I just read this interesting article: “Public Intellectual 2.0” (hat tip to Arts & Letters Daily).

I found the place of blogging as described in the following section of the article to be fascinating, mainly because it utterly contradicts my view.

The pessimism about public intellectuals is reflected in attitudes about how the rise of the Internet in general, and blogs in particular, affects intellectual output. Alan Wolfe claims that “the way we argue now has been shaped by cable news and Weblogs; it’s all ‘gotcha’ commentary and attributions of bad faith. No emotion can be too angry and no exaggeration too incredible.” David Frum complains that “the blogosphere takes on the scale and reality of an alternative world whose controversies and feuds are … absorbing.” David Brooks laments, “People in the 1950s used to earnestly debate the role of the intellectual in modern politics. But the Lionel Trilling authority figure has been displaced by the mass class of blog-writing culture producers.”

What amuses me in the accusations hurled by the likes of Alan Wolfe, David Frum, and David Brooks, is how easily and thoughtlessly they conflate a medium and specific uses of it. They would never think to condemn novels because they’ve read a few silly, petty, or contentious ones; they would never think to condemn poetry because so many people write such large amounts of it so wretchedly.

Let us dwell on the possibilities for this medium. Blogs are growing in popularity and influence all the time. I suspect that truly masterful examples of the art of blogging will soon burst onto the cultural scene in ways as unexpected as the first novels, or political serial publications, or radio broadcasts. The medium will give birth to its own breed of genius. Let’s consider two inherent features of blogging, and just imagine the kind of literature to which these features could give rise:

(1. The push-button nature of publishing on a blog. This is one of the chief arguments adduced against blogging: thoughtlessness and foolishness are the natural results of its ease of use. And I will grant the truth of the accusation. I have been guilty of posting before I thought just as much as the next blogger. But this is a problem with individuals, not one inherent in the medium. The fool speaks before he has considered–in whatever fashion he speaks. The positive side of push-button publishing is that it achieves a quality only available–previously–in published diaries, or narratives written as they were experienced. There is a sense in which life recorded contemporaneously imprints itself on the page, rather than commemorating itself. Careful prediction of the future or judicious reflection on the past both have their place–but they are both inevitably selective, excluding what we do not want to occur or what we would rather forget. So, although experience can never truly be captured in any form other than life, it can be more nearly captured in a medium with the peculiar possibilities of a blog.

(2. The community-level regulation of credibility and reputation. Another accusation against blogging: it frequently descends into silly in-fighting, because people have no self-consciousness when they’re behind a keyboard. This is merely a negative manifestation of the blogosphere’s chief distinction. At this point in its development, the “establishment” of the blogosphere is a natural meritocracy. Clusters of authority and community censorship have yet to emerge with their mission to suppress dissent or ingenuity. So I honestly believe that, as the medium now stands, the true artists within it will naturally rise to the top of the pile.

These two features of blogging excite me. In my own line I see immense uses for the medium in pastoral work,–and, in a larger sense, as a new platform for public intellectuals… What an exciting time to be a writer.

No related posts.