The Decline and Fall of the Public Intellectual

Public intellectuals once held a prominent place in public discourse, serving as a bridge between academia and the general public. The likes of A.J.P. Taylor and A.L. Rowse (on the Left) and Norman Stone (supposedly Right, but maverick) regardless of ideological leanings, were steeped in rigorous scholarship, with an intellectual heft that commanded respect. They had a knack for distilling complex arguments without surrendering nuance, and their works contributed meaningfully to the public’s understanding of history and politics. In recent times, however, a different breed of intellectual has come to dominate the scene - one that relies on polemic

rather than insight, and whose partisanship is worn more as a badge of honour than a starting point for debate.

The recent episode involving Jewish CBS anchor Tony Dokoupil and journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates offers a revealing glimpse into this decline. Dokoupil, in an interview promoting Coates’ latest work ‘The Message’ challenged the author over his treatment of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Coates, who has built a career out of supposedly dissecting America’s racial history, has given a simplistic, one-sided view of the notoriously complex and emotionally charged Israel-Palestine issue – one that smacks of historical illiteracy, but conforms politically in spades.

Dokoupil asked Coates a series of sharp questions about his omissions regarding Israel’s security concerns, such as the terrorist threats the nation faces and the historical context of the conflict. What followed was a ludicrous (but unsurprising in today’s climate) backlash against Dokoupil within his own newsroom for pressing Coates too hard. CBS executives chastised the Jewish anchor, forcing him to meet with the network’s standards and practices team, as well as its Race and Culture Unit.

Dokoupil’s interview ‘style’ prompted a bizarre apology from CBS brass, who claimed that the interview failed to meet the company’s “editorial standards.”

To be sure, a few brave women and men defended Dokoupil: Don Lemon, the former CNN anchor, calling out the absurdity of the CBS brass reaction, argued that Dokoupil had done exactly what a good journalist should do - ask tough, necessary questions while criticizing CBS leadership for its timidity in the face of internal ideological pressure.

The point here is not in Coates’ choice of subject - public intellectuals should engage with the world’s most difficult questions - but in his approach. The debate and the fallout made me reflect on the precipitously falling standards of historical literacy, and the rise of shallow, ‘pop’ historians to instant celebrity, shamelessly playing to the gallery, and fast and loose with history.

This is not to say there were no celebrity historians-cum-public intellectuals in earlier times. A.J.P. Taylor, who could rattle off anything from the origins of the First World War to 19th century European diplomacy sans notes, was an unusual TV star. Then, there was Kenneth Clark, effortlessly enlightening us on ‘Civilization’ in the late 1960s while counter-culture was raging outside.

Today, the intellectual climate that produced towering figures like Taylor and Clarke – two of the greatest public educators of the last century - has given way to a culture that often rewards intellectual conformity and shrill partisanship.

Consider the case of Satnam Sanghera, a British journalist and author whose work on British imperialism has garnered widespread attention. Sanghera’s ‘Empireland’ purports to be a corrective to Britain’s reluctance to confront its colonial past. Yet, like Coates, Sanghera often deploys one-sided arguments that gloss over historical complexity. His critique of British imperialism is largely framed as an indictment, one in which nuance is sacrificed at the altar of moral clarity. By focusing almost exclusively on the evils of empire, Sanghera fails to engage with the fact that British colonialism, like any historical phenomenon, was a mixed bag of oppression, modernization and unintended consequences. The result is a historical narrative that offers little room for critical engagement.

In contrast, intellectuals like A.L. Rowse, while unmistakably partisan in their views, maintained a respect for the complexity of history. Rowse, a staunch Marxist in his early years, wrote voluminously on Elizabethan England with an eye to detail and a willingness to acknowledge ambiguity. His scholarship, like that of his contemporaries, operated in a world where public intellectuals were expected to present arguments that could withstand robust criticism from all sides. Taylor himself, though known for his provocative stances, did not shrink from grappling with facts that complicated his worldview.

The public intellectual of today, as exemplified by Coates and Sanghera, delivers arguments that confirm the ideological biases of their audience rather than challenge them. Their style of identity-based discourse, honed in the echo chambers of social media, prioritizes moral outrage over historical nuance, where personal experience is often elevated above dispassionate analysis.

I have not come here to bury Coates’ work, which, while important in raising awareness of racial injustices in America, utterly lacks the measured approach that was once the hallmark of the public intellectual. The historical lens he applies, distorts more than it illuminates!