Identity and the Public Intellectual

The public intellectual is changing. Notions of what a public intellectual is, who a public intellectual should be, and why a public intellectual should exist have radically changed since public intellectuals began coming down from their ivory towers and entering the blogosphere, or, as I like to call it, the “plastic dungeon.” But, as Stephen Mack posits in “The ‘Decline’ of Public Intellectuals?” – “our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is…Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.” As the realm of public intellectuals becomes increasingly diversified, Andrew Sullivan has crafted a distinctive niche for himself. Besides being openly gay which is, unfortunately, an already rare quality for those in the public sphere, he is openly Catholic and conservative, which are, unfortunately or fortunately, rare qualities for those in the gay sphere.

I say fortunately because it is these two broadly defined factions, those who are religious and those who are conservative, that the most fervent opponents of homosexuals (be it objecting to equal rights for gays and lesbians or condemning homosexuality based on religious or moral beliefs) often espouse themselves. But, I say unfortunately because it is regrettable that there has been so little reconciliation between the gay movement and conservative politics. As conservative politics have become more and more religiously based in America, social issues, like gay marriage, have become increasingly divisive; those who would identify themselves as liberal or conservative in terms of fiscal and international issues may not always have corresponding liberal or conservative social views. This contrast is what makes the British-born Sullivan so unique as a public intellectual, as he has managed to not only reconcile his homosexuality with his Catholic identity, but also his conservative politics. (He addresses this contrast in one of his latest books )

Harvard-educated Sullivan got his start as an intern at The New Republic, where he would later become an associate editor and eventually acting editor. Sullivan often faced controversy during his turn as acting editor of The New Republic, mostly because his conservative viewpoints clashed with the magazine’s traditionally liberal slant.  Sullivan favors gay marriage, but clashes with many other liberal viewpoints, and, in his words, “the gay establishment,” on topics such as hate crime laws, which he opposes based on their “chilling effect on free speech” and their “undermining of the notion of equality under the law,” his opposition of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and his support of the War on Terror (a viewpoint that has since radically changed)

Sullivan doesn’t apologize for these contrasting views, nor should he have to. As Stephen Mack states,  “…if public intellectuals have any role to play in a democracy – and they do – it’s simply to keep the pot boiling.”  On the contrary, he is, in many ways, an exemplar of a public intellectual’s ability to separate their religious and political perspectives. Granted, his sexual orientation may have distanced him from his Catholic identity, but he still maintains the importance of religion in his life. During an interview on Real Time with Bill Maher, not only did Sullivan identify himself as a "religious secularist", but he also criticized Maher about his viewpoints of religion and religious people: "To dismiss all religious people based on the actions of the most literalist dumb ones, I think is bigotry." Sullivan avoids viewing all political and social issues through what Stephen Mack calls,   “the prism of theology,” and as a public intellectual, makes his work universally accessible, regardless of religion. As Stephen Mack states, it is important for anyone, and especially public intellectuals due to their sphere of influence, “to ground [public arguments] – as much as possible – in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all.” Sullivan, excluding the occasional impassioned rant, has managed to ground his arguments, even concerning religiously charged issues, such as gay marriage, in cogent reasoning and analysis. As Richard Bernstein writes in his New York Times review of Sullivan’s book, Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality, “…Mr. Sullivan presents a model of civil discourse. His voice is a voice of reason, tranquility and analytical precision on a subject that commonly degenerates into a raucous shouting match between competing moralisms. He has a knack for enabling nonhomosexuals to put themselves inside his consciousness, just as he manages to occupy the minds of those who disagree with him.”

            This “tranquility” and “analytical precision” make Sullivan’s arguments stand out among the “raucous shouting match[es]”that so often pervade current political and social discourse, especially with the increased popularity of blogs, like Sullivan’s, which have arguably much less accountability than print publications, and news and opinion programs that show little regard for decorum, such as The O’Reilly Factor. This sentiment is echoed by Peter Steinfels of the New York Times in his analysis of a speech made by Sullivan about his sexual and catholic identities at the University of Notre Dame “But what remains indisputable is that in a society where moral disputes quickly degenerate into polarizing denunciations -- for example, Act Up brands as murderers those who disagree with its view of homosexuality, and Operation Rescue does the same to those who disagree with its view of abortion -- Mr. Sullivan demonstrated that respectful reasoning could still be powerful”

          Sullivan’s ability, therefore, to carve an identity for himself not only as a conservative, Catholic gay man, but also one that approaches his religious identity and role as a public intellectual with a secular wariness, makes him unique in the public intellectual sphere. Perhaps it is the complex contradictions of his identity that allow him to accomplish this – gay and Catholic, gay and republican – but, regardless of the factors, Andrew Sullivan has managed to skillfully tread the precarious line of religion and political and social commentary, acting as, ironically enough, an example of a religious individual that has not allowed his religion to unduly influence his work as a public intellectual. 




Update: Check out Diversity Matters' take on Andrew Sullivan here!