Neil deGrasse Tyson came to Los Angeles
to speak at the University of Southern California last week. Although he is one
of the most decorated men in astrophysics, it was not just astronomy and
physics majors who were excited to see him last week. In his talk he rarely discussed any of his work or theories in
astrophysics. Instead, the talk was centered around Tyson’s opinions on the
state of science and education in America. People of all majors were excited to
come see and hear him, and he spoke on a range of subjects outside his
particular field. This is because Neil deGrasse is a public intellectual. As
such his opinions have come to mean something. We are witnessing a new era of
the public intellectual, a shift from weekly columns and TV appearances to twitter
updates and Internet presence. In the case of Neil deGrasse Tyson, we get both
forms of public interaction.
Tyson has an exemplary academic background.
He has earned a B.A. from Harvard in physics, an M.A. in Astronomy from UT
Austin, and both an M.A. and a Doctorate of Philosophy in Astrophysics from
Columbia. Tyson has written ten books; many of which are far more accessible to
the average reader than one would expect from an astrophysicist. He has written
columns for Natural History Magazine and numerous op-eds for the New York
Times. He frequently appears on talk shows and the parody news programs on
comedy central. He was the host of NOVA for several years. He currently works
and studies at the Hayden Planetarium. He is one of the most educated and
intelligent men of this generation.
In
the below video you can watch Tyson dancing at his office Christmas party.
The video has over forty thousand views.
Why?
Because Neil deGrasse Tyson has become a
celebrity, he has achieved cult status. He has been called a “science
communicator,” the ambassador of science to the outside world. He talks on a
range of topics outside his area of expertise including politics, current
events, religion, race, and areas of science outside of astrophysics. He often
speaks on evolution and his skeptical views on intelligent design. He travels
the talk show circuits and has become the go to guy whenever a show or pundit
needs a viewpoint from the world of science. He has transcended his area of
study into becoming a spokesperson for science.
Perhaps it is not a requirement that public
intellectuals consider themselves to in fact be a public intellectual, but Tyson
certainly does view himself in that light. In an interview with Popular Science
magazine Tyson discussed why he feels the need to comment on politics and
explains his role as the sort of front man for NASA:
“Previous
to this book, I was active as an adviser to White House, and NASA, and sort of
as a public conveyor of things related to NASA. It’s just my role, on TV and
that sort of thing. I didn’t think it ever needed to be a book; I thought I
could just sort of talk about it, and people would absorb the concepts and take
it to heart. But that just wasn’t happening.”
Tyson
also frequently speaks about political issues; regardless as to whether they
have anything to do with astrophysics or NASA. He recently sent out a series of
tweets on gun control:
“In
Wal-Mart, America's largest gun seller, you can buy an assault rifle. But
company policy bans pop music with curse words.”
Followed
by: “Apparently, in Wal-Mart the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment) is stronger
than the right to freedom of speech (1st Amendment).”
Tyson is no gun expert; has no
policy, legal, or constitutional background. He is simply speaking his mind on an
issue he believes in. So what makes his Tweets so special? Plenty of people
have taken to social media to argue their side on the second amendment (and
perhaps more eloquently than these simple barbs). Tyson is popular; both tweets were re-tweeted
over sixteen thousand times. So what makes his opinion more important than say
Ashton Kutcher's? Because Tyson is famous for being smart and has advanced
degrees in astrophysics. This is how a public intellectual is born; unlike you
or I, people follow his every move and word, and unlike other celebrities he
has the resume of someone our society believes should be intelligent.
But why Neil deGrasse Tyson? Public
intellectuals need to be well spoken; perhaps that’s why so few come out of the
science world. Tyson is certainly charming, witty, and well spoken. But perhaps
he achieved his spokesperson status simply because he cares. There may not be
that much of a gap in the intelligence level or cultural and political
viewpoints between Tyson and the three other leading astrophysicists in the
world. I don’t know who those three people are, and neither do you. It may well
be that Tyson achieved his status due to his jovial character and public
speaking skills. However, he takes the time to write op eds, to return media
inquiries, to make public speaking engagements. He is most certainly well
compensated for his time; however, he already has (several) prestigious, high
paying roles. He chooses to don the cape of Science and the Public Intellectual
because he actually cares. He cares where this country is headed. He often
seems stunned by his own celebrity. In an “Ask Me Anything” post on Reddit,
Tyson explains the position fame has placed him into and the duty he believes
it has created for him. “With "popularity" comes
ever more responsibility and accountability. Sometimes I regret my lost freedom
to just act stupid every now and then.”
