very articulate voice to what is,
underneath, a disturbingly anti-intellectual agenda.
Date sent: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 00:25:19 +0200
Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]>
From: Gunnar Jauch <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Rhapsody in Bloom - a book review
To: [log in to unmask]
am 21.10.2002 19:46 Uhr schrieb Nancy Gish unter
[log in to unmask]:
> I don't think there is or need be such an apparent contradiction between
> academic and popular. This country badly needs again public
> intellectuals who help frame debates.
What do you mean by "again",
Although I secretly share your wishful thinking, has there recently been
a time when the Mercan (or any other country's) public has been interested
in the opinion of their intellectuals?
Brecht complained about that very same sad fact some fifty years ago in
"The Good Man of Sezuan" -- about those useless intellectuals, the
The dire intellectual capacity and spirituality of the chief of the
world's leading nation and his christian fundamentalist entourage isn't