Over here I pointed out this list of the top 100 public intellectuals. Apart from its making your blood boil, etc., perhaps we could consider what it says about our particular field. The people who make the cut and are labeled “historians”:
Anne Applebaum
Drew Gilpin Faust
Tony Judt
Niall Ferguson
Enrique Krauze
Ramachandra Guha
Bernard Lewis
Jared Diamond
I was going to say something about this myself, but then I remembered that would be work. So why not throw it open? What do you think this says about history and public intellection?
The Edge of the American West 
41 comments
April 23, 2008 at 8:07 am
andrew
Jared Diamond?
April 23, 2008 at 8:43 am
eric
Not a typo.
April 23, 2008 at 8:55 am
andrew
I know, I clicked through and saw his name, though I didn’t notice the field they said he was in. And Guns, Germs and Steel is arguably history (as are parts of Collapse, which I haven’t read yet, so I’m not sure). And whether or not he’s labeled a historian has nothing to do with the quality of his work. But still it seems odd to see him characterized that way.
I also wonder about the inclusion of Faust. I love Mothers of Invention, which is mainly what I know of her work, but does she have a public presence outside of being president of Harvard?
April 23, 2008 at 9:03 am
Mike
I am confused. Why would Faust and Ferguson (much as I would like to read him out of both the profession and polite company) merit scare quotes around “historian”? It seems to me that Faust’s extensive work on the antebellum American South, and Ferguson’s work on the German banking system clearly qualify as excellent historical scholarship.
April 23, 2008 at 9:47 am
eric
They’re not scare quotes, they’re quotes.
April 23, 2008 at 9:54 am
andrew
The link to the list in this post goes awry, by the way.
April 23, 2008 at 10:19 am
hebisner
What would a quality list of 6-10 American Historians that would fil the bill as public intellectual look like? I would argue the problem is that we have a host of excellent historians out there with expertise on a wide range of subjects.
April 23, 2008 at 10:55 am
eric
They’re not scare quotes, they’re quotes.
I grant they look very similar, though.
The link to the list in this post goes awry, by the way.
Fixed.
What would a quality list of 6-10 American Historians that would fil the bill as public intellectual look like?
Hmmm. Are you trying to get me to name Kelman?
April 23, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Fontana Labs
If you want sympathy you’re not getting it. Actually philosophy comes out less awfully than I’d expect on that list, but still.
April 23, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Greg
Hmm, a list put out by political scientists (Foreign Policy magazine), dominated by political scientists and economists. I think this list is less revealing about the state of the historical profession than it is about the foriegn policy crowd.
April 23, 2008 at 1:21 pm
eric
But Labs, you’re not on the list!
April 23, 2008 at 1:36 pm
m. leblanc
I find it very annoying that once you’ve voted you can’t look at the list anymore. The fuck is up with that, Foreign Policy?
(Is this supposed to be a family-friendly blog? Should I not swear?)
April 23, 2008 at 1:41 pm
ari
No, you can swear. We, however, can not. Or at least we do not. Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by “swear.”
April 23, 2008 at 1:42 pm
eric
Don’t be a wuss, Kelman. Didn’t you ever learn to cuss?
April 23, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Student
It’s true that there are a lot of excellent historians out there, but does being an historian with “expertise on a wide range of subjects” make one a public intellectual? How many historians are publicly engaged in the battle of ideas about the direction of US. society? How many are the engaged intellectuals of the C. Van Woodward or William A. Williams-type (especially Williams when he was still doing serious historical work, say before 1970). True, some contemporary historians write for the New Republic and other journals of opinion and that’s to their credit. But the list of historian public intellectuals is not a large one, unfortunately. Certainly Tony Judt is a good choice. I guess Ferguson and Lewis have an impact among some readers (and not only those who are empire-minded). But who are the US historians who are important public intellectuals today? Though I’m miffed at Wilentz for his pro-HC writing, I guess he could have been included in the “list.” Other candidates?
April 23, 2008 at 3:10 pm
eric
True, some contemporary historians write for the New Republic
Huh.
April 23, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Matt Lungerhausen
the problem with the list, besides be created by poli sci types, is that its weighted more towards the ‘public’ end of intellectual life. Instead of Robert Conquest for Russian History we get Anne Applebaum. I cannot comment on the whole list, but it seems like the people who set the debates in a given field or specialty are given short shrift. The exceptions would be Tony Judt or Bernard Lewis.
I think we should propose another list of historians who should be notable, but are not. It should include people who shaped the historiography.
April 23, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Ben Alpers
Certainly a list of living, academic historians who’ve had a serious public impact would include Howard Zinn and Joseph Ellis.
I think pretty good cases can also be made for Eric Foner, Jim McPherson, and Robert Dallek.
Among the recently deceased, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. would also have to be on the list.
April 23, 2008 at 5:49 pm
jmsdonaldson
I’m actually a little appalled that Eugene Genovese isn’t on the list. As far as Faust goes, I’m not to high on her latest book on death during the Civil War.
April 23, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Galvinji
Garry Wills, maybe?
April 23, 2008 at 7:50 pm
grackle
Bernard Lewis is kind of 1954 to my mind and it’s a long time since he’s been an intellectual, public or not. I suppose that could be said for a number of people on the list. My favorite unmentioned historian is Peter Brown.
April 23, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Galvinji
Peter Brown is a brilliant historian — as I understand it, he essentially invented the field of late antiquity — but would even a wider academic public be familiar with his work?
April 23, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Dan
What a sad list. They put on Howard Gardner, whose MMI theory is pretty sketchy, but they leave off Jerome Kagan!? No Cornel West? — what, is he too leftist or too black for Foreign Policy magazine?
