From Academia to Algorithms: Digital Cultural Capital of Public Intellectuals in the Age of Platformization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article constitutes an interesting piece of work about the translation of the traditional concept of cultural capital to contemporary digitally mediated societies. Particularly, it discusses the changes in the production and distribution of academic cultural capital by mediation of social media and digital platforms, which has changed the way in which academics produce, value, and get recognized for their research. Although the contribution of the authors is exclusively theoretical, a few examples of cases (figures and academics) are presented to show the relevance of digital social media in the popularization of academic research nowadays. 

On the other hand, the authors admit that this paper is not a exhaustive revision of the literature but a discussion of the concept of cultural capital, originally developed by Bourdieu. Nevertheless, the paper is interesting and could be used to propose contextually situated research projects about the influence of scientific and academic figures in different geographical and cultural contexts. To achieve that, I propose the following suggestions to the authors, which I believe would improve the quality of the contribution of the paper:

1. In the first part of the article, the authors claim that new forms of digital cultural capital can be linked with Bourdieu’s notion of institutionalized cultural capital, since it is rooted in symbolic legitimacy and recognition. Nevertheless, in the rest of the paper the authors didn’t explore this line of tough, so I think it would be interesting to go deeper in this conceptualization of digital cultural capital in academic research as a form of institutionalized cultural capital from bottom, based on social media mediations and horizontal relations among users of digital platforms.
2. In the introduction, the authors propose to include some examples outside the western academia to de-colonized traditional ethnocentric approaches to knowledge. Nevertheless, during the paper the presentation of examples is scarce and most of the discussion is produced on a theoretical bases, with just a few cases superficially described, such as the controversies related to Jordan Peterson and Zizek and the influence of feminist figures such as Butler or Chizuko Ueno. Even if the objectives of the paper are mainly theoretical, developing these examples of cases of viralization of digital cultural capital in academic research could improve the quality of the text and its connection with further empirical research which could be developed based on authors’ thesis.
3. The notion of cultural capital from below seems quite appealing and interesting, and the authors present some positive aspects of it (horizontality, interpersonal recognition, etc.) as well as some negative concerns, mainly related to populism and the reproduction of inequalities among digital platforms. I believe that it would be interesting to describe better those risks, particularly the ways in which digital promotion of certain academics and profiles in a capitalist digital landascape could reproduce or even amplify digital inequalities among Academia, since traditional forms of selection and proficiency are entangled with new criteria based on likes, transference of knowledge or possibility to gain investments and funds for the institution.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and review my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive comments, which have significantly helped me improve the clarity, depth, and relevance of the paper. Please find below my point-by-point responses. Each comment is followed by a brief explanation of the revisions made and the corresponding passage from the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 1:

“The paper is interesting and could be used to propose contextually situated research projects about the influence of scientific and academic figures in different geographical and cultural contexts.”

 

Response:

Thank you for highlighting this important contribution. I have revised the conclusion (pp. 34–35) to explicitly propose future research directions that engage with cross-regional comparisons. I emphasize the need for studying public intellectuals in the Global South or within marginalized communities to deepen our understanding of how platform logics, censorship, and audience expectations shape academic influence in non-Western contexts.

 

Revised Passage (pp. 34–35):

“To build on this framework, future research should explore how digital cultural capital is negotiated across different geopolitical and cultural contexts. Examining scholars in the Global South or within marginalized communities—where platform logics, state censorship, and audience expectations differ—will allow for more contextually situated insights. This forward-looking agenda can strengthen the comparative dimension of public intellectual studies and deepen our understanding of how academic and scientific influence is shaped beyond Western-centric cases. Eventually, comparative research across geopolitical contexts is necessary to test and refine the conceptual frameworks developed in this article. How does code-switching operate across linguistic ecologies? What forms of cultural capital from below emerge under different platform ecologies and media infrastructures? Such cross-contextual work would allow us to move beyond anecdotal examples and toward a broader theorization of digital knowledge mobilization.”

 

Comment 2:

“It would be interesting to go deeper in this conceptualization of digital cultural capital in academic research as a form of institutionalized cultural capital from bottom, based on social media mediations and horizontal relations among users of digital platforms.”

