Why I Firmly Refuse to Be a Public Intellectual

Many times, as I publish articles online, people will call on me to step forward and become a public intellectual.

The title "public intellectual" leaves me bewildered. What is a public intellectual? Does "public" mean that I myself have acquired some representative authority? Representing whom? Who authorized me to represent them? I have always held a cautious view of the value of my own words and deeds; perhaps my words are just a pile of rubbish. I do not believe any individual has the right to speak on behalf of others, though I firmly defend everyone's right to speak. To a liberal like me, there ought to be no such thing as public intellectuals in this world; everyone is equal and free, and may speak their piece, argue into a stew, challenge and debate one another.

Of course, both sides of a debate must be sincere, engaging in meaningful argument and discussion; only then is the exchange edifying to both. If the debate turns into sophistry or personal abuse, or if one side adopts a dictator's posture and demands the other shut up, then there is no point or value to the exchange. Toward sincere debating opponents, I feel genuine respect and admiration. But toward quibbling, muddle-headed opponents or those who hurl wanton abuse from a false identity, I generally disdain to respond; I just let them rant.

This society should be a society of many voices; everyone should have the right to express their own eloquent or not-so-eloquent views, so long as those views do not involve illegal acts, and their right to speak should, as Voltaire put it, be defended to the death. The so-called public intellectual ends up as the mouthpiece of a certain group. For it is impossible for everyone in the world to endorse what we say; only those who endorse our views wish us to speak for them, while those who do not can't wait for us to shut up. Once a person becomes a public intellectual, he is easily kidnapped by his admirers, who need him always to stand on their side, speak in the tone they like, and address them according to their ideal template. I have been writing online for a long time, and I know this from deep experience.

So most of the time I write with an attitude of not caring about anyone. I am who I am; I represent only myself. I am an individual, not a public intellectual. I do not speak from anyone else's standpoint; I say only what I myself want to say. Apart from the occasional constraints of my family and friends, I pay no attention to anyone else's demands about how I should speak.

Everyone's rights must be defended by themselves. Sometimes I speak up on behalf of certain vulnerable groups; that must be because I have deeply felt their suffering, developed deep sympathy for them, and genuinely seen that the harm done to them is unjust and that they themselves are powerless. At such times I will step forward and say a few words for them, and sometimes even raise my voice on their behalf. Beyond that, I will not speak for anyone. Everyone must fight for their own rights; everyone's standpoint is their own alone, and no one has the right to demand that I always share their position.

The reason I hold this attitude is that I have seen that the words of anyone—including all the great figures and sages, ancient and modern, Chinese and foreign—can, in essence, represent only their own personal standpoint. Once their words are generalized into a social norm, their harm becomes immediately apparent. No one is perfect, and no gold is pure. Once a person's words become a unified, monolithic doctrine, the result is despotism and dictatorship. If his words contain flaws, then such despotism and dictatorship are extremely harmful.

No one can guarantee that their words are an unchanging truth. All humanity has been tirelessly exploring truth, but truth is always being updated. If old so-called truths still try to influence society unchanged, the harm is great. A person with self-knowledge does not hold an arrogant, sole-voicing view of his own words. As for anyone who holds an arrogant view of their own words or beliefs, I personally avoid them as though fleeing a plague.

With such a mindset, how could I possibly enjoy being a public intellectual?