Comments on: Australia is well served by its public intellectuals. Discuss.

By: Ambigulous

Ambigulous — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:37:20 +0000

Adrien – “The solution might be in the production of high quality wit and observation with a feel for the common touch a la Twain.”

- which for me is one of the reasons for visting LP, where such gems are contributed so frequently (and so infrequently elsewhere). Is there a wider audience for these bons mots ??

By: Adrien

Adrien — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:25:06 +0000

Donald Horne used the term “Lucky Country” with full-on irony.
.
No. That’s not true. Horne didn’t use it with irony. He meant it. We received it ironically. Horne’s description was entirely literal; we are lucky people he said. Small population, Anglo-Celtic, big country, bigger empire, shitloads of resources. That’s why we’ve got it so good.
.
It was a criticism and a warning. You don’t deserve this lifestyle, it’s a fortune of history and one day the luck will run out. We didn’t heed that. We went yay! We’re the Lucky Country. Beaut mate. It’s Friday tomorra, let’s take the rest of the arvo off work and go fishin’.
.
Grouse!
.
One thing the Tories should stick up their posterior is that it was the ALP that alone heeded the warning and did something about it. They still want to altho’ I reckon gifting $35 mil to Toyota isn’t the way to go – Kevvie.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:19:44 +0000

Ambigulous #41 – Cheers.
.
I think Emerson and Twain are apt here. America went thru its colonial period and emerged from it courtesy in no small part of these two gentlemen. I think Australia is entering it’s period of cultural self-reliance (hope hope) fueled by the Anglo, American, European and Asian influences. In order to excel however we do need to raise the bar. There’s a clear distinction between our international names (like Germaine Greer and Robert Hughes) and the local ones. One thing the, now passé, early 60s bunch did was to establish that Australians could go out in to the world and be first class.
.
However they did so within the context of older cultures. Those who remained behind were not of as high a quality.
.
There still remains that vestige of resentful colloquialism whereby intellectuals are torn between wanting to be ‘nationalist’ and wanting to foresake their country of birth as hopelessly rustic. The question of nationality that one finds common to the under-rated Australian films of the ’70s I reckon has been answered somewhat. We don’t feel that we need to prove ourselves worthy as a country. As individuals however we still do. And so long as we build a hedge around our culture the distinction between domestic and international intelligentsia will remain.
.
As to the question of Australia’s anti-intellectual bent. The solution might be in the production of high quality wit and observation with a feel for the common touch a la Twain.
.
None of this can be accomplished by public policy. You don’t produce Emerson by restructuring the funding. You produce Emerson by, um, being Emerson.
.
Ever see Dennis Hopper retorting to Robert Hughes’ assertion that Jean-Michel Basquiat was a mediocrity? He said: maybe Robert Hughes is a mediocrity. He is Australian. .
.
None of those mentioned in the above paragraph is a mediocrity.

By: adrian

adrian — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:46:38 +0000

Yes, you’re right, Graham. Manufacturing opinions seems to be the meja’s main role these days, one way or another.

By: Ambigulous

Ambigulous — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:41:27 +0000

Thanks Graham, Pavlov’s Cat and Mark. Informative and perceptive as usual.

By: Graham Bell

Graham Bell — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:07:14 +0000

Ambigulous[39], Pavlov’s Cat[43] and Mark[44]:

Indeed Donald Horne used the term “Lucky Country” with full-on irony. One of the best favours I ever did myself was to buy a copy of that book when it first came out, expensive though it was. Would recommend it to any young person in 2008.

Interesting parallel of the lack of understanding, by those who never read more the cover, of the two books “The Lucky Country” and “The Ugly American”.

Adrian [40] and FDB [42]:

“Australians as a whole have always been suspicious of intellectuals, or anyone who has pretensions to being one.”

It’s worse than that, ordinary Australians are driven, herded and whipped into that suspicion …. and heaven help anyone who questions this imposed group-think; anyone who wants to listen to what public intellectuals have to say rather than listen to “approved” commentators, spokesmen, shock-jocks, rabble-rousers, opinion-makers and authority-figures; anyone who wants to form their own opinion rather than have it manufactued and pre-packaged for them.

By: Lefty E

Lefty E — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:54:00 +0000

You’re right, I did forget it!

Which is itself instructive, one suspects.

By: Laura

Laura — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:47:57 +0000

Well, I agree with you Lefty. I was trying, in as long a winded fashion as possible, to say that the top 100 list is supposed to prove there are *at least* that many public intellectuals.

You forgot Arena in your list of journals nobody reads

By: Lefty E

Lefty E — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 03:19:06 +0000

Well, maybe laura: but Id persanlly struggle to name more than 10 who get regular airplay! I’ll even include journals that no one outside academia reads to make it easier (eg Monthly, Griff review, Meanjin).

here’s the test: you have 3 minutes only.
Name away.
Extra points if they aren’t baby boomers.
And no looking at that 2006 list now!

Here’s a kickoff (tick tick tick—- go!):
Robert Manne
Anne Manne
Tim Flannery
Germaine Greer
Helen Garner
erm…
Paul kelly (f*ck, desperate already)
Mark Davis (now cheating by looking at thread)
Um um survey guy, whats his name
Huw White (panic sets in !)

BUZZZZZ. You’re outta time Lefty E. and you scored maybe 5 and half!

Next ccontestant!

By: Laura

Laura — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 03:10:01 +0000

Adrian, I don’t know how i missed that. Thanks. Now can you find me a Chunky Custard ad??

A little while ago I skim-read Stefan Collini’s recent book about intellectuals & anti-intellectualism in Britain – his argument that it’s long been claimed that ‘proper’ intellectuals exist anywhere but inthe here & now had obvious interesting similarities with the discourse on intellectuals in Australia. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/mar/21/academicexperts.highereducation

Embarrassing excrescences like that top 100 Aussie intellectuals list someone linked to a while back seem to arise out of the wish to prove intellectuals DO exist here and (contra Lefty E!) there are more than ten of them. But isn’t FDB right about this. Intellectual is as intellectual does.