 

Response:

I appreciate this suggestion to deepen the theoretical discussion. I have revised the section on page 15 to more explicitly articulate how the concept of “institutionalization” is redefined in the context of platformized digital culture. Instead of formal institutions, symbolic legitimacy is now often conferred by peer-based visibility metrics on platforms.

 

Revised Passage (p. 15):

“Similarly, visibility metrics operate symbolically: they are accumulated, displayed, and interpreted as indicators of worth, functioning like citations or impact factors in academia. However, digital cultural capital transforms the meaning of “institutionalized.” Traditionally, institutionalization referred to recognition by established bodies like universities. Today, it is increasingly shaped by the intangible authority of platforms, where visibility metrics serve as new forms of credentials.”

 

Comment 3:

“Developing examples of cases of viralization of digital cultural capital in academic research could improve the quality of the text and its connection with further empirical research.”

 

Response:

Thank you for this recommendation. While I chose not to include many case studies to preserve conceptual clarity, I have expanded one example to better illustrate the argument and connect with potential empirical research. The case of Simon Shen has been added on pages 19–20 to show how digital cultural capital is built through strategic engagement with platform logics.

 

Revised Passage (pp. 19–20):

“A comparable yet distinct case is Simon Shen (沈旭暉), a Hong Kong political scientist who has maintained his scholarly output while actively cultivating a public presence on social media platforms including Facebook, YouTube, and Patreon. By launching the YouTube channel “Simon Global” in 2020, Shen adapted his pedagogical expertise into affective and accessible content tailored for broader Chinese-speaking publics. His videos span geopolitical commentary, cultural critique, and diasporic reflection. Shen’s influence arises from horizontal peer recognition—an audience-driven legitimacy characteristic of cultural capital from below. His success also reveals an acute attunement to platform logics: although he aspires to produce theoretically rich and long-term content, he acknowledged that breaking news and emotionally resonant topics drive more engagement under YouTube’s algorithmic regime. This strategic alignment with platform incentives—while maintaining a careful balance between political critique and depoliticized tone—illustrates the double bind facing public intellectuals: to remain visible, they must continuously negotiate between algorithmic demands and intellectual integrity. Shen’s case thus underscores the performative and precarious labor required to sustain digital cultural capital in politically sensitive and platformized environments.”

 

Comment 4:

“I believe that it would be interesting to describe better those risks, particularly the ways in which digital promotion of certain academics and profiles in a capitalist digital landscape could reproduce or even amplify digital inequalities among Academia.”

 

Response:

Thank you for pointing out this important concern. I have clarified in the revised manuscript (pp. 26–27) that my focus is less on inequalities within academia and more on the politics of visibility on platforms—namely, which educational voices are amplified or suppressed. I frame the issue as one of scholarly inclusivity and algorithmic favoritism.

 

Revised Passage (pp. 26–27):

“One of the key characteristics of cultural capital from below is its reliance on emotional resonance, authenticity, and perceived accessibility. It privileges charisma over expertise and popularity over deliberation. In this regard, cultural capital from below aligns with broader populist tendencies, where authority is legitimized through perceived proximity to “the people” rather than through elite knowledge systems. This alignment can lead to the marginalization of dissenting or intellectually challenging voices, not because they lack substance, but because they are less algorithmically favorable or affectively appealing. In such environments, visibility is governed by the logics of popularity. Content that reflects mainstream sentiments is more likely to be recommended, circulated, and monetized. Public intellectuals who echo dominant public opinions or offer entertaining and emotionally charged performances gain traction more easily than those who challenge prevailing assumptions. What emerges is thus not a neutral marketplace of ideas but a stratified field in which agreement with the public confers visibility, while disagreement incurs invisibility.”

 

Thank you again for your generous and thoughtful review. I hope these revisions address your comments and strengthen the overall contribution of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article discusses the position and activity of public intellectuals in the age of platformization. It uses the theory of capitals (Bourdieu) to explain the transformation of roles of public intellectuals and the emergence of so-called ‘’digital cultural capital.’’ The author then draws on different theoretical backgrounds, including marketing and celebrity studies.

The author claims that the article is conceptual-argumentative, supported by illustrative examples. The article is based on extensive literature and offers several important starting points for discussions of the roles and activities of public intellectuals in contemporary societies and digitalized public spheres.

