British Intellectualism: An Oxymoron?

Timothy Garton Ash wrote in defence of British Intellectualism in yesterdays Guardian, here. His description of an intellectual was fairly generalised:

“It is the role of the thinker or writer who engages in public discussion of issues of public policy, in politics in the broadest sense, while deliberately not engaging in the pursuit of power.”

Surely this description would include most serious political bloggers? Few bloggers seek real power, much less, actually gain any. And we do debate issues relating to the socio-political sphere. Agreed we often descend into pointless, incessant feuding, but European Intellectuals are hardly above lengthy bitchy grudges either.

Here in Britain we have always suffered the ‘arm-chair’ pundits, uncles who bore you to tears with political and cultural musings, philosophising taxi drivers, and opinionated pub regulars, but they rarely – a la the French – sit around in Cafés smoking strong Turkish cigarettes, and name-dropping Czeslaw Milosz or quoting Sartre. The British, as Garton Ash explains, consider such conduct “airy-fairy,” and not something an Anglo-Saxon would be caught doing, lest he be branded a Catholic or a “cheese-eating surrender monkey.”

Of course I’m stereotyping, as well as enjoying some mild Francophobia, but Garton Ash is right when he argues, that the British consider the term somewhat pejorative. While reading the article I began to consider my own position. I have a literature degree, several professional qualifications, and I waste far too much valuable time discussing politics, history, and culture. While I have never smoked a Helmar, I do enjoy a glass of single-malt, while I argue long into the night, with anyone unlucky enough to be cornered mid-rant.

So am I an intellectual?

I don’t think so. For a start I’m not bright enough; I’m much better at bluff than delivery, and my knowledge of most subjects is incomplete, which often leads me to conclusions I am soon forced to abandon. I also tend to believe the last book I read - although the same could have been said of Adam Smith. And my blog, while occasionally a source of mild titillation, is hardly the London Review of Books. But I guess these are value judgements, and the thrust of intellectualism is in the endeavour, not the conclusion.

Garton Ash argues that Britain is a hotbed of intellectualism, and that our dislike of the classification belies a genuine cerebral rigour in British culture: -

There are probably more genuine, substantial, creative debates about ideas, policies and books - and reaching a wider public - in Britain than there are in France, the homeland of les intellectuels. The south bank of the Thames is less elegant but more intellectually alive than the left bank of the Seine.
Nowhere else outside the US has such an array of thinktanks. Every month seems to bring a new literary festival, with large audiences queueing up to hear eggheads and boffins galore. We have the best universities in Europe, and some British academics still manage to escape the ghastly, Soviet-style clutches of the government-imposed Research Assessment Exercise, and other bureaucratic nightmares, for sufficient time to share their knowledge with a wider public. We have the BBC, especially BBC radio, to help them do that, in programmes such as Melvyn Bragg’s In Our Time and Andrew Marr’s Start the Week. In laying out his vision for the future of the BBC earlier this week, its director general, Mark Thompson, reaffirmed his commitment to the third leg of the Reithian tripod: to educate, as well as to inform and entertain.

I would agree with this sentiment. Radio Four is an oasis of wisdom; our newspapers and magazines are informed and aware. And with channels such as More Four and BBC4, even our television is becoming seriously intellectualised.

But in my opinion it is the blogosphere, and the freedom of self-publication, that will offer the greatest source of new debate, and probably, will allow the next great wave of thinkers to find a voice.