Fear and Terror Provide Better Safety

Terror. Fright. Panic. Worry. Apprehension. Phobia.

The Patriot Act. Increased Racial Profiling. Detainments. Watchlists. Warrantless Searches.

All of these are synonyms for fear, and then follows a list of acts that have originated from these fears.

Remember back in 2010 when Jon Stuart created “The Rally To Restore Sanity” and Stephen Colbert followed, when he created “The March to Keep Fear Alive”? If not, Stuart'scan be found here and Colbert's, here.

Posner would in no way consider Stuart or Colbert public intellectuals, but there’s no denying that the two have a big political presence, especially within the media and public sphere. The two use humor, satire, and other elements to appeal to their audiences, but behind all of that lies truth (albeit, their version or take on it) and like their activities mentioned above, appeal to the masses and try to engage the nation in current events. I believe Colbert does a great job of this, especially when he ran for President in 2008, the South Carolina Primary for GOP in early January of this year, and then a few weeks later when he confirmed Stuart would be the official head of his fundraising committee, and then he released the statement "I am proud to announce that I am forming an exploratory committee to lay the groundwork for my possible candidacy for the President of the United States of South Carolina!"

Colbert elevated his humor to the next level: he integrated it not only with truth, but also infused it with action. Why would two well-established people such as Stuart and Colbert cross-over into full-fledged politics? I’d like to think part of it was their fear of the current presidential happenings, and turning that fear into a sense of safety. After all, what Stuart and Colbert’s “stint” did was increase awareness of the politics, increase voter turnout, and even increase people to convert their fears into actions that could help indirectly alleviate some of those fears.

In this instance, I it worked to use the tools of fear and mass-media and then challenging us (the public, Americans, the people) to take action.

Good Americans

Yesterday, Deepa Kumar was on North Central's campus to speak about the ever-increasing “Islamaphobia” that’s been developing in America, and reflect on her book, duly titled Islamaphobia.  While I wasn’t able to attend (because I was in another class), Dr. Guzman mentioned an email chain letter that he recently received, “10 Reasons Muslims Can’t Be Good Americans” and his shock at the list.

The problem?

The “reasons” listed in the email chain were biased, ignorant, and misinterpreted. Dr. Guzman posts the email chain along with his thoughts on the email, which you can read here.    Dr. Guzman attempts to diffuse the situation about the email, refutes the reasons, offers small concessions (to uphold his validity as unbiased), and then connects to a current hot topic for Americans--I won't spoil it for you, but hint, hint, it deals with a current Presidential Candidate.

Was Dr. Guzman's post a good way to combat “Islamaphobia”?

It’s a two-fold question that we as the public need to constantly consider.  By responding is he able to resonate and deliver “common-sense” to the future audiences (and possibly past readers) of the email, which clearly was lost before?  Or, does it create more problems by elevating this email to a cultural cache?

I like to argue that it depends on the audience and type of public sphere you’re trying to reach.

Let's be "Good Americans" and discuss.

Debts to Society

What’s our debt to society? Pay taxes, vote, make a change in the world?

What are Public Intellectuals debts to society?  Public Intellectuals, people whose creation and criticism deals with ideals, have a debt to educating and being involved with the public concerning those ideals.   Previous intellectuals exposed the truth, but now, with the rise of the political sphere, intellectuals are needed for evaluating, understanding, identifying, and articulating problems and truth.

Posner gave us notorious lists of top public intellectuals, and I think anyone who reads them has an idea of additions that should be added to those lists.  For me, I believe contemporaries Howard Gardner, Al Gore, Pope Benedict XVI, and Chinua Achebe should be added to that list.

Now the key question: would Posner accept these public intellectuals as possibilities for his lists?  Probably not. 

That doesn’t mean that they aren’t worthy public intellectuals of note, because as we know, and even Posner stated, his definition of Public Intellectuals is formed for him, and not a formed by public consensus. 

I believe the four I listed are distinct persons who have a certain specialty.  Not only do they have influence within specialties ranging from writing to teaching to cultural conflicts to climate crisis to religion, but these people also have the ability to communicate their ideas, educate, and create an influence about their ideals to the public—something I did agree with Posner on, regarding what defines a public intellectual.

These people possess key elements that elevate them to the role of public intellectuals, who in turn pay debts to society.

Thought, existence, and understanding in the Contemporary Public Sphere

Today’s public life and rational debate seems to serve the purpose to evaluate and understand in a clear, concise manner without any preconceived notions, but this does not occur to the extent we would like it to, and Castells categorizes this gap into four distinct, but interrelated, political crises: crises of efficiency, legitimacy, identity, and equity. (82). The public never seems to question things that make sense and seem indubitable, and we (the public) may accept truth, but the biggest concern is that we do not understand truth.  We rely on our senses to tell us truth, and like Habermas mentions, the senses telling us truth derive from newspapers, journals, and debates by public authority (52), but sometimes our senses that lead us to truth can be deceiving.  If the public wants to seek out the truth they need to question (which leads to understanding) the purpose and audience, rhetoric, and means of delivery.  Thought leads to the existence of a public, and existence leads to the public understanding.

The public’s understanding leads to growth: intellectually, morally, and emotionally.  Because of these growths, the public evolves with its interests and interactions with other public groups.  Fraser counters Habermas’ writings with the idea that the public Habermas “idealizes the liberal public sphere but also he that he fails to examine other, nonliberal, nonbourgeois, competing public spheres” (Fraser 115).  While I see Fraser’s point that the founding definition of “a public” and “the public” is outdated and an exclusive portion of the real public that exists, I feel a concession can be made—progress.  Fraser argues for a revision of the public with “the assumption that it is possible for interlocutors in a public sphere to bracket status differentials and to deliberate as if they were social equals” (117), which allows the public to progress by reconstructing or reorganizing experiences.  This is because the previous experiences of a public are connected to newfound experiences and ideas, thus creating more experiences for an ever-changing, ever-evolving public.

Now, let's apply these thoughts and criticisms to today. Today, the public’s sphere is to help serve society (the public) and help the health of public life by correcting unfair opportunities and deficits of the current public.  We see the public sphere through the same means Habermas has mentioned with the addition of other media outlets:television, magazines, and social networking sites, all thanks to our evolving use, interpretation, and understanding of media literacy. A shift in our public sphere has gone from public matters being understood to harvest a better society, and now focuses on social networking which divides a line of being a public sphere or a private sphere.  Before, the debates and criticisms were not about the type of public outlets we (the public) use, but what we did with the information the public gave us and how it affects us as a public whereas now, it is they type of public outlets and why the information we're gettign from them has any relevance to our society.  It relates to the age-old debate of the public being given information from entertainment stars' lives, and whether their lives were public or private, which then shifts us right back to our original writers and criticisms of the focus of a public and the information given and its use to the public. I believe our public sphere is a bit tilted with the misconception that many things that should fall into a private sphere are now emerging into a public sphere, with the mentality "the public's right to know" and "avoid government secrecy".  As a public sphere, we should be trying to keep our public sphere progressing with the use of truth in thought, existence, and understanding.