The article could benefit from some minor changes to improve clarity and focus in the argument. Namely, the main goal of the article seems not to be fully coordinated, and it includes several different perspectives. For example, in the abstract, the author claims that the article addresses three questions:

• How traditional cultural capital transforms digitally;
• How public intellectuals accumulate digital cultural capital;
• And whether knowledge production and consumption on platforms reproduce inequalities.

In the introduction chapter, the author introduces additional concepts that are supposed to be in the forefront of the article, namely scholars who promote political agendas through digital platforms, framing them as public intellectuals; knowledge mobilization; and platform logics.

I would suggest improving the clarity and focus of the article.

Furthermore, the article would benefit from a more specific definition of who the author sees as public intellectuals when discussing the above-mentioned questions. It is not really clear if the article talks about academic researchers, only academic researchers who promote political agendas, or also ''journalists, artists, filmmakers, and more.''

Overall, the argument of transforming cultural capital to digital cultural capital and how public intellectuals accumulate it is interesting and well explained. The argument about reproducing inequalities seems more general and less theoretically supported. It is not entirely clear which inequalities are observed. The author mainly speaks about the inequality and lack of inclusivity between the public intellectuals (the author speaks about educational YouTubers to illustrate this point), while the general question is framed so that the reader assumes the article will speak about social (or economic) inequalities.

The article importantly points out that platform logic often offers more visibility to emotional content compared to factual content (here, the concept of post-factual society could be included). However, the connection of this with some concepts, such as inequality reproduction, knowledge democratization, and populism, is a bit too general and would require more concrete elaboration and theoretical support.

Last but not least, the article mentions political activism of public intellectuals on several points. However, it is not entirely clear if the argument of the author is that platforms inevitably lead to political activism of public intellectuals or if they enable some public intellectuals to exploit their legitimacy and visibility for political activism. This needs to be explained more clearly and less equivocally.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and review my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive comments, which have significantly helped me improve the clarity, depth, and relevance of the paper. Please find below my point-by-point responses. Each comment is followed by a brief explanation of the revisions made and the corresponding passage from the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 1:

“The main goal of the article seems not to be fully coordinated, and it includes several different perspectives.”

 

Response:

Thank you for this important observation. I have revised the core argument on page 6 to better consolidate the article’s focus around the concept of digital cultural capital from below and the risks it entails, particularly the rise of populism in online knowledge mobilization.

 

Revised Passage (p. 6):

“Ultimately, I propose that degrees, publications, and citations alone cannot sustain public intellectual influence. They must practice “code-switching” (Gumperz and Hymes 1972; DiMaggio 1982), mastering vernacular language to connect with broader audiences. Additionally, visibility metrics form “cultural capital from below”—a form of recognition not granted by academic institutions but earned through affective engagement, peer interaction, and public validation (Beel and Wallace 2020). This bottom-up capital emerges from horizontal networks and everyday publics, rather than top-down accreditation, making it especially relevant in platformized spaces where audience responsiveness outweighs credentialed authority. It thus redistributes symbolic power, enabling scholars to gain influence through resonance and relationality rather than institutional endorsement, ultimately disrupting elitist hierarchies of knowledge production. However, this dynamic also opens knowledge mobilization to the risks of populism, where platform algorithms may reward oversimplification, sensationalism, or conformity to dominant affective trends, thereby reproducing new exclusions.”

 

Comment 2:

“Improving the clarity and focus of the article in the abstract and the introduction.”

 

Response:

In response, I revised the abstract (pp. 1–2) to include key terms such as knowledge mobilization and to clarify the guiding research questions. I now explicitly highlight the risks of knowledge mobilization on social media platforms, helping to sharpen the article’s conceptual coherence from the outset.

 

Revised Passage (pp. 1–2):

