Shorter response

To sum up this comment in a more pithy and public manner:

1. I was aiming my comments at those who occupy the elite positions in academia and in academic sub-fields
2. I do think public intellectualism is important and meaningful to the everyday lives of people, but that this work is often relegated to the margins of academia
3. Access to the elite and influential positions and publications within academia is highly regulated with regard to academic training and theoretical orientation
4. To reach the highest levels of academia, often times one must be willing to jettison a)the time to work on social justice projects in order to focus on pubs and b)a critical theoretical orientation that may be unacceptable to certain journals and/or faculties - and even these don't guarantee access to being a "player" in the literature

From my own point of view, 95% of what I read in the core sociology journals has little relevance to my, or anyone else I know, for that matter, existence, and is often times theoretically uninteresting, and in 50% of the cases, methodologically shoddy. The work that I find important and exciting is relegated to secondary or tertiary boutique journals with little chance of influencing public debate. To me, the choice appeared to be follow my passion and risk marginalilization, or try to crash the gates of the elite (a daunting and quixotic process to begin with) by jettisoning any pretense of working for social justice in my writing so that I can be invited to the parties with the kewl kids.

Am I wrong about that?