In Praise of Popularization

It was a situation that is well-known to any sociocultural anthropologist in my country. Someone asks you what you do.
You answer: “anthropology.”
The inquirer replies: “that is bones, ain’t it?”
Your response goes something like: “can be, but I do the sociocultural one.”
The inquirer nods but you can read from his face that he is perplexed: “what exactly is that,” he asks.
You attempt to dispel his impression that sociocultural anthropology is some kind of pseudo-mystical science that approaches human beings from a holistic point of view: “a combination of philosophy, sociology and history.”
This time I did not expect the climax: “I see! So what do you think about our society at large today?”

I suppose that among professionals would this question cause a lively amusement. But among general public is this question considered as real as is the fact that the Sun sets every evening. To borrow C. P. Snow’s expression - there are two cultures - one is represented by the professionals the other by the general public. For the professionals, Talcott Parsons and his ideas about society at large have long been dead. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said in the case of the general public. Without even knowing that there existed a guy called Talcott Parsons, the general public shares Parsons’s way of asking questions about the nature of society.

Who is to blame? I would say that it is sociologists (as well as anthropologists, historians and philosophers) who is to blame. Yes, humanities in general have not favourable conditions for popularization in our country. The general public favours natural sciences and is used to think about humanities as of balloons inflated by hot air. A student of humanities equals a sponger. However, professionals on the field of humanities do nothing to popularize their subjects.

It is true that sociologists and philosophers appear frequently in Czech media. But there are two crucial problems. The first one is that guests do not usually pursue the goal of popularization. The second one is that among television presenters there is no one who understands the issues of humanities to be able to ask questions that would at the same time get to the crux of the matter and to make philosophical or sociological topics intelligible to the general public. The result often is that hosts ask their guests in a similar way as I was asked about the Czech society. Presenters occasionally like to ask questions not only about the nature of society but also about future prospects of society. Yes, a sociologist equals a sociomancer.

This has got unpleasant consequences. As guests are asked naive questions and have not much time to make their ideas clear, the impression they leave on viewers is not a good one. I am not surprised that many people I know perceive professionals from the field of humanities as self-obsessed windbags. I also know some people who approach words of professionals in a different manner - they consider words of experts as sacred, as embodying essential truth about the nature of universe and man. The second group is a minority but its understanding of humanities is even worse.

It is thus very refreshing to read a book called Confessions of a Philosopher, written by an English semi-academic philosopher Bryan Magee. Magee did a great service to the popularization of philosophy (I took the title of this post from the name of one of the chapters; and I will soon write a short review of the book). If you want to see his television debates with and about famous philosophers, visit the page on the site called Open Culture where you can find links to youtube videos with Magee’s debates. This is how I imagine popularization of humanities, because I suppose that a similar programme could be created about anthropology, sociology, history, psychology, economics...

The unpleasant situation is caused by both academia and media. Czech academics prefer to abstain from public debates. And to be able to ask questions about philosophy on Czech TV one is required to study journalism rather than philosophy. But academics, I suppose, have greater responsibility than media personalities. If they are unhappy with the perception of their subjects by the general public (and they really are unhappy) they should rather do something. Maybe, in the first place, they should learn how to convey ideas to students during lecture. In the second place, they should do more for the popularization of their subjects. Or they should not be surprised that their subjects are denigrated by the general public.