The Function of Quasi-Public Intellectuals in the Manipulation of Publics

Abstract

Analyzing the function of quasi-public intellectuals in debates over the Common Core State Standards helps us to understand why some publics in a networked public sphere have greater influence in policy-making than other publics. Granted authority because of privileged access to the state, quasi-public intellectuals introduced discourse into education publics that influenced reception of the Common Core, divided potential (counter)publics, and created an exigency that foreclosed possibilities for debating policy alternatives. Theorizing how these intellectuals manipulate debate allows us to recognize other arenas in which they operate and to develop strategies for inviting stakeholders to meaningfully participate in public deliberation.

Notes

1 I would like to thank RR reviewers Ashley Holmes and Jeffrey St. Onge for their helpful and thoughtful reviews of this essay.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Phillip Goodwin

Phillip Goodwin is currently a Lecturer in writing studies and recently earned a PhD in Rhetoric and Composition from the University of Nevada, Reno. His research examines the function of rhetoric in the neoliberal era and analyzes how it is used as a technology of governance to distribute neoliberal logics across social terrains, institutions, and the state making these sites useful for entrenching and extending neoliberal networks of power. His work also appears in Pedagogy, Works & Days, and Literacy in Composition Studies.