Strategies of public intellectual engagement

This introduction to the Special Section on public intellectual engagement has three objectives. First, to explore the different meanings that the polysemic term ‘strategy’ can hold in relation to intellectuals. In the process, we showcase both this concept’s potential theoretical yield and its capacity to bridge the ‘performative’ and event-oriented study of intellectuals more common in English-speaking sociology with longue durée career-oriented analyses more associated with French sociology. The second objective is to reassess some of the main contributions to the sociology of intellectuals by reference to this notion of ‘strategy’, especially concerning issues of political allegiance and group membership. The final objective is to illustrate the potential of this approach in empirical work on intellectual engagement and introduce the articles that comprise the Special Section.

Collectives of intellectuals: Their cohesiveness, accountability, and who can speak on their behalf

As of late, the sociology of intellectuals has made important inroads into its object of study. Much of this has been achieved by problematising the modes of engagement intellectuals undertake and multiplying the types of actor that can be considered to have intellectual authority, going beyond the traditional mould of the ‘authoritative’ public intellectual. However, relatively few have theorised how intellectuals associate themselves in groups: how collectives, whether in the form of institutions or not, negotiate their public interventions and position themselves as a group in the public debate. This article delves into this issue, with an emphasis on how ‘intellectual collectives’ reach a common identity and decide who can intervene ‘on their behalf’ – what we call prosopopoeia. Informed by positioning theory, and based on two variables (presence of a single organisational basis and purported intellectual cohesiveness), this article contributes to current debates on the sociology of intellectuals by analysing how collectives of intellectuals intervene in the public debate, reach some form of coordination with their peers, police the boundaries of their collective identity, and, in the process, attain a common position across audiences.

Derek Robbins’ muddle: A brief reply

In this brief essay, Patrick Baert replies to Derek Robbins’ review of his book The Existentialist Moment and of the co-authored book (with Simon Susen) The Sociology of Intellectuals. His main argument is that Robbins’ review is not only longwinded, but also suprisingly muddled, lacking in analytical clarity and precision. The essay also points out two other problems with Robbin’s confusing review. Firstly, Robbins wrongly accuses Baert of not paying attention to the content of ideas, whereas precisely the opposite is the case. Secondly, Robbins misunderstands the core presuppositions of positioning theory in that he erroneously associates the notion of positioning with conscious strategising. Baert is more sympathetic towards Robbins’ argument about the need to distinguish between different fields, but he laments Robbins’ inability to show how a more detailed attempt to draw this distinction would lead to a superior analysis of the specific historical context at the time.

Professors as Intellectuals in China: Political Identities and Roles in a Provincial University

Under Xi Jinping's administration, ideological control in China has been tightened and political dissent has become increasingly difficult, especially in universities. What can professors do? Our research in one university in central China finds that professors have multifaceted identities and engage in synchronous political roles as establishment/organic, non-establishment/professional and contra-establishment/critical intellectuals, although most take on the first two roles. Our research is based on 36 interviews with professors, students and administrators from various departments of this provincial university and on an analysis of the faculty's teaching and research. This paper aims to contribute to the sociology of intellectuals and higher education by illuminating how professors, as intellectuals, engage in contemporary Chinese political discourse.

Do intellectuals matter?: Proposal for a study of influence

The paper strives to explore the (non)existence of influence of intellectuals in society. Intellectuals are seen as a loose elite network of specific social actors who possess advance knowledge or creativity recognized in the cultural field of academia and/or art, hold a certain authority or power to be heard in the public, and who are publicly engaged. The aim of the paper is to fill the gap in the sociology of intellectuals and offer a possible framework for empirical research of intellectuals? influence. This framework is operationalized using three levels: self-evaluation of their own influence, estimation of their social status and intellectual authority over (primarily) elites, and finally external ?objectified? measures. The author hereby calls on the testing of the proposed model and any proposals for its improvement.

Marcus Morgan, Patrick Baert – Conflict in the Academy. A Study in the Sociology of Intellectuals

.