And then they totally stiff my field — no decent theologians. No, “religious leader” does not count as a theologian (sorry, Pope). No, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins do not count as theologians — when it comes to theology, they can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag.
I mean. How can they not include at least one kick-ass feminist theologian? — Starhawk and Mary Daly have basically redefined the word “god”! How can they ignore liberation theology?!! — Gustavo Gutiérrez and Paolo Friere have redefined what religion means in Latin America, I think they count as frickin major public intellectuals!
Hmmm. No Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky either. Oh. Not many leftist intellectuals, period. I get it….
April 24, 2008 at 12:15 am
Walt
Yeah, God forbid atheists be put on lists of anything.
Noam Chomsky is on the list.
April 24, 2008 at 5:56 am
Fontana Labs
Indeed, Cornel West’s recording career alone earns him a spot on the list.
April 24, 2008 at 7:07 am
Student
After thinking about it some more, I’d agree that James McPherson and Eric Foner are list-worthy historians. Genovese somewhat more so than Faust, but he doesn’t have the reach that he used to. With the web available now, who’s a public intellectual is being iredefined. It’s no longer who’s writing op-eds or being featured in the NYTimes book review. The creators of this web site are good thinkers and have potential for influence among a broader public. Maybe it’s worth noting that the historians who have had significant nfluence, say Schlesinger or Williams, have generally been loosely allied with political movements and parties (Schlesinger) or have offered fundamental critiques of society that spoke to many people ( like Williams). here may be other models for historian public intellectuals, but perhaps others will have ideas about that.
April 24, 2008 at 7:54 am
Cala
The Pope’s actually got some pretty strong philosophical chops, so I didn’t mind that, but leaving out the liberation theologian types is a little silly if we’re actually talking about public influence.
The inclusion of Dawkins (though note, Dan, not as a theologian) makes me want to smack people around.
April 24, 2008 at 7:57 am
eric
The inclusion of Dawkins (though note, Dan, not as a theologian) makes me want to smack people around.
I’m assuming this is because you dislike him as a God-talker, not because you dislike him as an evolution-promoter. I mean, what’s not to like about his books on evolution?
It’s also worth noting that Dawkins holds a chair that basically requires him to be a public intellectual: the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science. I don’t know of other such chairs, though there may be some.
April 24, 2008 at 8:03 am
Cala
I dislike his forays into amateurish philosophy of religion. His evolution-promoting work is great.
April 24, 2008 at 10:09 am
bitchphd
Oh come on, people. You all voted for Christopher Hitchens, I know you did.
April 24, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Howard
I don’t know about this thread. My definition of a public intellectual would be something along the lines of someone who having made an important contribution to her or his own field goes on to, call it, extrapolate from her/his field of expertise into the realm of debates about current issues and public policy. That said, I’m not sure Genovese is a good candidate because where’s he been lately in public discourse. Foner’s columns in the Nation would probably recommend him by my definition. McPherson and Gordon Wood, as good as their essays in the NYRB are, do not often branch beyond their areas of expertise. Gary Wills does. What about Russell Jacoby who opened up the public intellectuals conversation 10 or 15 years ago.
April 25, 2008 at 6:07 am
Joe
Uh, Kevin Starr?
April 26, 2008 at 5:11 pm
David
Eric Foner should definitely be on this list. I’d also add Frederick Cooper for all the great work he’s done over the years on African history, and Ann Stoler, for the stuff she’s done on gender and colonialism.
April 26, 2008 at 8:34 pm
ortho stice
Jill Lepore should be included on a list of “top 100 public intellectuals.” Her New York Burning: Liberty and Slavery in an Eighteenth-Century City was a Pulitzer finalist and her The Name of War: King Philip’s War and the Origins of American Identity won a Bancroft. Plus she writes for The New Yorker, a pretentious bourgeois magazine. She is more “top 100 public intellectual” worthy than any of the so-called historians who made the list.
@David: Fred Cooper and Ann Stoler? Sure, they’re both great “intellectuals,” but are their texts read outside of academia?
April 27, 2008 at 9:26 am
David
So if somebody’s work isn’t read outside of academia, they aren’t “public”? Does that make them “private”?
April 27, 2008 at 11:38 am
Hemlock
Be careful with the “pretentious bourgeois” designation…the center-left New Republic may retain its political stance but may transform (has transformed?) into a conservative vehicle for “business-friendly” scholars.
On a sidenote: I love it when “public intellectuals” teach their students to exculpate political views from historical analysis yet write articles/reviews for the New Yorker (interpreted as political), New Republic, American Prospect, etc. Students are thrown in a state of perpetual confusion. =)
April 27, 2008 at 11:43 am
Hemlock
BTW–Jill Lepore’s article in the New Yorker sorta pissed me off. That kinda thing is EXACTLY what facilitates hegemonic applications of poststructuralism. Forget the attempt, just embrace the power.
My sister, a literature grad student, liked it–which scares the hell out of me.
April 28, 2008 at 11:10 am
Western Dave
I would add Richard White and Bill Cronon.
April 28, 2008 at 11:14 am
ari
Is Richard a public intellectual? I’m not sure. Bill is, I think, and a very good one. And maybe Richard is also. I just don’t know.
April 29, 2008 at 9:19 pm
andrew
This may be of interest to you, if you haven’t already seen it.
April 29, 2008 at 9:40 pm
ari
Yeah, that essay was what I was thinking about when I wrote my comment. Richard wrote that piece around the same time that I became a Katrina instapundit. It was a bit disconcerting to have one of my history heroes saying, in print, that I was selling out. I later had the chance to ask him about his argument. He assured me that he was only warning against people holding forth on issues outside their area of expertise. Which seems fair enough.