Abstract

This is a study of selected contemporary intellectuals in American society who represent diverse religious or philosophical ethical traditions and who reinterpret their traditions to engage in public discourse. They are: Rita Gross , James Gustafson , Martha Nussbaum , Tu Wei-ming , and Michael Walzer . Each reinterprets tradition in light of some aspects of modernity and, reciprocally, critiques modernity from the perspective of reinterpreted tradition. While one dimension of their work involves an attempt to mobilize the authority of traditions in relation to public discourse, this study also focuses on the professional components of each of intellectual's authority. These multiple affiliations---a fact of life for the contemporary American intellectual---require a complex assessment of the connections of intellectuals to traditions. While these multiple sources of authority may be in tension, they are not necessarily liabilities. Even though the changes in authority and academic intellect weigh most heavily on humanistic intellectuals, this study argues against recent negative assessments of contemporary American intellectual life by Richard Posner and William Dean that hold university culture as responsible for public intellectual decline. Their nostalgia distorts both the past and present realities of American intellectual life. Instead of criticizing contemporary intellectuals for either intellectual irresponsibility or abandonment of the public, this study accepts the social changes that create modern pluralistic, specialized culture as the environment in which contemporary intellectuals work, and observes them attempting modestly yet ambitiously to craft public discourse in relation to religious and philosophical ethical traditions. Humanistic intellectuals, despite marginalization from expert public discourse, may be well-situated to join civic humanist and expert ideals, and thus contribute to public life. In doing so, however, this study suggests that often-recommended strategies, such as the prophetic style of critical discourse, or distancing oneself from academic culture, are not helpful. Instead, this study suggests that dialogical and reflective forms of critical discourse that develop critically imaginative moral awareness are more appropriate to the academic location of most modern American intellectuals, a location of critical discourse increasingly rare in, yet essential to, the functioning of a modern democracy