Here's the explanation (it's at the bottom of the page) from Prospect and Foriegn Policy for how they came up with their list:

The irony of this “thinkers” list is that it does not bear thinking about too closely. The problems of definition and judgment that it involves would discourage more rigorous souls. But some criteria must be spelled out. What is a public intellectual? Someone who has shown distinction in their own field along with the ability to communicate ideas and influence debate outside of it.

Candidates must have been alive, and still active in public life (though many on this list are past their prime). Such criteria ruled out the likes of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Milton Friedman, who would have been automatic inclusions 20 or so years ago. This list is about public influence, not intrinsic achievement. And that is where things get really tricky. Judging influence is hard enough inside one’s own culture, but when you are peering across cultures and languages, the problem becomes far harder. Obviously our list of 100 has been influenced by where most of us sit, in the English-speaking West.

We tried to avoid the “box ticking” problem of having x Chinese, y economists and z under-50s. But we have also tried to give due weight to the important thinkers in all the main intellectual disciplines and centers of population. We also tried to ensure that all names on the list are influential in at least a few countries in their region, if not the entire globe. We may not have succeeded in following all these rules to the letter, but for those of you irritated by our choices, there is a small safety valve—a write-in vote that allows you to nominate a name that wasn’t included on our list.

The problem of the "public intellectual" has been troubling me for years now. In a country (the U.S.) that prides itself on its technological achievement and innovation, on its exportation* of political philosophy and practice, and its... well shoot. There has to be something else. The Rhetorical Society would have my head if I didn't include a third comparitor.

If you can think of a third "innovative" and "kinda brainy" thing that the U.S. is proud of, let me know in comments. For now, all that's coming to me is the fundamentalist ascendency. So, let's say: and it's commitment to establishing and maintaining a radical relationship with God.**

In any case, the larger point I was trying to make before getting bogged down is that even though we do have some pretty crazy ideas about science, governance theory, and theology, the U.S. response to this is to valorize not the theorists but the practitioners.

Let me explain. Can you list even one person responsible for the designs coming out of Apple? No? I'm not surprised. We fetishize the production of sleek toys like the iPods and all of the computer goodies, but we don't know and don't care about the visionaries who think up this stuff.

When was the last time you recognized the name of a Nobel laureate? We don't care who Anthony J. Leggett is (this American co-won the 2003 Nobel Prize in Physics for "pioneering contributions to the theory of superconductors and superfluids"), but we sure do think that levitating super-fast trains are cool.

In other words, we don't care about the intellectual, only the product(s) that can be developed from the intellectual's work.

That's a harsh realization for someone devoting themselves to the life of the mind.

But it gets even worse. While we ignore those working in theoretical fields in science (or accuse them of trying to kill God by advancing the heresy of evolution), we reject everyone trying to do the heavy mental lifting, and praise the very people who reject intellectual pursuits. Instead of scientists, we get corporations (who tell us what to think via the products we buy). Instead of serious theological inquiry we get Robertson and Falwell telling us that Katrina and 9/11 were caused by God "lifting the veil of His protection" from the U.S. because of our "sinful" ways. Where's the modern-day Aquinas or Augustine? Instead of Agustine's Confessions, we have The Prayer of Jabez, which is now rivaling the Chicken Soup books for sheer number of targeted niche spin-off books.*** Hell, I'd even settle for a new Leo Strauss, instead of the blundering "Straussian" neocons who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.

So, the public may be a lost cause, but what about the academy? Publishing in mainstream presses (or becoming too much a fixture in the maintream media, a la Marshall McLuhan and Noam Chomsky), is, in the best case scenario not counted toward tenure, and more realistically counts against you.

Man, now I'm really bummed.

Anyway, here were my votes for Intellectual Idol. Er, I mean, The Top Public Intellectuals:

• Umberto Eco
  
• Clifford Geertz
  
• Rem Koolhaas
  
• Paul Krugman
  
• Fareed Zarakria

My bonus pick was:

• Stephen Hawking

I mean, come on, people! A Brief History of Time... anyone? Anyone?

So go vote. And then post your votes in the comments. I'm curious to see what the rest of you think.

------
* Yes, I know, I know. And yet there is a substantial percentage of Americans who believe in the "nation/democracy building" rhetoric and mission. And, really, wouldn't we all like to believe that we were helping the rest of the world move toward a better state (however you want to define that state)?

** Yeah, yeah, I know. This one's even worse than the last one. Sheesh.

*** If you're curious, the prayer of Jabez is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 4:10. "Jabez called on the God of Israel, saying, 'Oh that Thou would bless me indeed, and enlarge my coast [territory], and that Thine hand might be with me, and that Thou would keep me from evil, that it may not grieve me!' And God granted him that which he requested." So, you see, if you pray for "increase" (of anything you want, really) to relieve you of "grief," God will give it to you. Duh.