Frankly speaking, the concept of a “public intellectual” hadn’t been introduced to me until quite recently. In case you’re unfamiliar with the term too, a public intellectual is considered to be someone who engages with the general public on significant intellectual and cultural topics, especially beyond the spheres of academia or specialized fields. The importance, perception, and role of these intellectuals are quite contested. An essay by Stephen John Mack discusses this, specifically addressing the effectiveness and relevance of public intellectuals in contemporary American society. Mack’s take on this is that rather than measuring the significance of public intellectuals by their impact on society, the function of the public intellectual is much more valuable. Public intellectuals share their critical analyses and critique of a multitude of topics. Even if the public isn’t listening to the content being shared by public intellectuals, the participation of public intellectuals in this discourse exemplifies citizen responsibility in a democracy.
Like Mack, I agree that the content public intellectuals create and share holds more weight in the act of doing so, regardless of the impact it has on the general public. Having, and choosing to partake in, the freedom of sharing ideas and critiques is a pillar of democracy, which American contemporary society proudly exercises. Considering this, it seems that the action of putting personal thoughts in the public sphere is the extent of what a public intellectual can and should do. Should these messages resonate with people in the general public, they will naturally begin to listen and share this content with the rest of society. As these ideas are shared, they can give way to even more opportunities for individuals to engage in discourse and further the critical analyses of pressing issues. If an analysis from a public intellectual is only read by one person but sparks a new piece of content by someone else that is read by millions, did the original intellectual’s analysis not make an impact? Subsequently, it seems trivial to only consider public intellectuals based on their direct relevance and efficiency.
When presented with the idea of a public intellectual, one of the first people that came to mind was Mina Chow. As someone focused on international relations and how different fields engage on the international stage, Chow’s work at the intersection of architecture, public diplomacy, and filmmaking has always been incredibly interesting to me. Traditionally, international relations seem to imply diplomats sitting at a fancy dinner table, cautiously tiptoeing around the issue they’re meant to discuss. Although this still holds true to some extent, the power of public diplomacy and using other mediums to engage in international conversation has become more important than ever. Finding out about Chow’s work was one of the ways I have been able to stretch my understanding of international relations, and how states’ engagements with each other extend far beyond what we initially think. Many people have the impression that true diplomacy can only happen when government officials interact with each other. However, there are interactions at all levels that can make an impact on the global stage. Yes, governments supposedly have the most direct impact on policies and the trajectory of their relationships with other countries, but these are still heavily influenced by other factors. On one end of the spectrum, powerful private companies can sometimes have so much influence over a country that their home government leverages the company’s power to persuade other countries to comply with their interests. Furthermore, somewhere between the private and public sectors sits public diplomacy. Although state-sponsored, public diplomacy attempts to increase a country’s soft power through the consistent marketing and communication of its positive reputation. Chow’s niche is in public diplomacy, where she emphasizes the importance of using architecture to communicate optimistic and factual messages to a larger, global audience. In particular, Chow focuses on the United States’ participation in the World Expo, as well as how the impact of the World Expo has shifted over time.
To build some historical context, the American public has lost immense interest in World’s Fairs over time, leading to less funding from the government and a general lack of enthusiasm toward this form of public diplomacy. In Chow’s documentary, "Face of a Nation: What Happened to the World's Fair?", she analyzes the history and decline of the World’s Fair along with the United States’ wavering participation in these events. Circling back to Mack’s discussion of public intellectuals and their work, some might argue that there’s not much purpose to discussing topics, such as World’s Fairs, if they are something that has consistently been declining in relevance and conversation. However, Chow’s participation in discourse on this niche topic has sparked change and shown the influence of a public intellectual. Not only has Chow’s work had an impact on the United States government’s view on World Expo participation, but it has also been a part of the larger discussion of how the United States engages in public diplomacy. Chow has communicated her views through multiple mediums, but I believe that "Face of a Nation: What Happened to the World's Fair?" is her signature piece that best illustrates her overall intellectual achievements.
"Face of a Nation: What Happened to the World's Fair?" considers the cultural, economic, and political factors causing the World’s Fairs to decrease in importance to American society. Historically, the World’s Fairs served as an opportunity for countries to present their national identity, technological innovations, and cultural exchange to the world. The impact of the events was significant to public diplomacy, where countries were able to shape the public’s perception of progress and what the future would be like. Chow refers to the 1964 New York’s World’s Fair as a case study, since it was hosted while the United States was undergoing significant social and cultural shifts. The fair showcased cultural attractions, such as the Unisphere, as well as early versions of innovations like video communication and personal computers. Albeit the grandiose elements of the fair, it had to confront financial difficulties and a changing cultural landscape. This seemed to set the precedent for what was to come next.
Unisphere at the New York World’s Fair 1964 (NYC Parks)
Over time, the American public gradually lost interest in the World’s Fair. The film credits this to the rise of new entertainment, changing cultural interests, and economic issues America was facing. In regards to new entertainment, Americans began to seek out entertainment and information through television and other forms of media. These technological advancements gave way to a much wider range of content with much more accessibility. As a result, World’s Fairs no longer appealed to the public as a primary way of gaining entertainment or information. This shift in entertainment also contributed to changing cultural interests, where easy access to information caused a draw toward more personalized and individualized forms of leisure and entertainment. The increasing exposure to different media diversified people’s interests, and the World’s Fairs offerings of futuristic and educational information had much less allure than before. Consequently, Chow shares that these two aspects contributed to the third factor, which was economic considerations. As Americans continued to lose interest in the World’s Fair, their willingness to invest significant resources in the event diminished as well.
Chow’s documentary highlights the issues Worlds’s Fairs have faced, and creates a space for viewers to consider the broader historical and cultural significance this recurring event provides. Although she asserts that the United States should make a more concrete effort to be a part of this endeavor, “Face of a Nation: What Happened to the World's Fair?” is also intended to generate conversation about the evolving role these types of events have in our continually changing world.
The critical analysis Chow has conducted through this documentary and other publications has created a significant impact, whether it was indirect or not. For the first time since the end of the Cold War, $25 million was approved by Congress to be used toward the United States’ participation in the 2025 World Expo in Osaka, Japan. This was a part of the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was the first appropriation of its kind. Congress’ decision to do this holds many implications, and also showcases the impact of public discourse on government decisions. Choosing to allot this sum of money toward the World Expo shows the commitment the United States has toward public diplomacy and engaging with the Indo-Pacific region.
Although it can be difficult to cite Chow’s work as a factor in the government’s decision to do this, I believe that this instance exemplifies why it is important for public intellectuals to participate in discourse, regardless of if the public is listening or not. The World’s Fair was considered a somewhat “dying” or “irrelevant” topic, but the public intellectuals who cared about the issue still shared their thoughts on public platforms. As mentioned before, it seems that the public will naturally give rise to any topics that they find of interest. In this scenario, Chow’s decision to publish various forms of media discussing her takes on the United States’ participation at World Expos didn’t have a set expectation for public interest, but resulted in meaningful impact – as seen through Congress’ action toward a more serious and active presence at these types of events. This also plays into the larger narrative of public diplomacy’s role in the world’s perception of the United States.
Комментарии