The United States’ handling of the Covid-19 crisis has been egregious and detrimental, especially compared to that of almost any developed nation in the world. The way in which too many of our country’s citizens have disregarded science truly exposes how immensely we value individualist principles over community efforts and rational thinking. Often remarked as the “land of the free,” the United States has been a national embarrassment thanks to those spreading anti-mask rhetoric and vaccine misinformation and attempting to excuse such behavior with references to the freedom guaranteed in the Constitution. According to a ranking and analysis project by U.S. News & World Report, BAV Group, and the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, the United States ranks number one in education worldwide, followed by the United Kingdom then Canada. This begs the question, how or why has the country’s response to one of the most deadly plagues in the last century, been so horrendous? The answer could very well be found in the education system, which rings in tones of coastal elitism and serves to alienate a large portion of Americans. Even solely concerning the classification of public intellectuals, most public intellectuals are hesitant to consider experts in the subjects of science as public intellectuals due to their topics of discussion diverging from traditional public intellectual work that is usually centered around specific social issues related to class divisions. The extent to which they try to limit who and what would be considered public intellectual work, shows the elitism and concern public intellectuals have regarding the status of being a public intellectual, instead of considering the efficacy and contributions that form a public intellectual. Scientists are public intellectuals, and could be considered to be just as, if not more impactful in terms of tangible change and spearheading societal developments we have seen over the course of history. From transatlantic travel to pushing forward technologies such as the internet, printing press, and other scientific inventions, it’s hard to argue that scientists shouldn’t be considered public intellectuals, given their significant contributions have changed the way we live our day to day lives. The glaring problem amongst public intellectuals, more notably present-day examples of scientific public intellectuals, is clearly not that they’re afraid to share their opinion. In fact one could argue we are at a point in we are overloaded with so-called “intellectuals,” due to the transformation of the internet and public forums. The problem is the language and tone in which messages are conveyed to the general population, with a majority of public intellectuals being largely off-putting. This rings in the praise, and simultaneous, unfortunate criticism of one of my favorite public intellectuals in the field of science, Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is indubitably an academic, with an undergraduate degree in Physics from Harvard, and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from Colombia University. Neil deGrasse is well versed in the space sciences, with his crowning achievement most notably being at the forefront of removing Pluto from the system of planets and classifying it as a dwarf planet during his reign as director of the Hayden Planetarium. Neil deGrasse Tyson is known for more than just scientific achievement during his tenure at the Hayden Planetarium, being that one of his goals included making the planetarium more accessible while one of his projects focused on a cutting edge modern day experience of space and astrophysics. This scientific development has had an overarching impact from pop culture contribution exemplified by an episode of Adult Swim’s “Rick and Morty,” to the academic transformation of the International Astronomical Union classification of Pluto in its planetary system 5 years prior to Neil deGrasse. While his work at Hayden’s planetarium inarguably improved the entire world’s scientific literacy, his most important contribution to improving the world as a public intellectual came after his rise to popular media fame. After Neil deGrasse Tyson renovated the Hayden Planetarium’s astrophysics revolution, his next desire was to help increase the nation's scientific literature. Strictly based on Tyson’s goal to spread his knowledge of the sciences to the general public, it’s hard to argue against him being a public intellectual despite some problematic instances involving Tyson.
Based on the United States’ reaction to the coronavirus pandemic, it is apparent that intellectuals like Neil deGrasse are who we need leading the discussions about how we can best combat this virus. This is not to say Neil deGrasse didn’t use his following to educate the masses, and critique misconceptions about scientific discourse, but the route he chose to build his following over the last 2 decades was through alienating, condescending academic rhetoric that has dug us the hole that the Coronavirus has buried us in. With the disconnect between the “educated” and working-class growing, discourse must come from a place of understanding, and educating. Unfortunately, through many hiccups in his career related to fabrication of stories, inability to admit error and so forth, Tyson has managed to reduce the extent of his reach as an intellectual, extending the gap between the public and scientific intellectuals given his status as one of the key figures in the science world.
Oftentimes many people question the classification of scientists as public intellectuals, given the divergence in their works compared to the predominant theme of public intellectual work typically tending to be centered in the realm of politics and social issues. But as stated in Stephen Mack’s article, “And so if public intellectuals have any role to play in a democracy—and they do—it’s simply to keep the pot boiling. The measure of public intellectual work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about.”, and given Neil deGrasse Tyson’s public stances involving science and its advancement, it’s hard to argue he hasn’t done just that. Also given how a lack of acceptance of scientific truths, and facts has led the United States into the uncontrollable predicament of containing the Coronavirus, how can we not claim that public conversations about science aren’t almost directly related to the social issues of the present day? Would public discussions in social forums about basic facts regarding virology, and the spread of diseases have prevented Coronavirus as a whole? Most definitely not, but would the simplification of these complex, often abstract to non-expert scientific themes being discussed more in public forums prior to the pandemic, have at least alleviated the issues in people believing the science? 2020, and thus far 2021 have directed a massive spotlight on our misconceptions on where science lies in the realm of issues facing modern society, as death tolls across the globe raged on, average citizens looked not to prominent intellectuals in the field of the sciences for opinions on how to deal with the deadly virus, but to leaders in the political field for their scientific opinions.