“Scholars traditionally hold influential positions due to their cultural capital, derived from academic degrees, scholarly publications, and professional credentials. However, the rise of digital platforms has disrupted this hierarchy, placing scholars into new roles as online public intellectuals who engage in political advocacy and mobilize knowledge through public discourse. This transformation calls attention to how public intellectuals’ visibility and influence have become entangled with platform logics, leading to a reconsideration of “digital cultural capital.” Drawing theoretical insights from critical platform studies, celebrity studies, and marketing research, this article conceptually addresses three questions: (1) how traditional cultural capital transforms digitally; (2) how public intellectuals accumulate digital cultural capital; and (3) what are the risks of knowledge mobilization on platforms? This article proposes that traditional academic credentials are no longer sufficient to maintain public intellectuals’ influence, whereas visibility metrics—such as views, likes, shares, and follower counts—emerge as a digital form of “cultural capital from below.” Public intellectuals, thus, must engage in “code-switching” to navigate platform-mediated knowledge mobilization. Nevertheless, the populist tendencies embedded in cultural capital from below and the platform algorithms that enable it risk marginalizing less visible knowledge forms. Eventually, this article calls for future empirical research on how digital cultural capital and code-switching operate across geopolitical contexts, particularly within marginalized communities shaped by distinct platform logics and populist dynamics.”

 

Comment 3:

“The article would benefit from a more specific definition of who the author sees as public intellectuals when discussing the above-mentioned questions. It is not really clear if the article talks about academic researchers, only academic researchers who promote political agendas, or also 'journalists, artists, filmmakers, and more.'”

 

Response:

Thank you for raising this important issue. I now define my usage of “public intellectuals” more clearly on pages 2–3, specifying that my focus is on academic scholars who strategically use their institutional legitimacy and digital visibility to engage in political advocacy.

 

Revised Passage (pp. 2–3):

“This article discusses scholars from various fields who promote political agendas through digital platforms, framing them as public intellectuals. They manage their own social media or appear via other influencers’ accounts. The sociology of ideas has a long history of studying public intellectuals (Mills 1958; Lamont 2010; Gross 2002). Nowadays, the definition expands to include journalists, artists, filmmakers, and more. Focusing only on academics here does not devalue other professions. Rather, this article attempts to answer how scholars mobilize knowledge in the age of platformization and link it to cultural capital, distinguishing their digital personas from academic personas. It does not argue that platforms inevitably lead scholars toward political activism, but rather that some public intellectuals strategically leverage their institutional legitimacy and digital visibility to engage in political advocacy.”

 

Comment 4:

“The argument about reproducing inequalities seems more general and less theoretically supported. It is not entirely clear which inequalities are observed.”

 

Response:

I have revised the discussion on this point to focus more specifically on the politics of visibility rather than institutional inequality. The revised version (pp. 26–27) emphasizes how algorithmic platforms marginalize certain educational voices and favor emotionally resonant, popular content.

 

Revised Passage (pp. 26–27):

“One of the key characteristics of cultural capital from below is its reliance on emotional resonance, authenticity, and perceived accessibility. It privileges charisma over expertise and popularity over deliberation. In this regard, cultural capital from below aligns with broader populist tendencies, where authority is legitimized through perceived proximity to “the people” rather than through elite knowledge systems. This alignment can lead to the marginalization of dissenting or intellectually challenging voices, not because they lack substance, but because they are less algorithmically favorable or affectively appealing. In such environments, visibility is governed by the logics of popularity. Content that reflects mainstream sentiments is more likely to be recommended, circulated, and monetized. Public intellectuals who echo dominant public opinions or offer entertaining and emotionally charged performances gain traction more easily than those who challenge prevailing assumptions. What emerges is thus not a neutral marketplace of ideas but a stratified field in which agreement with the public confers visibility, while disagreement incurs invisibility.”

 

Comment 5:

“The article importantly points out that platform logic often offers more visibility to emotional content compared to factual content (here, the concept of post-factual society could be included).”

 

Response:

I appreciate this suggestion. I have added a short discussion of the post-factual and post-truth conditions under which these dynamics operate, emphasizing how affective content circulates more widely than critical or fact-based material (pp. 29–30).

 

Revised Passage (pp. 29–30):

“These developments are further intensified under the conditions of a post-factual society and a post-truth era, in which truth claims are subordinated to emotional appeal, repetition, and ideological alignment. In such a climate, the democratization of knowledge becomes paradoxical: while more individuals can participate in knowledge production, the content that circulates most widely is often that which confirms existing beliefs rather than challenges them. Cultural capital from below is thus filtered through post-factual logics that reward affective resonance over theoretical engagement and academic depth, enabling the reproduction of content hierarchies even in the absence of formal gatekeeping. Affective feedback loops within social media platforms further reinforce emotionally charged content through algorithmic amplification, privileging visibility over veracity (Boler & Davis 2018). Public intellectuals who diverge from populist sentiment or refuse to simplify their arguments face platform invisibility, regardless of their substantive contributions.”

