"the inclusion of Christopher Hitchens has already raised eyebrows in academia"

October 3, 2005 7:03 AM

Another year, another list of top 100 intellectuals of our time from Prospect Magazine and with Foreign Policy. Self-confessedly anglocentric, but with an effort "to include thinkers from outside the west", it raises the perennial 'where are the women' question (now in good company with 'where are the scientists') and sanctions the decline of: the left, France, Europe, psychology, psychiatry and philosophy. The ever present Germaine Greer says "these lists are always so right-wing" and her inclusion is "absurd and completely unjustifiable". You can vote your 5 favourites and suggest other names.
posted by funambulist (37 comments total)

Another year, another list of top 100 intellectuals

Just to emphasise, the last list was British intellectuals, this is worldwide.
A bit of commentary from Prospect's editor here.
posted by biffa at 7:26 AM on October 3, 2005

So the first few omissions I noticed were Joseph Stiglitz and Taslima Nasrin but I'm sure others will find even more glaring oversights. Putting Larry Summers here and not Stiglitz is really shocking to me. Personally, I never like lists that end in nice round numbers. Why do we never see a list of the top 107 intellectuals?
posted by allen.spaulding at 7:30 AM on October 3, 2005

$100 on Chomsky. I've read a bit about Wolfowitz and really wouldn't consider him an intellectual. He has some interesting ideas as far as leading the World Bank goes, namely that the World Bank should use any means necessary and go around governments to get rid of corruption and tyrrants. The underlying implication being that he thinks every dictator is bad and he will do anything in his power to unseat said dictator. I really wouldn't consider this intellectual thought, but I've never read anything he's actually written.
posted by geoff. at 7:36 AM on October 3, 2005

Salman Rushdie? For what?
posted by OmieWise at 7:37 AM on October 3, 2005

geoff. writes "I've read a bit about Wolfowitz and really wouldn't consider him an intellectual."

That was my immediate thought, but then I read the criteria for inclusion, and it's basically a list of influence on public thought and life. Which is certainly why Summers, for instance, rates, but it doesn't explain leaving Noble Laureate Stiglitz off.
posted by OmieWise at 7:38 AM on October 3, 2005

WTF? They left out Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:45 AM on October 3, 2005

I'm voting quonsar.
posted by sbutler at 7:52 AM on October 3, 2005

The Guardian link says Chomsky has 14000 votes, but how did the columnist know this? Is there somewhere where we can view the current vote tally in real time?
posted by dgaicun at 7:59 AM on October 3, 2005

This list favours media dons and journalists like Diamond, Ignatieff and Hitchens. These people aren't profound thinkers. Don't get me wrong, they're clever and everything, and I like some of them, but they're not exactly breaking new intellectual ground.

Also Omie

I agree about Rushdie. He was a good ad man, then a good novelist. Now he's a bad novelist. He's never been a great thinker.
posted by johnny novak at 8:06 AM on October 3, 2005

no Jim Goad? Can't take it seriously.
posted by jonmc at 8:22 AM on October 3, 2005

I voted for Carrot Top
posted by cleverusername at 8:30 AM on October 3, 2005

I mean, what is this a list of? The 100 greatest living intellectuals? In that case you have to go with a list like Baudrillard, Habermas, and Eco.

Is it the 100 greatest intellectuals who are still working and doing good stuff? Then you have to go with a list like Zizek, Dawkins, and Hitchens (Ha!).

Is it the 100 greatest over-rated hacks who managed to make some noise a decade or more ago with a somewhat novel idea and have been banging the same gong over and over ever since, relying on constantly re-hashing their one "theory" in the terms and circumstances of the day in order to appear continually innovative? Then you've got to have a list like Putnam, Fukuyama, and the worst perpetrator of them all, Chomsky.
posted by ChasFile at 8:44 AM on October 3, 2005

Nice to see Lessig on there. Not sure he belonged, but I voted for him. Also nice to see Zakaria there, even though I know he doesn't belong.

Unfortunately the tip-off for me that the entire list was crap was the inclusion of Jaron Lanier. Ditto Wolfowitz.

Anyways: Baudrillard, Dawkins, Dennett, Eco, Lessig. Krugman probably would've been next.
posted by Ryvar at 8:46 AM on October 3, 2005

Jaron Lanier?!? Good God, I thought he disappeared in the late '90s, when people began to realize that we do not, in fact, have those holodecks from Star Trek.
posted by unreason at 8:59 AM on October 3, 2005

Unreason: I couldn't agree more. Even then he shouldn't have been on this list, and now it's just ridiculous.
posted by Ryvar at 9:02 AM on October 3, 2005

I voted for Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka.
posted by keswick at 9:27 AM on October 3, 2005

What?! No Jim Loy?
posted by TheSpook at 9:28 AM on October 3, 2005

The online polling form allows you to enter any name missing from the list. I entered Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf and I urge you all to do the same.
posted by StarForce5 at 9:37 AM on October 3, 2005

To complement Chas comment, upon reading in the linked article "Philosophy, too, has been routed. Dennett, Habermas, Nussbaum, Rorty, Singer and Walzer. Four from the American northeast. Again, such a list would have been inconceivable at almost any time in the 20th century." I quickly dismissed this "list" as "a list of the top 100 intellectuals with better PR resources". Or the "list of the top 100 newspaper intellectuals".
posted by nkyad at 10:45 AM on October 3, 2005

Naomi Klein?