With opinions on science being discussed by those in power, regardless of whether we consider scientists public intellectuals or not, wouldn’t we rather welcome those with tangible knowledge of sciences into the realm of public intellectuals and have their opinions amplified than pushed into a corner? In an joint interview conducted with Neil deGrasse and Ann Druyan, Druyan proposes for greater respect for the opinions of public intellectuals in the science sphere when they say “I think this is a moment, a singular moment in my lifetime. … Maybe we'll emerge from this with a greater respect for what the scientists are saying. But it's a two-way street. The scientists have to speak with a kind of openness and reality and humility that is compelling.” This also raises a point that serves to criticize Neil deGrasse Tyson in that, “experts” in fields of science must come to the general public void of condescension, and with an openness that doesn’t just ring in tones of “I’m smarter than you, listen to what I say!”
Unfortunately, even after years in the public spotlight, and constant interactions with the general public through forums such as Twitter, Tyson suffers from the same inability to make meaningful connections with the public square. Tyson’s methods of spreading his knowledge have tended to rustle the feathers of journalists, and ordinary citizens alike. In a blatant display of disconnect with society, Tyson came under fire for his opinion of America’s rising mass shootings that was formed and approached by a science-based perspective. Tyson tried to support his stance by claiming that there were much more important issues to deal with in America than mass shootings. This is an example of Tyson as a public intellectual, obliviously overlooking an overwhelming emotional sentiment of the public. His academic prowess overshadows his consideration of public sensitivity regarding mass shootings, and occurrences like this solely cause division between the general public and scientific public intellectuals. Situations like these reinforce the massive disconnect between the theory and technical academia these scientists learn and what they can actually apply to help and move the general public forward. I say this while being well aware of the nature of public intellectuals to be natural party poopers as described by Jean Bethke Elshtain in Stephen Mack’s article. However, if public intellectuals, especially in the realm of science want to make meaningful contributions and changes, I believe it’s time to make a shift from being party poopers, to simply being educators and enlighteners of the uninformed population without being condescending.
Another criticism of Tyson often mentioned is his fabrication of quotes was the infamous butchering of a George W. Bush quote following the tragic events of 9/11. Following the tragic events, Tyson claims Bush made dividing, and discriminatory comments separating Muslims and Christians, but his whole account of the quote was a complete fabrication. As a scientific intellectual, Tyson should have been able to realize that the brain can often confuse when, where, and what was said at times. His ego and pride, however, couldn’t allow him to admit that he simply misquoted bush, to his gain. Again quoting Jean Bethke Elshtain, "A public intellectual is not a paid publicist, not a spinner, not in the pocket of a narrowly defined purpose. It is, of course, the temptation, another one, of the public intellectual to cozy up to that which he or she should be evaluating critically. I think perhaps, too many White House dinners can blunt the edge of criticism." Tyson’s actions following his botching of the Bush quote displayed he perhaps is a spinner, captured in the pocket of a defined purpose, this purpose being to belittle someone on the other side of the political fence as him by any means necessary, even lying. Due to Tyson’s designation on many committees by George Bush Jr., most would think this would lead to issues related to Tyson easing his criticisms of the President. But in fact, the complete opposite occurred and Tyson resulted in spinning lies he knew would have carried significant weight, given his proximity to Bush. While no one doubts Tyson’s scientific prowess and accomplishments, events like this only lessen his ability to make meaningful impacts on scientific issues of national importance. When you get caught in a fabrication, and are unable to admit what you have done, the credibility of what you say goes completely out of the window in most people’s minds, which is unfortunate given the otherwise brilliant takes he has on other topics of interest.
Neil deGrasse Tyson is a peculiar case of the scientific public intellectual. His reach is undeniable, given the unique knowledge he’s put out into the world. From his rendition of the popular television series Cosmos helping expose those in the public square to topics they otherwise wouldn’t learn or hear about in a college classroom, to his attempts at gathering comedians to simplify scientific knowledge through a podcast, Tyson has indubitably attempted to bridge the gap of knowledge between the public square, and the scientific intellectual. However throughout his time in the public spotlight, occasional fabrication of quotes, complete ignorance towards public emotional sentiment, and overly condescending nature, Tyson has managed to lose a lot of the ground he gained in universal appeal and reach within the public square. Regardless of his transgressions, Tyson has still earned his status as a scientific public intellectual through his overall attempt to start a public discourse on otherwise foreign or controversial topics. Tyson’s career is far from over and redemption is seemingly on the horizon as he looks like he is growing and recognizing his mistakes.
Sources
Davis, Sean. “Another Day, Another Quote Fabricated By Neil DeGrasse Tyson.” The Federalist, 18 Sept. 2014, thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/another-day-another-quote-fabricated-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/.
EDITORIAL, USA TODAY. “On Coronavirus Crisis, Science Is the Way out: Q&A with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Ann Druyan.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 2 Apr. 2020, www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/04/01/coronavirus-neil-degrasse-tyson-ann-druyan-science-way-out-opinion/5100848002/.
Mack, Stephen. The New Democratic Review: Are Public Intellecuals a Thing of the Past? (Repost), www.stephenmack.com/blog/archives/2012/08/are_public_inte.html.
“Neil DeGrasse Tyson Explains Why The Cosmos Shouldn't Make You Feel Small.” NPR, NPR, 27 Feb. 2014, www.npr.org/2014/02/27/283443670/neil-degrasse-tyson-explains-why-the-cosmos-shouldnt-make-you-feel-small.
“Profile.” Profile - Neil DeGrasse Tyson, www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/about/profile.php.
-, IBL News, et al. IBL News, 19 Jan. 2020, iblnews.org/the-u-s-shows-as-the-number-1-in-education-across-the-world-according-to-the-2020-best-countries-report/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20stays%20on,of%20the%20University%20of%20Pennsylvania.
Comments