This evening I went into the local Walgreens to pick up some medications. Inside, I passed by a sign for
Spirit for Men by Antonio Banderas. Just what does Bandaras know about perfume--then again, who cares?
For that matter, what does Noam Chomsky know about the geopolitical situation? When he recently visited Lebanon, did he read up on the underlying situation behind the headlines?
Some think
he has a lot to learn about the situation there.
What makes a professor of linguistics into an expert on the Middle East?
Or actors...or singers...for that matter.
Part of the answer comes from the status of intellectuals. In his book Intellectuals, Paul Johnson traces the rise of the intellectual as mentor back to the 1700's:
With the decline of clerical power in the 18th century, a new kind of mentor emerged to fill the vacuum and capture the ear of society. The secular intellectual might be deist, skeptic, or atheist, but he was just as ready as any pontiff or presbyter to tell mankind how to conduct its affairs. He proclaimed from the start a special devotion to the interests of humanity and an evangelical duty to advance them by his teaching.
That will cover Rousseau, Russell and Sartre. But how do you account for Chomsky, Streisand, and Bono. Stefan Kanfer, writing for the City Journal, thinks this is more of an American phenomenon:
In America, you come across two kinds of fame: vertical and horizontal. The vertical celebrity owes his renown to one thing—Luciano Pavarotti, for example, is famous for his singing, period. The horizontal celebrity, conversely, merchandises his fame by convincing the public that his mastery of one field is transferable to another. Thus singers Barbra Streisand and Bono give speeches on public policy; thus linguistics professor Chomsky poses as an expert on geopolitics.
I think the key word there is merchandises. These people that Kanfer refers to are expert salesmen. Their fame in one area is a commodity that can be marketed to other very unrelated areas as well. If anything, it is the fame--not necessarily the native expertise--that is being marketed. This holds true for Chomsky as well as Streisand. I wonder how many who hold by Chomsky in his politics have the faintest idea, or interest, in his work in linguistics above the popular level.
Today, the marketing of fame extends to the point that we are supposed to assume that millionaires have a talent the will make them good senators or governors. Or that business acumen is the key to running government.
Along similar lines, this way of thinking allowed for the myth that members of the media had a special wisdom that endowed what they say and write with a special accuracy and insight that could not be matched by their readers--whether advising them on whom to vote for or assuring them on the existence of Santa Claus.
Today, however, we see the rise of blogs that challenge the media's stranglehold on information and its dissemination.
Who knows, perhaps with their new-found fame, bloggers too will some day be able to market their fame into other areas as well.
But I'm not giving up my day job (my wife made me promise).
Technorati Tag: Intellectuals and Paul Johnson and Noam Chomsky.
