David Brooks and Pop-Intellectualism

July 18, 2008 | 2 books mentioned 2 2 min read

This morning’s David Brooks column has reinvigorated my long-running discomfort with pop-intellectuals. “We’re entering an era of epic legislation,” his column begins. “There are at least five large problems that will compel the federal government to act in gigantic ways over the next few years.” The bold assertion is a classic move of the pop-intellectual, who I think of as one who puts forth an idea as a new idea while lacking expertise in the field in which that idea would carry weight. The blending of disciplines is also a tell-tale pop-intellecual trait, and in the opening of his column, Brooks presents as a historian, a sociologist, and a political scientist, even though he is in fact none of the above.

One thing I always think about when I read pop-intellectuals like Brooks or Malcolm Gladwell (if Brooks is prince of the practice, Gladwell is king), is the shift over the last couple centuries or so from lay intellectualism to professional intellectualism (I’m not an intellectual historian and I don’t know exactly where to date it – in my mind the the change took place concurrently with the the rise of method, around about the time of Darwin). Two hundred years ago it was good enough to be a well-educated citizen with a ruminative soul and you could write with authority about anything – philosophy, history, the natural world. Now to be taken seriously on any of those topics, to be seen as adding to our store of knowledge, you have to have a PhD and work in a university. In part, the change is due to the overall increase in knowledge – it required less learning to be an expert in mathematics a hundred years ago than it does now – but more than that, the change reflects the modern insight that learning shaped by disciplines simply produces better knowledge.

Journalists like Brooks and Gladwell can still add value by bringing academic discoveries to the public, but books like Bobos in Paradise and Blink make me cringe for the lack of rigor with which they synthesize anecdotes to produce new ideas. The problem is not so much the content, benign as it usually is, but the methods. Brooks’ column, for example, actually promotes a tendency opposite of the one he intends. It makes people less effectively thoughtful, not more.

, a staff writer for The Millions, writes the Brainiac ideas column for the Boston Globe and blogs about fatherhood and family life at growingsideways.wordpress.com. You can follow him on Twitter at @kshartnett.


  1. Oh, David Brooks: The man so many love to hate. When n+1 was on tour and came to Stanford one of the editors said that in their original style rules for the magazine it was stipulated that David Brooks, when he was mentioned, must be called "the sinister David Brooks."

    Though I find myself infuriated by him about %50 of the time (he had a crazy column a while back about "Fast Eddie Obama" throwing people under trucks that seemed the product of psychotic), I thought Bobos in Paradise was really funny and dead-on. I think of it as social satire of the kind 18th century novelists like Fielding and Austen were so good at–identifying class types and their foibles.

  2. I don't really know too much about Brooks, but Gladwell, as a journalist, simply uses anecdotal reporting to bring academic ideas to a defined (and evidently hungry) audience. So long as his reporting is honest, his arguments are logical, and his conclusions are transparent, I'm not sure whether it's all that problematic.

    Personally, from what I've read of Blink, it's certainly shallow and glossy, but it's clearly not a book for me. I would, however, buy a book that attempts to test its claims.

    (And that Brooks column was truly vapid.)

Add Your Comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.