Naomi Fucking Klein?

You must be kidding me.
posted by docgonzo at 11:04 AM on October 3, 2005

Carlos Funetes?
posted by Pollomacho at 11:58 AM on October 3, 2005

Or Carlos Fuentes even?
posted by Pollomacho at 11:59 AM on October 3, 2005

Camille Paglia? Unreal.
posted by postmodernmillie at 12:10 PM on October 3, 2005

As far as major writers go, what would you have against Fuentes, Pollomacho?
posted by nkyad at 12:11 PM on October 3, 2005

The current issue of Blender has a list of the 500 greatest songs ever and of embarassing celebrity siblings. Both of these contribute far more to humanity than this one does.
posted by bardic at 12:16 PM on October 3, 2005

Doesn't the "self-confessedly anglocentric" bias in the list reflect a global lack of translations rather than an actual decline? I bet that there are numerous splendid intellectuals outside the anglo-american sphere, but if these people fail to draw the interest of anglo-american publishers, they're not going to be translated outside their own country. The economic weight of the English language makes it difficult for non anglo-american-born cultural products - including fine arts, movies, literature, comic books, music and intellectuals - to become global, but it doesn't mean that the local scenes are in decline.
posted by elgilito at 12:45 PM on October 3, 2005

As far as major writers go, what would you have against Fuentes, Pollomacho?

Nothing, that's why I think he should have been included!
posted by Pollomacho at 12:50 PM on October 3, 2005

Tom Friedman?!? Might as well just put Tom Arnold on there.
posted by jefbla at 1:20 PM on October 3, 2005

TheSpook writes "What?! No Jim Loy?"

I was all, like, Jim Loy who? But then I followed the link and now I understand. What were those people thinking? He solved a mystery for christ's sake.
posted by OmieWise at 1:23 PM on October 3, 2005

If Bjorn Lomborg is included, then I don't see why not Naomi Klein. In fact, they seem to have paired a few for "balance" - the Pope vs Hans Küng, Alain Finkielkraut vs Tariq Ramadan, Hitchens & co vs Chomsky, Wolfowitz vs Krugman, I'm sure there's others but those are the most obvious.
posted by funambulist at 1:24 PM on October 3, 2005

I added Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as my "Bonus ball" nomination.

Its sort of funny that the list is said to be shifted right. Last year conservative John Derbyshire wrote a column on intellectuals in response to Paul Johnson's book of the same name, where he observed that intellectual heavy-weights of our era probably do skew to the right:

By comparison with P.J.’s 1935 list, mine also shows a strong shift towards conservatism. The center of gravity of the 1935 list is well to the left of center; of mine, well to the right. This, I thought, must just be me; I’m just writing down the names of people I know about. To correct the balance, I leafed through some back copies of the reliably left-wing New York Review of Books and New Yorker to pick out a heavyweight or two. With the best will in the world, I couldn't. The modern Left simply isn't competitive above the middleweight category. Considering their near-monopoly of academia, the arts, and the media, this is astounding; but try the experiment for yourself and see. There were one or two names I hovered over — K. Anthony Appiah would have been a fine adornment to my list, not only adding political and racial diversity, but giving me a credentialed philosopher, too — but I couldn't honestly see him, or any others I considered, making the cut.

If you want to engage with big, original, interesting ideas about life, society, knowledge, the past or the future, your best bet in this day and age is to call on a heterosexual male conservative. Again, this may be just my own inclination showing through; but if you disagree, let’s see what names you can come up with.

