Who is this?

Surrounded by a multitude of public thinkers, Camille Paglia distinguishes herself well from her contemporaries. Born in Endicott, New York on April 2, 1947, she grew up as the daughter of a professor who taught Romance languages. While advancing through her school years, she ultimately became valedictorian at the State University of New York, where she earned her B.A. in 1968. After graduating, she took the role of an outspoken critic and educator at Yale University where she received her Ph.D. in 1974. From this moment on, her career steadily took off as she taught literature at Bennington College from 1972 until 1980 then Wesleyan University in 1980, simultaneously contributing to Interview magazine and Salon.com By submitting editorial content. 

    Looking past her childhood and educational background, it’s clear that she was able to transition from being a top student to a public intellectual easily due to her experience and adaptability. This transformation not only enhanced her success but also established her as a public intellectual in modern cultural criticism, where she utilized her distinctive perspectives on sexuality, feminism, and the arts to pour into public discourse. Over the last twenty years, she’s written and published several books including Sexual Personae (1990), Free Women, Free Men: Sex, Gender, Feminism (2017) along with Vamps and Tramps (1994) that serve as a guide for those unfamiliar with her views and theories. Throughout her various works, she examines modern culture and challenges mainstream feminism, highlighting the relevance of historical context and biological determinism. While her public opinions ignite disagreement and controversy, the influence she has on public discourse is clear as she built an entire career by carving out a specific niche that often contrasts with traditional feminist views and established academic principles.

   Starting with one of the key themes in Paglia’s writings, in this case, sexuality, Sexual Personae (1990) is where she dives into this, arguing that sexuality is a fundamental aspect of human nature that cannot be ignored or repressed by societal norms. She acknowledges the limitations of traditional feminism, believing that this area overlooks the complexities of sexual desire and its manifestations in modern-day society. Traditional feminism focuses on legal equality for women, including the right to vote, own property, equal pay for equal work, access to education, etc. so the fact that she thinks this was interesting, to say the least. On page 11 of this book, she states that

“Eroticism is mystique; that is, the aura of emotion and imagination around sex. It cannot be 'fixed' by codes of social or moral convenience, whether from the political left or right. Nature's fascism is greater than that of any society. There is a daemonic instability in sexual relations that we may have to accept.”

Again, this feeds into the narrative that traditional feminism has nothing to do with sexuality, which opens up room for the public to question this theory. 

   The general response to Camille’s Sexual Personae was very positive as this book currently stands at 4 out of 5 stars online. While this is great news, there were some errors in the book as many disagreed with her theories. Starting with a negative comment from a user that gave the book a 1 star (on GoodReads.com) stating that,

“This book was horrible. Paglia writes only the loosest and most unsatisfactory of evidence for any of her assertions. She ignores the lack of evidence for the majority of psychodynamic theory in general and for the "family romance in particular. Though she even picks through psychodynamic theory. The book makes me want to shake her.” suggesting her pieces might be too vague or misleading for some readers. 

On the other hand, a separate comment that gave the book a five-star rating discussed how

“Paglia is like a "gateway drug". Read her, and you’re on your way down the yellow brick road of subversive decadence. Whether you agree with her or not, you will be challenged to think. Camille isn’t looking for a gaggle of cheerleaders; she is looking for an intellectual bar brawl.” indicating that if you’re the type of person who’s unfamiliar with Camille’s theories explained in her works, her pieces will be a challenge for you. Both comments in this book are like two sides of the same coin, yet they depict the nature of Camille’s audience.

    Considering how audiences respond to public intellectuals leads us to question whether or not they will still be relevant in the future. From my perspective, I believe that these individuals can maintain a strong presence in the future depending on what they stand for. In his blog “Are Public Intellectuals a thing of the Past?” http://www.stephenmack.com/blog/archives/2012/08/are_public_inte.htm, Stephan Mack touches on this stating how

“Our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is—and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.” this quote was questionable because is it truly necessary to only concern ourselves with the qualifications of a public intellectual instead of who or what one is? In this case, we’re talking about Camille, so wouldn't it be rational to think the other way instead of blindly following a public intellectual like her strictly because of how much she has accomplished in her career? She may spread meaningful messages and views on sexuality, feminism, and the arts, but this is something that I feel the public should focus on as we continue to dive into her character. Keeping this in mind, we can shift back to Camille Paglia’s work, understanding that no matter what the public thinks of her, her extensive scholarly background and accomplishments will forever classify her as a public intellectual whether we like it or not. 

