Josh Radnor, A Public Intellectual in His Own Right

When asked to provide an example of a “public intellectual”, Josh Radnor may not be the first name that comes into one’s mind. He is, however, just that. Radnor is best known for his role in the hit television show, How I Met YourMother, but he defines the role of a public intellectual, perhaps in a unique way. His intellectual achievement and contribution to public discourse can best be seen in the 2012 film, Liberal Arts, which Radnor wrote, directed, and starred in.

Josh Radnor was born in Columbus, Ohio in 1974, grew up, and attended college at KenyonCollege in the same state. Radnor has since become an actor, director, producer, and screenwriter. He enjoys writing and directing his own works. Since the release of his first film in 2010 and Liberal Arts in 2012, Radnor’s image as a public intellectual has begun to shine.

To argue for Radnor’s role as a public intellectual, it is important to first look at what classifies a person as such. In Stephen Mack’s blog site, a post entitled The"Decline" of the Public Intellectual (?) makes an excellent case for what a public intellectual actually is, which leads to the conclusion that Radnor exemplifies such a person. Mack writes of a myth,  

Common-folk (like kids) always get into trouble because they lack what all paternal intellectuals have by birthright—impulse control. The infantile common-folk who comprise the “mob” has been the star of elitist melodrama for centuries; they’re also “exhibit A” in nearly every hand-wringing, anti-democratic treatise in the western tradition. Now, are some people ill-equipped for self-government? Of course. But the strongest alternative argument, the best argument for democracy, is not that the people are “naturally” equipped for self-government—but that they need to become so, and, moreover, experience is the only teacher. So here’s the point: Any argument for the public intellectual that, like Donatich’s, rests the assumption that common citizens are forever childlike and must be led by a class of experts is politically corrosive and historically dangerous. 

Mack is stating here that it is a bad idea to think that the common man can’t think for himself and therefore has to be led by a class of experts. A link begins to form in Mack’s writing between the everyday, common man and the public intellectual. The argument is raised that these two types of people can possibly be one and the same. Mack continues on to show that it is the work, not the who that makes a public intellectual.  

So, is there any way of conceptualizing something called the public intellectual that is consistent with democratic values? Of course there is, but it needs to begin with a shift from “categories and class” to “function.” That is, our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is—and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.

This point that the public intellectual themself, as a person, do not necessarily matter as long as they are making an impact through their work is interesting, because the same point is actually made by Radnor in his film, Liberal Arts, and in a discussion that was held after the film’s premiere. Radnor speaks of criticism and its importance in society, just as Mack does. Mack states in his writing of the public intellectual that               

The public intellectual function is criticism. And if intellectuals are in a better position to perform that function it’s not because they are uniquely blessed with wisdom—and it’s certainly not because they are uniquely equipped to wield social or political power. It is only because learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment. It’s what we do at our day jobs.

In this way, it can be seen that the public intellectual is meant to produce criticism of some sort. Usually this should come to bare on matters of social, political, and cultural importance. Radnor agrees with and enforces this notion. In an interview with The Huffington Post, Radnor was asked to speak on the idea of his 2012 film being a “very earnest movie”, which makes it an outlier in today’s world of popular film. Radnor responded,

I think the word "earnest" kind of has a negative connotation on some level. I think one of the things that's happened is that being cynical is somehow conflated with being sophisticated. I think that's problematic, to say the least. I don't think evil people or negative people are inherently interesting all the time. People who are good people getting better at being themselves -- to me, that's something that's really interesting to watch. I went to college with really good people and had really excellent teachers and met some fascinating folks and I think those people are worthy of our attention. They're going through something. As they say, "Everyone's fighting a great battle." I think just attacking something with great sincerity feels kind of brave in this day and age, but I feel like that's what I want to do.

Radnor speaks here of the idea that many popular films in today’s culture do not address issues that the average, everyday man comes across. Rather than creating a film that will portray an actor murdering his entire family, for instance, and being thrown in jail for that crime, Radnor chooses to focus his film on the kinds of realities that the average person faces every day. In another interview, Radnor describes the realities he addresses as   

the themes that interested me—nostalgia, accepting change, resisting change, aging and growing up—or not growing up. 

Each of these themes that he covers in his work are social issues that are extremely important in our society. People worry over change all the time. For instance, if gas prices rise, people must decide if they will resist or not; perhaps they consider things such as driving their cars less. Change is something we must deal with every day. The same goes for aging, and it is something that many people fear…aging, death, dying. Radnor focuses on these issues and others as well, such as depression and job loss. These are all areas that the average American citizen can comprehend and see reflections of in their own life, and I believe that is the reason that Radnor’s film is an incredible example of an intellectual work. The images stick with you. Rather than through writings or intellectual discussions, Radnor uses the medium of film to process his thoughts and experiences on popular social issues through characters, and since audiences can relate to the practical struggles the film’s characters encounter, the lessons taken away are not easily forgotten. Radnor states of his own interests,

I'm interested in real people going through things that feel vital and feel of their time. I want the film to have a timeless quality to it. When I go to movies and I love the movie, it's because it feels like it articulated something about how we're living now, and also gives me some insight into my own life. I feel actually altered after having seen it.