 

Comment 6:

“It is not entirely clear if the argument of the author is that platforms inevitably lead to political activism of public intellectuals or if they enable some public intellectuals to exploit their legitimacy and visibility for political activism.”

 

Response:

Thank you for this clarification request. I have addressed it directly in the introduction (p. 3), stating that platforms do not inevitably produce activism but rather provide opportunities for some scholars to leverage their credibility and visibility for political purposes.

 

Revised Passage (p. 3):

“It does not argue that platforms inevitably lead scholars toward political activism, but rather that some public intellectuals strategically leverage their institutional legitimacy and digital visibility to engage in political advocacy.”

 

Thank you again for your generous and thoughtful review. I hope these revisions address your comments and strengthen the overall contribution of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The paper discusses the “cultural capital” in the era of platforms and social media and the impact of the use of those technologies for knowledge. I think the topic of the paper is very interesting as it captures a very recent trend in communication.

From an overall point of view the paper is well written. My major concern is that the paper is mainly discursive and not so structured. Many topics are introduced in the paper and a structure is lacking. I would suggest to improve the introduction by giving a sort of “structure” in which the different topics are introduced and the link between them is clear. For example a table or a diagram could be introduced.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and review my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and constructive comments, which have significantly helped me improve the clarity, depth, and relevance of the paper. Please find below my point-by-point responses. Each comment is followed by a brief explanation of the revisions made and the corresponding passage from the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 1:

“My major concern is that the paper is mainly discursive and not so structured. Many topics are introduced in the paper and a structure is lacking.”

 

Response:

Thank you for this important observation. I have revised the manuscript to strengthen its structure and sharpen its focus. In particular, I re-articulated the core argument on pages 7–8, centering the paper around the concept of digital cultural capital from below and the risks associated with populism in knowledge mobilization. I also clarified how the different sections build on one another to support this argument.

 

Revised Passage (pp. 7–8):

“Ultimately, I propose that degrees, publications, and citations alone cannot sustain public intellectual influence. They must practice “code-switching” (Gumperz and Hymes 1972; DiMaggio 1982), mastering vernacular language to connect with broader audiences. Additionally, visibility metrics form “cultural capital from below”—a form of recognition not granted by academic institutions but earned through affective engagement, peer interaction, and public validation (Beel and Wallace 2020). This bottom-up capital emerges from horizontal networks and everyday publics, rather than top-down accreditation, making it especially relevant in platformized spaces where audience responsiveness outweighs credentialed authority. It thus redistributes symbolic power, enabling scholars to gain influence through resonance and relationality rather than institutional endorsement, ultimately disrupting elitist hierarchies of knowledge production. However, this dynamic also opens knowledge mobilization to the risks of populism, where platform algorithms may reward oversimplification, sensationalism, or conformity to dominant affective trends, thereby reproducing new exclusions.

Given this article’s interdisciplinary theoretical engagement, Table 1 offers a brief summary of key concepts and their relevance to this study. These terms are drawn from ongoing academic debates across multiple fields, and their definitions remain contested. The table only clarifies how each term is employed within the scope of this article, with further elaboration provided in subsequent sections.

The following sections first revisit Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory to situate scholarly visibility within celebrity culture and influencer dynamics. Then, I examine visibility metrics as digital cultural capital, emphasizing code-switching’s role in translating knowledge across platforms. Next, I analyze how relational and performative practices shape cultural capital from below through emotional engagement and vernacular legitimacy. Lastly, I highlight populist tendencies in this capital, illustrating how platform logics and algorithmic filtering may unintentionally produce a new form of exclusion in knowledge mobilization despite its bottom-up recognition promises.”

 

Comment 2:

“I would suggest to improve the introduction by giving a sort of ‘structure’ in which the different topics are introduced and the link between them is clear. For example, a table or a diagram could be introduced.”

 

Response:

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, I have added a concept summary table on page 7 to help orient readers and clarify how key theoretical terms are used throughout the paper. This table offers a concise overview of the major concepts discussed and improves the paper’s structural clarity.

 

Thank you again for your generous and thoughtful review. I hope these revisions address your comments and strengthen the overall contribution of the paper.