    Another significant topic that Camille discusses in her works is feminism. Much like how in Sexual Personae, she engages with this topic here and there, in Free Women, Free Men: Sex, Gender, Feminism, she dives into it a bit more, stating how she considers it completely

  “Irresponsible that public schools offer sex education but no systematic guidance to adolescent girls, who should be thinking about how they want to structure their future lives: do they want children, and if so, when should that be scheduled, with the advantages and disadvantages of each option laid out. Because of the stubborn biological burden of pregnancy and childbirth, these are issues that will always affect women more profoundly than men. Starting a family early has its price for an ambitious young woman, a career hiatus that may be difficult to overcome. On the other hand, the reward of being with one's children in their formative years, instead of farming out that fleeting and irreplaceable experience to daycare centers or nannies, has an inherently emotional and perhaps spiritual value that has been lamentably ignored by second-wave feminism.” (Page 20)

When reading Camille’s view on feminism, she brings up several points about how crucial it is for young girls to receive sexual and general education to plan the perfect time to have a baby to be successful in the future. This concept is typically ignored by second-wave feminism according to her as well which makes this topic easily debatable. Have previous feminist movements covered this issue and if so, when? If Camille felt the need to jot this down in her book why didn’t she list any previous feminist movements to back up her statement here? That’s one question I could ask her at least.

   Diving further into the discourse about this book, it’s rated 3.67 out of 5 stars on GoodReads.com (which is slightly lower than Sexual Personae’s rating), showing that this book brought out more negative reactions than positive ones. Pulling out some of the comments to see where this book failed, one said, 

“FREE YOURSELF OF PAGLIA, FREE YOURSELF OF THIS BOOK. My main objection to Paglia is that she *cannot* think. By this, I do not mean random thoughts like 'Oh did I remember to turn off the water boiler before leaving the house?' or ' Are the supermarkets open on a Sunday?' kind of thoughts. She is incapable of formulating a valid thought process based on simple logical techniques that I hope the majority is taught at schools. Again and again, she takes opinions and presents them as facts building up completely groundless arguments. This makes reading her essays time consuming and frustrating as you have to pause sentence after sentence, thinking whether what you read actually makes sense. She is a writer that makes me doubt my own view of the world and let's face it validates my misanthropy.” which was interesting despite this person claiming to be a feminist, they seem entirely unbothered by Camille’s take on feminist matters.” This book was supposed to be a starting point for younger feminists but it failed miserably as this crowd didn’t quite get what she was talking about, again, creating public discourse within this community. 

    Even though Camille Paglia discusses sexuality, feminism, and the arts to the public as a public intellectual, you might want to ask yourself why she decided to take this path.  Looking at  Camille’s history, you’ll start to notice that she never really went through any of the experiences she claims to know so much about. In a Journal titled Text and Performance Quarterly by John Rodden, he describes Camille as a “performing-artist-intellectual” which again, is interesting to see because is right to say that a public intellectual can expand into different territories such as this one. The fact that John came up with this label for her is insane despite her not being a performer or artist. I assume that the “performing-artist-intellectual” title was made due to how the public views her. Looking back at the comments from some of her work, you’d think she was a character rather than a real person trying to make an impact on the world through her voice and text. 

   To conclude Camille Paglia’s background, it is clear that she is seen as a character rather than a public figure trying to make a positive impact through her work. Overall, her style of writing and public statements may be perceived as more theatrical than thoughtful, which can undermine her credibility and the value of her contributions to discussions on sexuality, feminism, and the arts. A final critique I can make about Camille Paglia is that she seems more focused on presenting a provocative image than on engaging in meaningful dialogue. This critique is supported by the fact that she has been accused of being more concerned with self-promotion than with genuinely addressing the issues she claims to be passionate about. 

     In the end, Camille has built a reputation as a public intellectual but her credibility becomes unstable as you understand how she interacts with the public and vice versa. The fact that she has been labeled a “performing artist intellectual” suggests that her public persona may be more focused on performance than substance. Ultimately, the legacy that Camille left for the entire world to see online regarding sexuality, feminism, and the arts doesn’t stand strong. Hopefully, she’ll look at how the public views her more often so that her position as a public intellectual doesn’t continue to crumble down into an “old-style” feminist. Perhaps she can be more than just this type of feminist, who knows?