Public Intellectuals, Online Media, and Public Spheres: Current Realignments

  • Peter DahlgrenEmail author


The phenomenon of public intellectuals (PIs) continue to be debated, as their status and significance evolve under changing historical circumstances. I suggest PIs still play an important role in democracies, despite alterations in their circumstances, activities, and practices. While most of the familiar questions remain, it is important to take into account a number of changes that impact on PIs, their situation, and their activities. I explore the contingencies that make possible, as well as delimit and alter, the phenomenon of PIs in contemporary democratic societies. The discussion is organised around three sets of evolving circumstances in which PIs are inexorably embedded: the structural setting of mediated public spheres, with a particular emphasis on the online sector; the dynamic realm of practices associate with online civic participation more broadly; and lastly, the cultural and political climate of democratic societies confronted by serious dilemmas. The interface of these circumstances is ushering PIs into a new historical phase, where the web obviously looms large yet where the contours are still taking shape. These circumstances put new demands on PIs.


Public intellectuals Public sphere Politics online Democratic participation Civic engagement Internet and democracy 


  1. Anonymous (2011). On public intellectuals. Philosphy Compass, 9 May. Accessed 18 Aug 2012.
  2. Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid times: living in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U. (2009). World at risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Borg, C., & Mayo, P. (Eds.). (2007). Public intellectuals, radical democracy and social movements: a book of interviews. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  7. Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: how the internet is changing the way we think, read and remember. London: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  8. Caslon Analytics (2011). Blog statistics and demographics. Accessed 18 Aug 2012.
  9. Castells, M. (2010). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chatfield, T. (2009). ‘The world's top intellectuals on our website’. Prospect Magazine, September. Accessed 18 Aug 2012.
  11. Couldry, N. (2010). Why voice matters: culture and politics after neoliberalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement. New York: Cambridge University Pess.Google Scholar
  13. Danowski, J. A., & Park, D. W. (2009). Networks of the dead or alive in cyberspace: public intellectuals in the mass and internet media. New Media and Society, 11(3), 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, R. (2009). Typing politics: the role of blogs in American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dezner, D. W. (2008a). Public intellectuals 2.0. Foreign Policy 13 May Accessed 18 Aug 2012.
  16. Dezner, D. W. (2008b). Am I defining public intellectuals down? Foreign Policy 12 June Accessed 18 Aug 2012.
  17. Etzioni, A., & Bowditch, A. (Eds.). (2006). Public intellectuals: an endangered species? Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  18. Fisher, M. (2009). Capitalist realism: is there no alternative? Ropley: Zero Books.Google Scholar
  19. Gewen, B. (2008). Who is a public intellectual? New York Times 11 June. Available at: Accessed 18 Aug 2012.
  20. Habermas, Jurgen (1984, 1987). Theory of communicative action. 2 vol. Cambridge: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Habermas, J. (1989). Structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  22. Habermas, J. (2008). An avantgardistic instinct for relevances: intellectuals and their public. Social Science Research Council: Public Sphere Forum Available at: Accessed 18 Aug 2012.
  23. Harvey, D. (2006). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Harvey, D. (2011). The enigma of capital and the crises of capitalism. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  25. Hindman, M. (2009). The myth of digital democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hitchens, C. (2008). How to be a public intellectual. Prospect Magazine, May. Available at: Accessed 18 Aug 2012.
  27. Jacoby, R. (1987). The last intellectuals: American culture in the age of academe. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Jacoby, R. (2008). Big brains, small impact. Chronicle of Higher Education, v54 n18 pB5. Accessed 18 Aug 2012.
  29. Jacoby, S. (2009). The age of American unreason. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  30. Joffe, J. (2003). The decline of the public intellectual and the rise of the pundit. In A. M. Melzer, M. Arthur, J. Weinberger, & M. R. Zinman (Eds.), The public intellectual: between philosophy and politics (pp. 109–122). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  31. Keen, A. (2008). The cult of the amateur. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  32. Lewis, J. (2011). Crisis in the global mediasphere: desire, displeasure and cultural transformation. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  33. Lievrouw, L. A. (2011). Alternative and activist new media. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  34. Loader, B., & Mercea, D. (Eds.). (2012). Social media and democracy. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Melzer, A. M., Weinberger, J., & Zinman, M. R. (Eds.). (2003). The public intellectual: between philosophy and politics. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  36. Michael, J. (2000). Anxious intellectuals: academic professionals, public intellectuals, and enlightenment values. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: how not to liberate the world. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  38. Naughton, J. (2011). Britain's to 300 intellectuals. The Guardian, 8 May. Accessed 18 Aug 2012.
  39. Papacharissi, Z. (Ed.). (2009). Journalism and citizenship: new agendas in communication. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Pasquali, F. (2011). Participating audiences, authorship and the digitalization of the publishing industry. CM: Communication Management Quarterly, 21, 203–219.Google Scholar
  41. Posner, R. A. (2003). Public intellectuals: a study of decline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rettberg, J. W. (2008). Blogging. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rosenberry, J., & St. John, B., III (Eds.). (2010). Public journalism 2.0: the promise and reality of a citizen-engaged press. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Sloterdijk, P. (1987). Critique of cynical reason. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  45. Small, H. (2002). The public intellectual. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Song, F. W. (2009). Virtual communities: bowling alone, online together. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  47. Striphas, T. (2009). The late age of print: everyday book culture from consumerism to control. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Sunstein, C. (2008). Infotopia: how many minds produce knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  50. Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2006). Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Portfolio (Penguin).Google Scholar
  51. Thompson, J. B. (2010). Merchants of culture: the publishing business in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  52. Young, J. (2007). The vertigo of late modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations