Aziz Ansari: Modern Public Intellectual?

What is the image that strikes us when we think of artists? For most of us, the preliminary sketch that immediately springs to our mind would be a lofty, disengaged artist whose visual/literary/performative oeuvres transcend the concerns of mortal men and offer its audience a glimpse into a mystical, otherworldly universe. However, as our first impression usually goes, such image of an aloof maestro fails to holistically grasp the repertoire of social positions artists could take up in their field. Consider the works by visual artist Kenneth Tin-Kin Hung, novelist George Orwell and Kathryn Stockett, in which rather than being transported into a realm of escapist fantasies, spectators are often invited to contemplate upon existing/imaginable trends and conditions within our society that these artists found problematic, e.g., Hung’s The Fast Supper (2011) on obesity, food industries, and consumer culture, Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) on the surveillance state, Stockett’s The Help (2009) on racism.

Alternatively, following Jodi Kushins’ of Stephen Colbert's address at the White House Correspondents' Dinner as an example of artistic contributions to political and social commentary (2006, p.2), if we expand our artistic scopes and consider contemporary comedians as performing artists, the artists’ capacity to intervene in public debate becomes even more evident. As we take our daily therapeutic dose of Trevor Noah and Samantha Bee (or perhaps the yearly dosage of Dave Chappelle from Netflix), we are both entertained and, more importantly, intellectually challenged by these artists to take up more active roles as citizens who should regard their participation in the public sphere as not only their birthright but an utmost responsibility.

All in all, far from following the school of thought exemplified by the renowned slogan “l'art pour l'art” (Art for art’s sake), as these artists become “spokespersons for multiple points of view and advocates for a critique of society” (Becker, 1997, p.18), they have seemingly assumed the role of the public intellectual. Following this thread of thought, in this article, I would like to lay bare the connection between contemporary comedians and the notion of the public intellectual, first by examining existing explorations on such interrelations and later via presenting a case study on the public persona of the comedian Aziz Ansari with the particular focus on his comedy specials and literary work. 

Back to top

Comedians as public intellectuals

While the conceptualization of comedians as public intellectuals has been explored in the academic field (see Belanger, 2017), one of the first and most notable formulations of such notion could be located in an opinion piece written by Megan Garber. In her Atlantic article titled “How comedians became public intellectuals'', Garber took female comedian Amy Schumer as a prime example, explaining that on the one hand, comedians are growingly able to assert considerable influence within the public sphere and foster their own ever expanding repertoire of followers via not only disseminating their contents on socio-technological platforms but establishing a constant information cycle between the comedian, journalistic gatekeepers, and ordinary viewers in the hybrid media system.

On the other hand, when comedy broke its self-limiting confines of “angsty and possibly drug-addled white guys making jokes about their needy girlfriends and airplane food” and began to embrace the voices of women and minorities, what comes along with this “newfound inclusion”  an increase vis-à-vis the intellectual endeavour to subvert questionable norms and highlight “questions about power dynamics and privilege and cultural authority” (Garber, 2015). All in all, Garber contended that recent comedians have assumed the role of public intellectuals on two grounds, namely that not only these modern humorists have received a growing amount of “mass attention” (public) but they have been addressing social issues and incorporating “moral messaging” (intellectual) in their contents (2015). 

Back to top

Contesting comedians as public intellectuals 

That being said, such conception of modern comedians as public intellectuals is not one without disagreements. One particularly noteworthy contestation has been formulated by Elizabeth Bruenig in an New Republic article titled “Comedians are funny, not public intellectuals”. In the piece, the author specifically argued against Garber’s formulation that the increasingly subversive nature of comedy enables fruitful explorations and interrogations of modern society, through which the public could become more informed on significant socio-political issues.

More specifically, Bruenig made one undeniably convincing argument, i.e., while comedians indeed possess the capacity to question established power dynamics, one has to bear in mind that since our humorists are operating within a commercialized media system, they tend to only “tease at genuine subversion, while making commonly held views” (2015). In other words, contrary to Garber, Bruenig believes that, at the end of the day, modern comedians merely utilizes the risk-free and profitable tactic of superficial subversion so as to generate guaranteed laughter and consistent digital labour from their audience. 

Back to top

The Public Intellectual

In her book Writers as Public Intellectuals, Odile Heynders laid out a preliminary blueprint for the public intellectual:

“The public intellectual intervenes in public debate and proclaims a controversial and committed and sometimes compromised stance from a sideline position. He has critical knowledge and ideas, stimulates a discussion and offers alternative scenarios in regard to topics of political, social, ethical nature, thus addressing non-specialist audiences on matters of general concern. Public intellectual intervention can take many different forms ranging from speeches and lectures to books, articles, manifestos, documentaries, television programmes and blogs and tweets on the Internet. Today’s public intellectual operates in a media-saturated society and has to be visible in order to communicate to a broad public”(Heynders, 2016, p.3).

While Heynders’ work mainly focuses on literary writers who constructs the posture of the public intellectual through a variety of media performances, the detailed conceptualisation of the persona charted out in the introductory chapter and the following case studies nonetheless provides us valuable insights if we wish to holistically grasp the idea of the public intellectual and apply such framework to other fields of interest. In addition, the scholar has usefully laid out a four-level heuristic model for researching public intellectuals:

As we shall see, this four-level scheme provides on which an in-depth analysis in terms of the construction of the public intellectual persona could be based. In particular, for my investigation on Aziz Ansari's posture via the public intellectual lens, I will mainly focus on two of the media  he chose to operate within, i.e., comedy sets and literary works, and the specific rhetoric style he utilized in each of the mediums to demonstrate his engagement with the first and third level of the model (cultural authority  mediated context of production and reception).

Back to top

The Comedian-Public Intellectual Debate 

Before moving forward to our case study, let us circle back to the Garber vs. Bruenig debate. While Bruenig’s criticism is undoubtedly valid, if we take Heynders’ conceptualisation of the public intellectual (2016) into account, I believe there are two points of consideration that should be bear in mind in regard to the discussion of comedians performing as public intellectuals. lthough modern comedians are only willing to build a subversive mirage which at its heart is nothing but a reaffirmation of established societal norms, a point that should not be overlooked is that comedy and humor could serve as an effective spark leading towards necessary discussions within the public sphere, which is a point that Garber also made in her essay. On the other hand, as Heynders’ preliminary definition of public intellectuals (2016, p.3) has suggested, public intellectual interpositions could manifest themselves in a variety of forms, ranging from speeches, documentary films, books, or in the case of our humorists, a stand-up comedy special.

The public intellectual is, all in all, a posture constructed through a complex negotiation between multiple social actors across several mediums. As such, a judgement vis-à-vis any particular comedian’s capacity to function as a public intellectual in contemporary society should not solely be based on his/her position in the comedy field or the specific performative style that he/she employs, but  taking into consideration the comedian’s selected repertoire of diverse media performances. 

Back to top

Aziz Ansari

After examining existing explorations in regard to the connection between comedians and public intellectuals, let us delve into our case study. Aziz Ansari is an Indian American comedian/actor who began his career in 2000. While Ansari tackles several topics of public interests such as religion and racism, hIs comedy routine mainly focuses on the peculiarity of modern romance. As an actor, he is mostly known for his role in the NBC comedy series Parks and Recreation and the Netflix series Master of None (Czajkowski, 2015). 

Back to top

Trivialization of the public sphere

First and foremost, it should be noted that aside from the general argument against comedians as public intellectuals, what might also be problematic for the subject of this study is that Ansari’s main issue of concern, i.e., romantic relationships in the modern era [this is completely new to the reader], is one that is not traditionally considered as a matter of general interest that deserves discussion in the public sphere. Rather, in the eyes of Jürgen Habermas or Hannah Arendt, the public sphere should be a domain where citizens engage in critical rational debates on state affairs that “put the state in touch of the needs of society” (Habermas, 1991, p.31) or conversations on issues of common concern that “transcends the lifespan of mortal men” (Arendt, 1958, p.55); such topic of the conjugal family and household or the maintenance of life would be relegated to the private sphere, a realm where what one does “remains without significance and consequence to others, and what matters to him is without interest to other people” (Arendt, 1958, p.58).

Furthermore, for these scholars, the fact that problems of domestic affairs and romantic relationships that Ansari holds dear are being publicly discussed points to a fundamental structural problem of the contemporary public sphere, that is, these “trivialities” are driven attention away from “serious public affairs” (McKee, 2004, p.33). Seen from this perspective, examining Ansari’s posture through the lens of the public intellectual seems insubstantial, for his main concern is one that should be cast out from the exact site a public intellectual operates, i.e., the public sphere. 

Nonetheless, other scholars also argued that trivialities likewise deserve attention in the public sphere. Most notably, Alan McKee offered four arguments for bringing the private to the public in his book The Public Sphere: An Introduction, two of which are especially relevant within the context of this study. Firstly, to the extent that domestic issues and women are traditionally being kept in the private realm, there exists an absence of the women’s voice and the courses of action they could take when they suffer physical/mental abuse or even marital rape since “the state would not interfere in a man’s house”. As such, by publicizing domestic issues, not only the women’s voice could be heard but a proper mechanism against injustice within the private realm could be established (McKee, 2004, p.47).

Secondly, it should be noted that domestic concerns are not trivial whatsoever for issues of “relationships, child-rearing, housework, and sexuality were in fact important parts of human society and has to be recognised as such”. For this reason, publicising subject matters previously assigned to the private realm is of great significance for just as questioning state affairs could lead to the mobilization of desperately-needed adjustments in the political field, so could being critical  private issues change the domestic scene and our personal lives for the better (McKee, 2004, p.47). Seen from this point of view then, Aziz Ansari could be fittingly discussed as a public intellectual for his endeavour to the exploration of modern romance, while being personal, deserves attention in the public sphere; thus it is this alternative conceptualisation of the public sphere that this study seeks to follow. 

Back to top

Modern public intellectuals: An investigation

In the following paragraphs, using Heynders’ theoretical writings on public intellectuals (2016), I will examine Aziz Ansari’s overall construction of his public persona, as observed from two of his selected media performances, i.e., his comedy specials available on Netflix (Aziz Ansari | Buried Alive, Aziz Ansari Live at Madison Square Garden, & Aziz Ansari: Right Now) and his literary work (Modern Romance: An Investigation).

Back to top

Comedy Specials

As his original site of operation, Ansari’s comedy specials not only serve as showcases for his excellence when it comes to employing theatricality and rhetorical strategies, but offered us a preliminary glimpse into his conception of modern romance and marriage, which, as we shall observe, would be further translated into his other media performances. 

First and foremost, it is telling that, in the two comedy specials, Aziz Ansari chose to outfit himself in fine-tailored suits, creating a twofold impression, i.e., on the one hand, the chosen attire signifies the comedian’s established authority in the field and is emblematic of his professionalism, which in turn produce the connotation that Ansari is an artist that takes his craft seriously; on the other hand, through the formal apparel, the comedian bring forth the image of the gentleman, which not only connects thematically to the topic of his routine, but builds a form of manufactured credibility on which he could effectively express his ideas on modern romance to his audience.

. In the segment, we are able to observe the silhouette of the comedian emerging against the backdrop of a vermillion rising sun, accompanied by a western soundtrack. The image bears resemblance to a legendary western gunslinger, rising at the dawn of an era, seeking to bring his own brand of justice to a collapsing society; through this romanticized scene, Ansari drew upon a  between his role as a modern comedian intellectual aspiring to enlighten the public to issues of general concern with the iconic western dramatis personae.  

Back to top

Aziz Ansari | Buried Alive

In this 2013 comedy special, I would like to examine the first few minutes of the comedian’s routine on online dating, for the segment somewhat exemplifies how Ansari formulates his arguments in his sets. In this bit, the comedian sets up this routine with an initial inquiry,  

“Where do you meet this person? I think it’s very hard to meet someone you really connect with, that you really feel a deep connection with. I think that’s hard. I don’t think those people just come around all the time”(Ansari, 2013).

Here Ansari introduced a hypophorical question which would serve as a premise that eventually led us to the main event, i.e., his observations vis-à-vis online dating. The humorist would however, first take a detour and lay out the contemporary setting in which online dating practices emerge:

“I think it’s a very special thing. And I think it’s very hard to find, especially nowadays. I mean, yes, there’s great people around, but, man, there is so much riffraff out there right now. The percentage of riffraff has never been higher. It’s very high” (Ansari, 2013).

To illustrate his argument that there exists an increase in the amount of unsavory people among modernites in the dating scene, the comedian ma use of a comical simile between different generations and contrasting styles of fonts, 

“Maybe I’m romanticizing the past, but you think about like older generations, you know, people in their 20s– 60s, whatever. You just imagine a different vibe. You know, imagine men wearing nice suits, women are dressed all nice, everyone’s speaking properly– just a classier vibe. Like if those generations could be a font they would be 'Times New Roman'. I look at my generation… We’re fucking Comic Sans. You can’t take us seriously. We’re Comic Sans. People that are single and out there, you know what I’m talking about? You go out with people sometimes and you’re just like, 'What, you’re a person?!' 'Hold up. You’re a person?'” (Ansari, 2013).

Following his exposition of modern times, Ansari delved into the meat of his routine, online dating.  an exemplar anecdote from a conversation he once had with his friend,

“I have a friend, he met his wife on one of those sites and I asked him, I was like, ‘So, what’d you search?’ ‘Cause that’s weirdly romantic. He types in this phrase, all these algorithms and things come together, this woman’s face comes up, he clicks it… that becomes the woman he spends the rest of his life with. So I asked him, ‘What’d you search?’ And he goes, ‘Jewish and my zip code'” (Ansari, 2013).

Here Ansari set up an antithesis that created a humorous contrast between his preconceptions and the eccentric reality of online dating. His delivery of the punchline, “Jewish and my zip code” also underscored this peculiarity, utilising an unjustifiably confident voice to indicate his friend’s  of the idiosyncrasy of online dating. Finally, in the concluding note of this initial bit, to further highlight its bizarreness and add a final comedic touch, the humorist turned to an analogy between how the friend had found the love of his life via online dating and how he tracked down a fast food restaurant: 

“Jewish and my zip– I found a Wendy’s that way a few weeks ago! I typed Wendy’s and my zip code then I got some nuggets, he got a wife the exact same way!” (Ansari, 2013).

Back to top

Aziz Ansari Live at Madison Square Garden

Another technique that Ansari often utilized in his comedy sets is improvised crowd work, the brilliance of which is on full display in this segment from this comedy special that was shot in 2015.   text message conversations in the dating scene and what he believes to be the three suboptimal methods single individuals use to reject someone to whom they do not feel attracted, i.e., pretending to be busy, silence, and being honest, the comedian invited an audience who had been engaging in such interactions to share her own history of text message conversations with a potential romantic interest, which would be recited and commented on by Ansari, 

“All right, so how long ago did you meet this person? Uh, September 2nd. September 2nd. Okay, so let’s see what happened, okay? So… he sends the first message. He sends it Tuesday, September 2nd at 11:26 p.m. Odd time to send a first message. He says, ‘Hey, Ashley, dot-dot-dot, it’s Chris.’ He said his last name, but I don’t wanna repeat it in case he gets murdered. ‘Hey, Ashley, dot-dot-dot.’ I like that, ‘dot-dot-dot.’ ‘Hey, Ashley…’ ‘It’s Chris’ (in a charming voice)” (Ansari, 2015).

It might be said that in this particular crowd work, Ansari utilized two interconnected strategies for comedic effects. Firstly, Ansari organically implemented ad-lib responses based on the details that he noticed upon examination of the source material (odd time to send the initial message, Chris mentioning his last name, & the “dot-dot-dot”).

While all of his reactions to the material were capable to evoke laughter from the crowd, it is the last observation, the “dot-dot-dot”, that Ansari would utilize in the following dramatic scene work to engage the audience, namely, he employed a exaggeratedly seductive and charismatic voice to narrate the text messages from Chris, which served to dramatize the character and create the initial impression of a confident and charming man. This conception was immediately shattered however,

“It was nice to hang– It was– It started so smooth. ‘Hey, Ashley, dot-dot-dot, it’s Chris.’ And then he goes, ‘It was nice to hanging with you…’ (in a goofy voice). Chris, no! Proofread! ‘It was nice to–’ His voice changes for the rest of the bit now, after that. Earlier, it was, ‘Hey, Ashley, it’s Chris’ (in a charming voice). Now it’s, ‘Hey, Ashley, it’s Chris. It was nice to hanging with you at BM. Hope you’re recovering well. Let’s grab a coffee sometime’ (in a goofy voice)" (Ansari, 2015).

Upon noticing the grammatical error situated in the second half of Chris’ initial text message, the comedian immediately changed the tone of the scene work. Instead of continuing with the previously utilised charismatic voice to depict Chris, he opted for a goofy nasal voice painted the picture of an unintelligent, unconfident male which is unattractive to say the least.

This shift in voice was again highlighted via an antithetical structure, in which the contrast between the charming, confident Chris and the goofy, unappealing Chris was on full display. This sequence had a twofold effect: on the one hand, it showed that writing grammatically incorrect text messages during the initial romantic pursuit could lead to disastrous consequences; on the other hand, the scene could be considered as a realistic commentary on text message interaction in the modern dating world, which has its own convention where individuals who engage with such practices are required to act in accordance. 

As Heynders (2016) has suggested, the public intellectual must possess two forms of cultural capital so as to posit themselves in front of the public and take an alternative stance on societal issues. On the one hand, in order for public intellectuals to assert their places in the public sphere, they must have already gained considerable prestige in their original field. Whether such prestige is based on “an (academic) education or specialisation” or “artistic achievements”, public intellectuals’ interventions and addressings of a particular issue of general concern are grounded on the basis of this “cultural authority”.

On the other hand, public intellectuals, by the very inclusion of the word “public”, means that they must negotiate their public presences in front of a broader public; this means that it is also necessary for public intellectuals to possess “the talent to give a broad, contestable, popularising, and new perspective on issues of public interests” (p.21).

In line with Heynders’ formulation then, in the case of Aziz Ansari, it might be contended that, as we have observed through his performances in the two comedy specials, the comedian’s commanding theatricality alongside the masterful use of rhetorical devices and engaging crowd works serve as exemplary demonstrations of not only Ansari’s cultural authority based on his artistic achievements in the comedy field but his talents in publicizing his ideas in a digestible and relatable manner, both of which function as a foundation for Ansari’s other media interventions within the public sphere.   

Back to top

Modern Romance: An Investigation

As we already established, a public intellectual can come from a variety of backgrounds. That being said, they must “write and put their ideas into words” in order for them to qualify as such (Heynders, 2016, p.22). In the case of Aziz Ansari, the literary manifestation of his ideas could be located in his 2015 work Modern Romance: An investigation.

The most illustrative example of Ansari’s c on modern romance could be uncovered in the third chapter of Modern Romance titled Online Dating. In this segment, in similar veins with his comedy specials, Ansari first introduces the topic by offering his personal opinion online dating.

Here the comedian mainly made one argument, that is, while he himself feels hesitant to try online dating as a public figure, his presence on online dating websites might attract unsuspected stalkers, he do acknowledge its prevalence in the modern dating scene and think it is a “beautiful and fascinating thing”. It is also interesting to note that to illustrate what he found beautiful and fascinating about online dating, the comedian utilized the aforementioned “Jewish and my zip code” story, as seen from his 2013 comedy special:

“It’s an amazing series of events: He types in this phrase, all these random factors and algorithms come together, this woman’s face comes up, he clicks it, he sends a message, and then eventually that woman becomes the person he spends the rest of his life with. Now they’re married and have a kid. A life. A new life was created because one moment, years ago, he decided to type ‘Jewish 90046’† and hit ‘enter’” (Ansari, 2015, p.71).

Followingly, Ansari delved into the emergence of online dating, charting out a comprehensive history of dating services from classified advertisements, video dating, to computer dating services. This historical overview a often accompanied by individual case studies, in which the comedian selected and examined pieces of texts from individuals who made use of these antiquated services. It is also interesting to note that the tone of the comedian’s analysis bears resembles to his comedy act rather than the detached impersonal style of academic writing:

“'SEEKING ADVENTURE?? Divorced Jewish male, 49, enjoys sailing, hiking, biking, camping, travel, art, music, French and Spanish. Seeking a woman who’s looking for a long-term relationship and who shares some of these interests. Be bold—call right now! Chicago Reader Box XXXXX.' 

There’s a lot in this ad that will look familiar to today’s online daters. Ed gives his status, religion, age, and personal interests. We get a sense that he’s pretty cosmopolitan, and there’s even a promise of adventure if we dare to be bold. (Nice move, Ed!)" (Ansari, 2015, p.74).

In this segment, Ansari mainly aimed to chart out how online dating has influenced the means through which individuals met their spouses.

To achieve this, the comedian posited himself as a detached intellectual, referring to the work of Cacioppo and Rosenfeld, two relevant scholars in , to construct his own objective interpretation on the subject matter. This disinterestedness reminiscent of academic writing could also be observed in the comedian’s acknowledgement and response of the criticisms surrounding Cacioppo’s statistics (2013) on how Americans met their spouses :

“Cacioppo’s findings are so shocking that many pundits questioned their validity, or else argued that the researchers were biased because they were funded by an online dating company. But the truth is that the findings are largely consistent with those of Stanford University sociologist Michael Rosenfeld, who has done more than anyone to document the rise of Internet dating and the decline of just about every other way of connecting. His survey, ‘How Couples Meet and Stay Together,’ is a nationally representative study of four thousand Americans, 75 percent married or in a romantic relationship and 25 percent single. It asked adults of all ages how they met their romantic partners, and since some of the respondents were older, the survey allows us to see how things varied among different periods” (Ansari, 2015, p.79).

That being said, Ansari also occasionally deviated from this intellectual position; instead choosing a more playful voice bringing to audiences’ mind his background as a comedian:

“Another popular way partners found each other in 1990 was when a man would yell something to the effect of ‘Hey, girl, come back here with that fine butt that’s in them fly-ass acid-washed jeans and let me take you to a Spin Doctors/Better Than Ezra concert.’ The woman, flattered by the attention and the opportunity to see one of the preeminent musical acts of the era, would quickly oblige. This is how roughly 6 percent of couples formed. To be clear, this is just a guess on my part and has nothing to do with Mr. Rosenfeld’s research” (Ansari, 2015, p.81).

What may be laid bare here is a tension inherent within the model of public intellectuals, i.e., while on the one hand, in offering criticism and alternative visions, public intellectuals must situate themselves in a position of detachment, taking an “analytical or comparative perspective towards an issue, distancing oneself from the ongoing debate and as such establish a corrective view” (Collini, 2009, p.61, cited in Heynders, 2016, p.22), on the other hand, since public intellectuals have to spread “communicable knowledge” to a broad public, they must translate their works into “insights that the general public can understand” (Heynders, 2016, p.22).

In other words, the public intellectual, by its very definition, is a contradictory one, i.e., whilst a certain level of autonomy obtained from taking an objective stance towards subject matters is necessary in the formulation of an uncomforming opinion (intellectual), the transferring of a conception into a digestible one for public consumption (public) implies that such intellectual position is at times compromised for the popularization of ideas. 

As we have observed in previous paragraphs, the comedian faile to commit to a purely analytical intellectual position; instead occasionally resorting to playful commentaries of examined materials, whether that being cited statistics or presented case studies; this failure, following Heynders (2016), may be an intentional one made in an effort to reach a wider public.

More importantly however, the fact that Ansari employed two contrasting composition styles, with one bearing resemblance to an intellectual in academia formulating their perspective in a detached position, and the other an unique playfulness attached to the comedian which has already been proven to be effective in reaching the broad public, as seen from his comedy routines, may potentially serves as indications for his engagement with the public intellectual model. 

Back to top

The Babe Story

So far our investigation of Aziz Ansari’s persona through the lens of the public intellectual has been focusing on his media performances as observed from the comedy specials and literary writings. However, as Jérôme Meizoz has suggested, a persona, or posture, is “not uniquely an author’s own construction, but an interactive process: the image is co-constructed by the author and various mediators (journalists, criticism, biographies) serving the reading public” (2010, p.85).

Similarly, Heynders also argued that the role of the public intellectual is not merely “funded on cultural authority and autonomy or on rational argumentation and independence”, but influenced by a “vertical engagement with the public” (Baert and Shipman, 2013, p.44, cited in Heynders, 2016, p.12) that entails “the acceptance by and persuasion of the audience(s), as well as participation in the sense that dialogues and responses emerge in two directions, from speaker to addressee and vice versa” (Heynders, 2016, p.12). In other words, a proper examination of Ansari’s persona through the public intellectual framework not only needs to bear in mind the public figure’s various media performances, but also take whether the public recognise the figure as such into consideration. 

In the case of Aziz Ansari, we are able to observe an event which leads to a clas; which in turn compromises his public intellectual position. On 13 January, 2018, Katie Way published an exposé on Babe.net titled “I went on a date with Aziz Ansari. It turned into the worst night of my life”. In the piece, the writer detailed the story of Ansari’s alleged sexual misconduct against a woman referred to in the article by the pseudonym, Grace. According to Grace, after meeting at the 2017 Emmy Awards after-party, the two went on a date on 25 September, 2017. On the date, the comedian, despite Grace’s use of “verbal and non-verbal cues to indicate how uncomfortable and distressed she was”, continuously pressed her into having intercourse with him (Way, 2018). 

Considering that Ansari has been an outspoken figure on feminism and public intellectual whose most prominent topic being modern romance, the incident directly undermines the legitimacy of his role in the public sphere. It is important to note that such perception is also similarly highlighted not only in the original Babe article, but several journalistic coverages and opinion pieces of the controversial revelation (see Framke, 2018; Stefansky, 2018; & Silman, 2018). 

 

Two days after Way’s article was published, Ansari issued an official statement:

“In September of last year, I met a woman at a party. We exchanged numbers. We texted back and forth and eventually went on a date. We went out to dinner, and afterwards we ended up engaging in sexual activity, which by all indications was completely consensual. 

The next day, I got a text from her saying that although ‘it may have seemed okay,’ upon further reflection, she felt uncomfortable. It was true that everything did seem okay to me, so when I heard that it was not the case for her, I was surprised and concerned. I took her words to heart and responded privately after taking the time to process what she had said. 

I continue to support the movement that is happening in our culture. It is necessary and long overdue” (Ansari, 2018, cited in Plaugic, 2018).

Almost a year after Way’s exposé, Ansari released a new comedy special on Netflix titled “Aziz Ansari: Right Now” in which the comedian publicly addresses the controversy. There are two main points of consideration in this special. Firstly, unlike his previous comedy performances, the comedian’s choice of attire is rather casual, choosing to wear a Metallica t-shirt and a pair of jeans instead of outfitting himself in fine tailored suits that exhibit his cultural capital as an established comedian and a specialist on modern romance; thereby demonstrating sincerity and authenticity.

Secondly, the comedy set to a certain extent is threaded thematically together based on the comedian’s reflections in regard to Grace’s allegations. One of the routines that exemplifies this thematic tie-in could be identified in a bit at the midpoint of this special, which focuses on his story about visiting his grandmother who has been suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. After detailing the interaction between him and his grandmother during his visit, the comedian offers this piece of reflection:

“When you’re younger and you meet people that old, you only knew them in the deteriorated state, right? Like, if you ever met your great-grandma, the first time you met her, she was like, ‘Aah!’ Uh, ‘Hi, Great-grandma Carol.’ You didn’t know her when she was jumping rope or whatever. Like, you only knew her as this Star Wars villain-type person. But now, you see that change. It’s very scary. ‘Cause you realize that’s coming for us all, right? It’s coming for us. It’s coming for our parents. That’s when it gets scary, right? You start thinking about your folks. I’m very lucky, both of my parents are still alive and well, still have it all up here. And I completely take it for granted. I don’t call ’em enough. I don’t see ’em enough. You see your folks enough? How often do you see them? What, two or three times a year? What have they got left? Maybe 20 years? That’s… 60 more times you get to see ’em. That’s it. Sixty more times. Sixty more hangs. Are you making the most of these hangs? Are you creating cherished memories?” (Ansari, 2019).

This reflection serves as a callback for the final moments of this special, in which the comedian contemplates upon his life after the controversy. Here Asnari ultimately clues in the audience  the main theme of this comedy special, namely that upon realizing that his career could end at any given moment, he becomes more appreciative of what he possesses and intends to live in the moment. The concluding remark is sincere and intimate; earning a standing ovation from the audience: 

“I didn’t really think about what it means that all you guys came out … And it means the world to me, ’cause… I saw the world… where I don’t ever get to do this again. And… it almost felt like I’d died. In a way… I did. That old Aziz who said, ‘Oh, treat yo’ self,’ whatever, he’s dead. But I’m glad… ’cause that guy… was always looking forward… to whatever was next. ‘Oh, am I gonna do another tour? Am I gonna do another season of the show?’ Blah, blah, blah. I don’t think that way anymore. ‘Cause I’ve realized… it’s all ephemeral. All that stuff… it can just go away… like this… And all we really have… is the moment we’re in… and the people we’re with.

Now, I talked about my grandma earlier, and it was sad. But what I didn’t tell you was the whole time when I was with her, she was smiling, she was laughing, she was there with me. She was present in a way no other people I’ve been around recently have been. I’ve tried to take that with me. And Granny, my grandma, doesn’t have much choice in this matter. But I do. And that’s how I choose to live, in the moment I’m in with the people I’m with. And right now, this is our moment, right? … So, you know what? Why don’t we all just take it in for just a second? And on that, I’ll say good night, and thank you very, very much. Thank you” (Ansari, 2019).