From my biased secular libertarian point of view I think this is mostly correct. The libertarian Chicago School wins all the Nobel prizes, signifying, what I think, is "the Right's" empirical victory on economics. The world policy consensus is basically in the "right-wing" direction of democracy, merit, and free-markets (trumping the Communist policies a majority of the world’s population was under a generation ago, and by far trumping Chomsky’s own choice of “participatory economics”). “Right-wing” ideas about human inequality (gender, cultural, genetic, “human capital”) have generally trumped left-wing ideas of exploitation and power-relations (socialization, economic, “dependency theories”) as the inclusion of Larry Summers, Samuel Huntington and over a dozen sociobiologists will attest (Jared Diamond’s sociobiology contrasts with the last generation of left-wing science intellectuals like Gould and Lewontin, who vigorously tried to fight these ideas. What was once controversial and “right-wing” is the new scientific and intellectual center. Again, an empirical victory more than anything). The Right won all the social policy battles at home, as the last generation of neo-conservatives cleaned house on the excesses of the Great Society - culminating in "welfare reform", tough on crime policy and the "third way" economics of the Clinton administration (and since 5 of the last 7 terms have gone to the Republicans, we can expect the Democratic party to move ever-Rightward to gain votes). They also cleaned house and successfully fought off the world threat of totalitarian Communism. This generation of neo-conservatives are also cleaning house on foreign policy, again, the only ones with the ideas on what to do about the world threat of militant Islam. In all cases the "conservatives" have been the ones with the ideas and the will-power and the intuition to get things done and to ultimately improve the lot of the greatest number. (I'm not saying this is a general proprty of "the Right", btw, at other times the "the left" had the good ideas [e.g. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine]. Also the terms are highly artifical anyway as the criteria shifts with popular currents [e.g. "liberal" free-markets in one generation are considered "rightwing" in another generation. "Race-blind" liberals of the Civil Rights Movement were considered "conservatives" in the next era of "racial preferences").

Even those nominating additional choices here, instead of just complaining about what's on the table, appear to favor "right-wing" choices (e.g. Jon M.C.: Goad. Me: Solzhenitsyn). This could be incidental (people may well have a lot of good choices they're just not sharing), or it could be a microcosm of the larger pattern of "the left" just not having any ideas, defining itself by criticism and losing by default.
posted by dgaicun at 1:41 PM on October 3, 2005

As with ChasFile, it wasn't quite clear to me whether the list was framed in terms of the top 100 most influential intellectuals in the world at the present time, or the 100 living intellectuals who have had most influence during their careers so far. For example, if it's the former - which is how I read it - then I can understand why people like Niall Ferguson are included but am unsure why Clifford Geertz is name-checked (thick description has changed the way lots of people in the humanities think, but ithose changes took place quite a few years ago). If it's the latter, then those two figures would be reversed - Geertz is definitely in, but I cannot believe in 20 years time that people will be name-checking Ferguson as a major influence in historiographical or political thought. Unless he is on the reading list for new entrants to the State Department or the Foreign Office...

There is also an interesting article on mandarin government in the same issue of Prospect, which is worth a read.
posted by greycap at 1:47 PM on October 3, 2005

appear to favor "right-wing" choices (e.g. Jon M.C.: Goad.

Goad may loathe liberals, but he's hardly right wing. just saying.
posted by jonmc at 1:48 PM on October 3, 2005

I, for one, am horribly upset that earth's wisest human gene ray was not on the list.

Further proof that the academic community has been educated stupid.
posted by punch_the_mayor at 1:59 PM on October 3, 2005

dgaicun: This generation of neo-conservatives are also cleaning house on foreign policy, again, the only ones with the ideas on what to do about the world threat of militant Islam.

Ideas such as the ones whose results are seen daily in Baghdad? Well then I guess it's all a matter of opinion and most of all perspectives. If you're only concerned with America, after all, as long as there's no more attacks inside the US, that foreign policy must look like a success. Whether the lack of attacks inside the US is due to that foreign policy or not becomes irrelevant. From that perspective. It is all very, very relative.

Just like with this list. It all depends where one's navel is located on the map.
posted by funambulist at 3:27 PM on October 3, 2005

dgaicun writes "Even those nominating additional choices here, instead of just complaining about what's on the table, appear to favor 'right-wing' choices (e.g. Jon M.C.: Goad. Me: Solzhenitsyn). This could be incidental (people may well have a lot of good choices they're just not sharing), or it could be a microcosm of the larger pattern of 'the left' just not having any ideas, defining itself by criticism and losing by default."

No, unfortunately the world has not been suddenly cleaned up of all those filthy communists just for your intellectual delight - even the large mediatic effort geared towards reading the fall of Soviet Union as the defeat of all leftist ideas everywhere failed. The left exists (well, maybe not so strongly in the United States, but when has it ever, after all Italian anarchists were killed by Irish policemen). I, for instance, used my write-in to suggest Giorgio Agamben. Italian philosopher, very modern, very important, very difficult to understand if you are not quite aware of most of the Marxist tradition and the Critical Theory.
posted by nkyad at 4:15 PM on October 3, 2005

Chomsky won by the way.

The top 10 (with votes):
1 Noam Chomsky 4827
2 Umberto Eco 2464
3 Richard Dawkins 2188
4 Václav Havel 1990
5 Christopher Hitchens 1844
6 Paul Krugman 1746
7 Jürgen Habermas 1639
8 Amartya Sen 1590
9 Jared Diamond 1499
10 Salman Rushdie 1468
posted by biffa at 7:46 AM on October 20, 2005