He
chooses to use this fame as a tool. To get his message out, in an effort to
affect laws, policy, government funding, and even the way people think.
In
the “Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual,” Stephen Mack discusses
whether religion and politics, or rather religion and public intellectuals can
mix. He argues that the paradox may not be as black and white as it appears.
“It isn’t because they are polar
opposites—an ideological oil reacting against a metaphysical water. Rather,
it’s because they are, more or less, alienated kindred vying for the same space
in the human imagination” (Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual).
Religion
certainly plays a large role in Neil deGrasse Tyson’s work and punditry. Many
confuse him as an atheist. He is actually an agnostic. He claims that religion
and science cannot coexist at this time, with this form of organized religion. Yet
despite this, he does not rule religion out. He believes there may be a place
for it, that as religion and science change they may grow to find common
ground.
In
this video Tyson discusses his own religious upbringing and the fact that many
scientists are in some way religious. He exposes his belief that the bible and
science should not be mixed together, but still clearly leaves space for the
possibility of God. His problem is with the fundamentalists, with those who
would see church in school. Overall though, he states that science and religion
have long coexisted. In other words, just as with politics, religion and
science do not have to be “oil and water.”
I
also believe it’s important to note that the above video was from a speaking
engagement at BYU, one of the most religious universities in the country. It
also garnered over one hundred thousand views; people have come to care
specifically as to what Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks about religion.
In
another article on the idea of the public intellectual, titled the ‘the “Decline”
of Public Intellectuals,’ Mack discusses the myth of American
Anti-intellectualism and the state of the Public Intellectual as a class. http://www.stephenmack.com/blog/archives/2007/08/index.html Tyson seems concerned with both. He has
shifted his life’s work away from deep problems of Astrophysics to perhaps the
even tougher problem of improving science education, and overall education, of
Americans. Perhaps we are not seeing a decline in public intellectuals but
rather a shift in their focus and the mediums they use to reach their
audiences. I have chosen to mainly cite Tyson’s work on twitter, you tube and
other Internet mediums as opposed to some of his better-known work on T.V. and
in print. This is because Tyson is coming to use these types of mediums more
and more. He discussed this transformation in a 2012 interview in The Atlantic
(a more Public Intellectual friendly medium of the past).http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/neil-degrasse-tyson-how-space-exploration-can-make-america-great-again/253989/
In his most recent book, Space Chronicles, Tyson included select
tweets, because he views them as important, and as a treat for his patient
readers that may be in over there head with some of his less user friendly
material. He also sees that different mediums fit different audiences and he
wants to get his message out to the most people possible. “There are many
different dimensions of reaching the public, particularly with the many media
today, social media in particular, which parcel what audience you might reach
from one medium to another” (The Atlantic). Tyson is part of the new age of
public intellectuals who are using social media and the Internet to reach a
broader audience than ever before.
Mack closes ‘The “Decline” of Public
Intellectuals’ by stressing that what is important about public intellectuals
is their ability to bring an important voice to the forefront – to attempt to
create change in our country. He says, “the measure of public intellectual
work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing
things worth talking about” (The “Decline” of Public Intellectuals?). This is
exactly what Tyson does. Through his background in science he questions a
litany of issues facing America, mostly concerning government funding, such as
science education or the future of NASA. Tyson embraces his role as the bridge
between the geek-friendly youthful generation and the few hyper educated
scientists that actually work with the “sexy” subjects that fascinate us like
black holes. He uses this role (be it Twitter, his books, or public and T.V.
appearances) to create a bully pulpit from which he exposes his views in hopes
of a better tomorrow for science and education in America.
No comments:
Post a Comment