All in all, what might be observed here is Ansari’s reactionary stance towards an incident that could potentially damage his position as a public intellectual. Namely, the controversy directly compromises his cultural authority as a prestigious comedian who possesses keen insights on modern romance; as such, the comedian employs an alternative, modest and sincere tone in response to public criticisms. I believe there are two items for consideration:

On the one hand, one needs to bear in mind that while the overall tone of the comedian’s performance is sincere and authentic, such stance in itself entails theatricality and the utilisation of rhetorical strategies; thereby pointing again to the comedian’s capacity to express his ideas to the broad public in a manner, which as previously established, is a necessary faculty for public intellectuals. On the other hand, in line with both Meizoz’s and Heynders’ contention, the examined information cycle between journalists and the public figure rightfully illustrates the intertwining of one’s conscious construction of a persona as a public intellectual and potential contestations from mediators within the public sphere; which in turn leads to reclaibration in terms of how he/she asserts their place in a given field. 

Back to top

Aziz Ansari and the Public Intellctual

This article aims to lay bare the interrelation between comedians and the public intellectual theoretical model. While previous discussions have been fixated on whether comedians could be fittingly discussed as public intellectuals judging from their comedy performances, I have instead opted to investigate such connection from a multimedial perspective by taking into account both the comedy routines and literary works from Aziz Ansari in our case study.  identified three main points of consideration. Firstly, in terms of his original site of operation, i.e, the comedy sets, one could observe that Ansari utilised theatricality and calculated sets of rhetorical strategies to the fullest, which not only serves as indications for his cultural authority within the comedy field (through which he could intervene in public debate) but points to his talents in communicating his ideas in a digestible manner (a faculty essential for public intellectuals for they have to communicate their ideas to the general public). 

Secondly, regarding Ansari’s literary work, Modern Romance: An Investigation, we have identified a sense of tension commonly found within engagements with the public intellectual model. Namely, while intellectuals could comfortably assert a detached position on the basis of which objective analysis and rational argumentation could be achieved, public intellectuals often fail to completely commit to a disinterested position owing to their alternative endeavours in comprehensively addressing issues of general concern to the broad public. 

Last but not least, following Meizoz (2010), we dived into the Babe exposé. As I have contended, the published allegations of sexual misconduct could be considered a controversy that led to public contestations of Aziz Ansari’s established cultural authority through which he had been able to address a particular issue of general concern, i.e., modern romance; such dissension regarding the legitimacy of his role in the public sphere in turn result in a shift in Ansari’s utilised strategies in the construction of his public image.

All things considered, while it might be difficult to reach a decisive conclusion with regard to whether Aziz Ansari could be viewed as a public intellectual for, as our examination of the Garber vs. Bruenig debate has laid bare, more often than not such question of either or engages in a dichotomy that fails to holistically capture the creation of one’s public image, nonetheless, the model of the public intellectual serves well as a heuristic framework that sheds light on the intricate strategies and complex negotiations inherent within the establishment of Aziz Ansari’s public persona. 

Back to top

References

Ansari, A. (2013). Aziz Ansari | Buried alive. Netflix. 

Ansari, A. (2015). Aziz Ansari Live at Madison Square Garden. Netflix. 

Ansari, A. (2019). Aziz Ansari: Right Now. Netflix.

Ansari, A. (2015). Modern romance: An investigation. London, England: Penguin Group.

Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Baert, P. & Shipman, A. (2013). The rise of the embedded intellectual: New forms of public engagement and critique. In P. Thijssen, W. Weyns, C. Timmerman, & S. Mels (Eds.), New Public Spheres: Recontextualising the Intellectual. Farnham, England: Ashgate. 

Becker, C. (1997). The artist as public intellectual. In H.A. Giroux & P. Shannon (Eds.), Education and Cultural Studies: Toward a Performative Practice. London, England: Routledge. 

Bruenig, E. (2015). Comedians are funny, not public intellectuals. The New Republic.

Collini, S. (2009). Absent minds: Intellectuals in Britain. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 

Czajkowski, E. (2015). The evolution of Aziz Ansari. Vulture.

Garber, M. (2015). How comedians became public intellectuals. The Atlantic.

Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of Bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. 

Heynders, O. (2016). Writers as public intellectuals. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kushins, J. (2006). Recognising artists as public intellectuals: A pedagogical imperative. CultureWork, 10 (2), pp. 1-5.

McKee, A. (2004). The public sphere: An introduction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Meizoz, J. (2010). Modern Posterities of Posture. Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In G.J. Dorleijn, R. Grüttemeier, & L.K. Altes (Eds.), Authorship Revisited. Conceptions of Authorship around 1900 and 2000. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press.

Plaugic, L. (2018). Aziz Ansari responds to allegations of sexual misconduct. The Verge.

Way, K. (2018). I went on a date with Aziz Ansari. It turned into the worst night of my life. Babe.

Back to top