No Sinecure Acting as Public Intellectual in Education

The author has earlier made a plea for educators acting as public intellectuals in society to counteract still influential neo-liberal tendencies in educational policies and practices. Against emphases on overstretched attention for measurable output and accountability in education, the aim of education in schools is formulated in terms of holistic personhood formation. Interviewing three educators in different phases of their carrier, it becomes clear that working in academia nowadays it is no sinecure to act as a public intellectual. The author also presents his own experiences in different roles, and makes clear that the instructional niche one is working in could be of utmost importance for really taking that role. To realize a change, it is, according the author, necessary to stop with too much focus on highly cited publications in academic journals, and on individual researchers instead of on research groups working collectively together in joint research programs and with societal partners.

Engagement without accountability: The role of governments, field experts, and public intellectuals in the context of the covid-19 pandemic

The outbreak of the covid-19 pandemic represented a major shock. In their effort to adapt their responses to the crisis to their own conditions of survival, governments have tended to resort to arguments that limit accountability to the population. Despite the privileged place they are presumed to have within contemporary societies, experts have been displaced from the decision-making processes of governments and delegitimized by the anti-intellectual drift favored by the way in which arguments are presented and debated in social media. At the same time, despite being perceived as capable of offering inside-out evaluations of specific phenomena and therefore capable of distinguishing between truths and big lies (and anything in-between), the role of public intellectuals seems to have been limited. The article analyses the responses of great power governments and regional powers in terms of the discursive practices deployed in the context of the covid-19 crisis, and the capacity of the aforementioned non-institutional actors to confront these discourses. As editors-in-chief, policymakers have felt passionate about war metaphors that have allowed them to deconstruct and make complex subjects accessible, and as such, to ensure a sufficient level of attention and public approval so that the fight against the enemy could begin. In addition, they have prompted the implementation of emergency measures that, in a context of geopolitical confrontation, have allowed them to evade individual responsibilities. Rather than using their knowledge to provide constructive examination of complex issues and make them accessible, so the ones who listen to them can hopefully understand the impact of specific policy preferences and minimize their own losses in the increasingly competitive environment, experts and intellectuals have seen their room for maneuver to influence policy formulations severely limited.

4. Political philosophers and the history of political thought

‘Political philosophers and the history of political thought’ discusses the confidence in the 1950s that the ‘right’ system of politics, economy and society had been discovered and linked with a turn away from history and theory. Behavioralism, which was propagated by Heinz Eulau, David Easton, and other political scientists, demanded the analysis of politics through the assertion of claims that could be verified or refuted. Data analysis could test hypotheses and come up with irrefutable policy recommendations. Domestic and international liberalism are coupled with variants of pacific socialism or communitarianism. There are a number of renowned political theorists who turned into public intellectuals, such as Norberto Bobbio and Jürgen Habermass.

Democratic Institutions and Practices and the Impact on Covid-19 Outcomes: Global State of Democracy 2021 Thematic Paper

Despite the narratives of authoritarian states, the concerns of journalists and public intellectuals in democracies, and the results of some early studies, this paper shows that democracies fare no worse than authoritarian regimes in combating the Covid-19 pandemic. Democracy is not associated with higher Covid-19 death rates, nor is it associated with lower vaccination rates. Moreover, among many democratic countries, high levels of key democratic components -such as fundamental rights and impartial administration—seem to help prevent deaths and boost vaccination rates. These conclusions are based on statistical analyses of democracy components, as measured by International IDEA’s Global State of Democracy (GSoD) Indices, and the reported Covid-19 death rates and Covid-19 vaccination rates in all countries of the world with a population of at least one million people.

Public Intellectuals and Islamophobia in Greek Society: Entrenching the Discourses of Fear

The largest part of the existing literature with regard to Islamophobia in Greece focuses primarily on the policies, activities and discourse of politicians and political groups of the extreme right, Orthodox Church figures, state authorities, the media and the Internet. The purpose of this article is to cast light on an aspect which is frequently neglected in the study of Islamophobia, i.e., the role of public intellectuals, through a series of questions: Where do public intellectuals in Greece stand with regard to Islamophobia? What are the main themes in their public discourse with regard to Islam and Muslims? What is the role they play in the reproduction of Islamophobic views? Having in mind the debates over the concepts of Islamo-Fascism, Islamo-leftism, Islamophilia and Islamophobia, this article builds on the literature about the role of intellectuals in society with a special focus on their views about Islam. Analysing the discourse of three public intellectuals, the main argument is that Islamophobia in Greece is not an exclusive element of the extreme-right or the Orthodox Church. Self-proclaimed progressive or liberal intellectuals, through their public discourse, also contribute to the reproduction and entrenchment of the fear and moral panic about Islam.

Placing Camelot: Cultivating leadership and learning in the Kennedy presidency

The concept of ‘place’ can play a powerful role in understanding how leadership is socially constructed. This article explores the geographic, symbolic and mythic uses of place in the cultivation of a distinct leadership style around the Presidency of John F. Kennedy. It focuses on the history of a social and learning event that today might be called a leadership development programme: the ‘Hickory Hill Seminars’ of 1961-4, named after and mostly held at the specific location of Robert F. Kennedy’s home. These seminars – only lightly touched on in Kennedy-era history and leadership literatures – were semi-formal occasions organized by the historian Arthur Schlesinger that brought eminent public intellectuals of the day to present their work to the assembled group of insiders. The seminars functioned as a network in action, both cultivating and projecting certain cultural formations of leadership. Bounded by the geographic places inhabited by Washington elites, the seminars formed part of the broader construction of the symbolic place of the ‘New Frontier’ and the mythic place of ‘Camelot’. The Hickory Hill seminars were one part of a broad metaphysical canvas upon which a distinct presidential leadership style and ‘legacy’ was created. Building on critical and social constructivist perspectives, we argue that geographic, symbolic and mythic notions of place can be central to the social construction of particular leadership styles and legacies, but that these creations can be deceptive, and remain always vulnerable to critique, co-optation and distortion by opponents and rivals.