Radnor’s film definitely leaves audiences this way, and it presents ideas about our society and culture and the ways in which we function so that discussions of these issues begin to circulate. This clearly makes Radnor a public intellectual. He talks about real life and actual social issues on a public stage, and what better stage to use than that of film? In today’s culture, most ordinary people enjoy films and regularly attend public viewings of them. Radnor knows this, and he has decided to use the new, digital age we find ourselves in to spark intellectual debates in audiences. This is interesting, because Radnor seems to be defining the role of a public intellectual in a unique, new way. As a popular actor and film director, he is a man with influence, but he is also a normal American citizen from Ohio. Radnor in and of himself proves the point that it does not matter who a public intellectual is but what they do, and he shows this viewpoint that he himself holds in Liberal Arts. Personally, I found myself yearning to read books more after viewing the film for the first time. This is a main issue that Radnor actually tackled in his movie. He constantly showed characters, who were average people, striving to read more and therefore make their pursuit of learning their own. Radnor is in a sense pushing audiences to become public intellectuals, just as he himself is. He wants people to read and to argue and to stand for issues, to take sides. He wants people to be critical. When asked about popular entertainment, Radnor said,

I'm of the opinion, especially for young people, that given the landscape of entertainment options -- they can have their faces buried in all those machines -- I think there's something kind of sweet and touching about someone who's sitting there with a book. With bound pages with writing on them. Whether that's Harry Potter or Twilight. I used to read a ton of Stephen King when I was a kid -- which is funny, because I really hate horror movies -- but I used to tear through those. I found my way to all sorts of other literature because I got the experience of being told a story through a book. I think it's OK to read for pleasure, but I was interested in this debate: What's the purpose of reading? Is it to nourish us or entertain us. For me, the very best books are the ones that do both of those things at the same time.

Radnor shows in his words here that he spent time thinking about the intellectual aspects of his film. Rather than focusing on characters who use cell phones and i-pads, Radnor chose to incorporate pens and paper, characters who communicate through letters, and books. Due to the wealth of knowledge that Liberal Arts’ characters gain from their reading and their “old-fashioned” social interactions, these people can be seen to have more to talk about, more to debate than most young people on college campuses today, who bury their faces in their smart phones every time there is an awkward pause in conversation. The characters of the film have opinions, and they express them. They have debates. They educate themselves on issues that are important to them, and they then feel free to stand their ground. One character in the film speaks a crucial line during a heated debate. She says,

“You think it’s cool to hate things but it’s not. It’s boring. Talk about what you love and keep quiet about what you don’t.” 

This moment is interesting, because it brings up a social issue (that of the way that our society constantly focuses on the negative and seems to think that leaving rude comments on Facebook somehow makes one “cooler”, etc.) that Radnor, as a writer, clearly has an opinion on that he chooses to allow audiences to see in the scene, yet the debate that this line is presented in shows two, intelligent characters holding their ground in an argument over a book…essentially, they are arguing over knowledge itself and what intellectualism is. The character speaking is reasoning that no matter what level of education a person is at, everyone should have the opportunity to find subjects that interest them and develop personal opinions on those subjects, while the other character is arguing that certain subjects (like classical literature) are inherently important and often cannot be understood by people like “simple-minded” teenagers, who like to read vampire novels. Because the character speaking wins the argument after this line, audiences can see that the film is suggesting that undermining the intelligence level of average people and proclaiming that only the educated have the right to form opinions and engage in debates is wrong, and audience members can move on from the movie theatre to decide if they agree with that assessment of the situation or not. Wah-lah! Now there are people moving from the theatre into the real world, sparking intellectualism of their own, which was Radnor’s goal in the first place. Additionally, this important scene of two characters “duking it out” verbally with each other is exciting and desirable. Audiences can see that the characters are having a good time using the knowledge they have gained from their studies to have an intelligent conversation with one another, and this makes viewers of the film take a look at their own lives and want that sort of interaction. In this sense, Radnor’s film can be seen as the work of a public intellectual, because it pushes audiences to engage in meaningful discourse with one another after the film is through, whether it be about their own ideas or about the social issues presented in the movie, and people leave the theatre able to understand that Radnor is trying to enforce the notion that anyone, no matter who they are, have the ability to think critically about life and should be doing just that.