Bernard-Henri Lévy, or “B.H.L,” as the French press monikered him, represents a figure presumed extinct in the 21st century, a public intellectual crusading for moral cause and inspiring action of a higher calling than national interest or political expediency. He harnesses the legacy of Sartre blended with his unique sage bravado, sartorial suave, and spright spontaneity bordering on the dangerous. In some circles, he is considered a plaisanterie, a characterization of himself, the blowhard “philosopher,” a man who claims his two greatest passions are “writing and women.”
Say what they will, B.H.L. dared to challenge his homeland of France to take up the cause of a citizen revolution, a role France had not undertaken since they backed a band of colonists in the American Revolution. His robust humanitarianism lit the fire for the Libyan uprising, breathed voice into its people, leading President Sarkozy to recognize the National Transition Council as the legitimate Libyan government, launch air strikes on Ghaddafi’s regime, and induce subsequent U.S., U.N., and NATO support. Our times demand the rise of robust public intellectuals to challenge our institutions to betterment not merely in words but in action.
Lévy’s foray into Libya exhibits public intellectuals’ responsibility to articulate the virtuous path, to cogently browbeat the oft-stale infrastructure of governments to discharge their heralded principles in practice, and to personify their, hence our, most idealistic selves. He talks of the intellectuals of past who “were brave and daring.” Libya serves as an exemplification of defending human rights and arming those rights with ample ammunition to fight tyranny. This intellectualist crusader succeeded as he explains,“Because here they did not just write letters, sign petitions. They did.”
That is the crux of B.H.L.’s maverick legacy in Libya; a victory for public intellectualism, for essential ethos, and the defense of threatened humanity at all costs. Those who often speak of it boldly, yet never venture into the uprising sadly necessary to ensure its fulfillment, must follow Lévy’s example and transform their salons into crusades of impact at the human level. The cynics will be swift to belittle B.H.L. as a narcissistic pied piper, but what he made possible by his own vision last year was an historic occasion of revolution in the right, driven by an unapologetic dearth of conformity.
In our imperfect pursuit of a more perfect world, it easy to shrink from the responsibility to protect and preserve. Those free from the constraints of a weary electorate or the hunger of a rabid press, possessing of the capacity to think boldly and demand us not to shrink when presented with atrocity, can be the heroes, however unlikely, of a brave new world. That B.H.L. may have an ego the size of the sun does not matter. What matters is what he made possible in Libya. Here was a heroic, pragmatic public intellectual exerting influence amid the chaos, not in the comfy confines of his office. Our times require more of his genus to rise up and shine light on our 21st century tribulations. “To whom much is granted, much is required.”
Photo Credit: tomgui
The Discussion
Public intellectuals are rather obviously necessary; also, they are rather evidently problematic (and now bound with consumerism.) I recommend Richard A. Posner's book, titled "Public intellectuals: a study of decline." Ironically, by writing the book, Posner, a judge, acts as a public intellectual.
In lieu of a response, I'm simply going to suggest reading Thomas Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society". Or at least this article, as an introduction: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228901/intellectuals-and-society/thomas-sowell
1 Replies
BHL is a disgrace. He supported a literary hoax to attack Immanuel Kant, he supports rapist Roman Polanski, he attacked martyred journalist Daniel Pearl, indulged dubious reporting of the Russia-Georgia mini-war, supports Dominique Strauss-Kahn (who we are learning DOES have a problem) and his self-absorbed claim to be the new de Tocquiville is so laughable that even the left-winger Garrison Keillor slammed his book saying, "There's no reason for it to exist in English, except as evidence that travel need not be broadening and one should be wary of books with Tocqueville in the title." The man is an arrogant, self-promoting hack and does not deserve the title of philosopher. Standards have fallen if BHL is to be considered an intellectual.
3 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies
I commend you for your recognition of B.H.L. and his unwavering support of the Libyan uprising. When you say he 'lit the fire for the libyan uprising etc.." I assume you meant he brought the struggle to light in France and Western media? Otherwise, must give credit where credit is due - the libyans.
1 Replies
It seems,in this political environment, it would be suicidal to crusade for a moral cause without pandering to a political party. Most initiatives seem to be agenda-driven, not for the "greater good".
1 Replies
So well written! But I have a few questions: is there something about "our times" in particular that demands the need for such robust public intellectuals, or does the world always need them? Why don't we have these eighteen-century public intellectual "philosophes" anymore? You'd think that the democratization of media would help activists to criticize more easily...
1 Replies
I woud mic this article again. Well done.
1 Replies
Dan, why are you here and not at The Economist?
4 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies
Nicely done. Too bad "intellectual" is such a negative buzzword among certain sociopolitical circles these days. Personally, I like it when my leaders and revolutionaries are smart men. The notion that our leaders need only be people we'd like to have a beer with is one of the most insipid qualifications for leadership ever concocted. Thank you, Karl Rove.
3 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies
Great article Mr. Sullivan. Looks like I have a lot more reading to do myself before contributing something useful, but just wanted to let you know that I enjoyed the piece.
I also agree w/ lawrence that he looks like a disheveled DeNiro!
1 Replies
Is it just me or does Henri look like Robert DeNiro?
Sorry that wasn't very intellectual of me was it.....
4 Replies
3 Replies
2 Replies
If you think France, the United States, or any of the other Nato powers needed an "intellectual" to intervene in a country and execute regime change, you may have missed out on the last 50 years of world history.
"The responsibility to protect and preserve..."
Give me a BREAK. This guy is a clown.
7 Replies
6 Replies
5 Replies
Nice article, Daniel. I'm essentially in broad agreement.
If I may, I'd like to offer two caveats or observations:
- the phrase "crusading for moral cause" is laden with potency, and may well be part of what B.H.L. pursues. However, when such effort extends to nat'l policy & its application within the int'l arena, it then arguably ceases to be moral and instead enters the fabric of "nat'l interests".
- as for our (i.e. NATO's) recent involvement with Libya, it may not be over yet (or arguably, in any event, shouldn't be). When nat'l policy is exhorted to such action, the entire scope of the project should be clear. In this case, that scope includes the return of stability post-Gaddafi (which hasn't happened yet).
3 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies
Oooooh la la! Such beautiful writing...tres magnifique, Daniel.
So, you put BHL up there in the pantheon with Lafayette, do you? I suppose that we won't really know the truth of that until Libya is dotted with settlements named in Levy's honor the way we have Fayettevilles all over the US.
I enjoyed this article thoroughly; both for itself and as a change of pace from the PolicyMic offerings of the week.
1 Replies