The Modern Day Public Intellectual

A Critical Profile of Susan Faludi 

Public Intellectuals: an inner circle of scholars, the intelligentsia of the world, experts in their field, and a voice that the general public listened and responded to. Before the rise of the internet and the creation of the millions of blogs that now exist, the definition and the role of the public intellectual was much more identifiable.  But, with the rise of the blogosphere, America’s democratic voice has taken full force as millions of people publish opinions that were formerly only tackled by said public intellectuals. 

Despite this new platform, the vast majority of bloggers and authors are not true public intellectuals. However, today, the democratic voice is challenging the role and the importance of the public intellectual. As detailed in The Brecher Brief’s post: The Decline of the Public Intellectual, Richard Hofstader believes that the social, economic, and cultural capital of education is so rooted in the American Dream, that American’s who do not believe they have such capital are hostile of those who do. Furthermore, Hofstader believes that many Americans feel that action and experience are better indicators of knowledge and intellectualism rather than simply writing about it. Today, these “experienced” intellectuals are able to voice their opinions at the click of a button, however this easy access leads to a greater problem: how do people sort out the real intellectuals from the “fake” ones? Is the youth of America going to trust the voice of a much older Pulitzer Prize winner, scholar, and author over a “regular” person who has experienced the events that said Pulitzer Prize winner has only written about?

There is a way to salvage the role of the true public intellectual. The Brecher Brief is correct in saying that the role of the public intellectual can be redefined if Americans stop looking at public intellectuals as a stogy and elitist class, but rather decide a public intellectuals importance based on the function of their work. Public intellectual, Susan Faludi, could be judged by mainstream America as simply an elitist, intellectual member of society, with her Harvard (1981) education and journalistic ventures at The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and other prestige worthy newspapers. But, instead of allowing her education, the places she has worked, or the social circle she “runs in” determine her qualifications as a public intellectual, let’s examine the actual work she has done.

In her three books, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Woman, Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, and The Terror Dream: Myth and Misogyny in an Insecure America, Susan Faludi explores feminist issues and the role of women in American culture and society. Faludi’s book, Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Woman is particularly interesting because it examines how the American woman was reflected onscreen during the Reagan Era. During this era motion pictures depicted a false image of how women were supposed to act and be treated in American society. As Faludi details in the introduction of Backlash, Movies such as ­­­­Fatal Attraction (1987) painted a loving picture of the stay-at-home mom while punishing those women who chose to be independent or to have a career. Fatal Attraction, a thriller about a single woman (Glenn Close) who goes insane after having one night stand with a married man (Michael Douglas,) dramatizes the challenges women faced in real life during the Reagan era. To portray a single, professional woman as clinically insane and the wife (Anne Archer) as the martyr, Faludi believes, was an attempt to scare women out of the workplace and back into their home: during this time women were told that they could not be both a wife and professional.

Apart from Faludi’s exploration of cinema, in Backlash, she also explores the written material presented to women during the Regan Era. Faludi attacks the critically acclaimed self-help book: Smart Women/ Foolish Choices, which argued that, “a woman’s distress was an unfortunate consequence of feminism,” Through Faludi's examination of all facet's of American culture during this time she proves (with the aid of film, print, and legislation) that the material presented to women during the Reagan era (such as Smart Women/Foolish Choices) did more harm than good. Faludi doesn’t stop there, she also points fingers at the lawmakers, detailing that “The U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography even proposed that women's professional advancement might be responsible for rising rape rates.” The Attorney General justified this claim by explaining that because more women went to college, the more of an opportunity they had to be raped - A claim which Faludi attributes to the Government's push to have women return to the home. Faludi’s pointed and detailed exploration of the Reagan era shows that not only has she “done her research” on the era, but she also incorporates other esteemed political and intellectual figures into her argument. A public intellectual doesn’t just blame and call attention to a problem, but rather, a public intellectual is a critic that criticizes with factual evidence and poses a possible solution. 

Faludi certainly drew critics to her work as she released all of her books at crucial times in American history. Backlash was released in 1991, only two years after Regan left office, Stiffed in 1999, before the impending Y2K and possible “end of the world,” and finally The Terror Dream in 2001, post September 11th. But, in true public intellectual style, Faludi was not afraid of criticism.

The Terror Dream, Faludi's most controversial book, argues that 9/11 caused a return to old-fashioned gender roles created a divide amongst critics. Pulitzer Prize winner Michiko Kakutani thought that The Terror Dream is: “the sort of tendentious, self-important, sloppily reasoned book that gives feminism a bad name.” While New York Times cultural critic John Leonard believed that the book is: “a splendid provocation of a book, levitating to keep company with Hunter Thompson's fear and loathing, Leslie Fielder's love and death and Edmund Wilson's patriotic gore." The critical conversations that arose from Faludi’s book shows that she has succeeded, substance wise, as a public intellectual: she researched, articulated, and criticized which in turn allowed others to respond and criticize her work. Furthermore, the rise of the blogosphere, allows American’s to reflect and criticize her work further, which keeps the importance of Faludi’s work ever present. 

Another point that The Brecher Brief raises in defense of the public intellectual is that they are not paid publicists and they aren’t in the “pocket” of officials: their job is to critically look at an issue and respond to it. Susan Faludi is a great example of this, because she is an equal opportunity critic. Although her attack of Regan is read as a liberal interpretation of women’s rights, her other articles point out the faults of republicans and democrats alike. In Faludi’s Time article The Mythical “Security Mom,” she responds to pollster David Winston’s (GOP affiliate) articulation of the 9/11 attacks. Winston states: 

"My first inkling that 9/11 would have more than just a passing impact on women came only a month after the attacks. As Congress considered legislation to allow the arming of pilots, I did a survey for the Allied Pilots Association and United Se­niors Association. One finding surprised a lot of people: Married women with children were the biggest proponents of putting guns in the cockpit—favoring the idea by a whopping 78 percent, five points higher than men."

Faludi calls Winston out on his claims, arguing that Winston’s claim is incredibly narrow in relation to such a large statement about cockpit safety. Winston only used one 2004 study on safety concerns to justify his claim, which Faludi argues is simply not enough proof. Despite Faludi’s call for reconsideration, both democrats and republicans used the idea of familial safety in their 2004 campaigns. Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told USA in 2004 that “[women] want someone who will do what it takes to protect America.” But what about men? Aren’t they equally concerned with the safety of America? Similarly, on the Republican side, Bush’s “W Stands for Women,” based on the same platform of familial safety, targeted the emotional tendencies of women. Faludi's critique of both sides shows that she has no obligation to a particular party, but rather she is only concerned with the delivery of her message.  

Susan Faludi is a true representation of a “modern day” public intellectual. Her devotion to her area of expertise outweighs the old school, elitist image of the public intellectual. Faludi's allegiance is to her work, rather than any type of political or social affiliation allows her to be equally critical. With the rise of the democratic youth it is most important for public intellectuals to write without bias, thus providing an equal opportunity to criticize and be criticized.