Humanities

The conceit of the public intellectual is that he has undertaken sufficient intellectual labour to know the truth … and simultaneously that his conclusion should guide public policy.¹

John Richards’s comments on the public intellectual suggest a dual world of those granted (or claiming) that status. The public intellectual is, writes Maude Barlow, an activist, promoting the right of everyman to know, rather than leaving awareness to the specialist. Taking on that task, argues Tom Flanagan, makes the public intellectual an “adversarial” figure; his self-promoting essay certainly claims that status. Confidence matters: Nelson Wiseman notes that public intellectuals “live off as well as for ideas.”

These thoughts from The Public Intellectual in Canada suggest the challenge facing editor and contributor Wiseman, who terms his choices “arbitrary if not randomly chaotic, idiosyncratic … eccentric … eclectic.” And he concludes that “[n]o synopsis of these essays could do them justice.” Yet his fine introduction and conclusion reveal otherwise, offering strong discussion of the who, the how, the what, and the so what. Moreover, his essay in this volume provides historical context, a snapshot of the Canadian public intellectual in the making, striding briskly from W.L. Grant through O.D. Skelton, Salem Bland, Frank Underhill, the “graceless prose” of H.A. Innis, to the vision and “alienating” language of Marshall McLuhan and onward.

Historical survey is less common in other essays, as the authors range from academic to less formal styles and even, in the case of Mark Kingwell, a perhaps-too-clever dialogue. Conversation about intellectualism might suit the initiated, but less well-versed readers might be taken aback by the name-dropping and remarkable language (xenocyst), given that most belong to what he terms the “semi-conscious” majority.

At least Kingwell is self-deprecating; not so Margaret Somerville, whose essay unsurprisingly focuses on moral relativism and the public intellectual. A strongly written plea for ethical positioning over rational relativism, the chapter outlines both concepts and, more circumspectly, her achievements. In contrast, Tom Flanagan’s extended essay (the longest by a fair margin) is more a self-congratulatory vita than an analysis of the public intellectual. It does provide a template for evolving from academic through expert and political party worker to pundit. A variant form of pundit, Michael Adams, offers a less self-serving discussion of newer intellectual roles – the “pollster” as intellectual. Or is it, in at least his case, the intellectual as pollster?

Alongside these more personal discussions are relatively informal essays by the optimistic Janice Stein, the ever-so-reasonable Hugh Segal, and Doug Saunders, who worries that “underpopulation” threatens Canada’s ability to think. Primarily academic but still opinionated essays include those by Alain Gagnon (on Quebec’s public intellectuals), Gregory Baum (on Le Devoir as a space for the public intellectual), Sylvia Bashevkin (on the still-gendered space of the public intellectual), an essay on economists as public intellectuals by Pierre Fortin, and Stephen Clarkson’s engaging autobiographical piece on “muting” academics. More personal yet, John Richards provides a fine piece on the challenges that Aboriginal policy presents to public intellectuals. Richards’s thought-provoking view is that public intellectuals have focused myopically on official policy and reserves, thus overlooking Métis and urban issues. It is an essay well worth reading, whether or not you agree.

Much the same might be said for most of the essays in this collection. At first glance, essays on the public intellectual seem unlikely to inspire. But scholars and interested general observers can learn much from these papers. To be sure, few of us need lessons on being a public intellectual. One could quibble, too, about “balance” – most writers are male, and issues tilt toward the Anglocentric. But the public intellectuals gathered together by Wiseman offer a surprising range of topics; his editorial efforts enhance the overlapping insights, although an index would facilitate that process. Even when one disagrees or is annoyed, one is rarely disinterested. That is no small achievement for some 250 pages.