Student Anti-Intellectualism and the Dumbing Down of the University addresses a recurring theme. I'm getting close to wrapping this up and moving on to my next topic (school reform).
Trout cavases the college scene to find out that a lot of college students don't want to go to class or do class work. I'll give you a minute to collect yourself. Trout does finally touch on the reason, but not fully. More people are going to college (60% according to the article go on to some form of college), standards are lowered, profs inflate grades to get good reviews and tenure, and no one seems to want to learn.
I don't think it's anti-intellectualism. I think, once again, too many people are in college. Sure they might have the aptitude, but if the sole reason you're in college is to get an employment certificate, you will not care about intellectual pursuits and I can't blame you. It's not anti-intellectual, it's non-intellectual.
Well, folks who know me know I intend to put my kids through private school. The more seniors I meet, the more I'm convinced the public schools in my area (considered "good" because they're above national averages) would not prepare my boys for college. If we can get them in, I want them to go to Covenant Christian Academy. Fractions in kindergarten, Latin in third grade, rhetoric, Greek in ninth grade, and average SAT scores above 1,300. If we can't get in, they'll do what I did. Catholic school for 12 years. Trinity is a little better than the local public schools. Kids average about 70-100 points better on the SATs.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. SATs are only one measurement and a limited one. You got a better way to evaluate schools?
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
You Thank You White!!!: Exploring Anti Intelletualism in Black America
You Thank You White!!!: Exploring Anti Intelletualism in Black America points to a unique problem regarding anti-intellecutalism in America. Dr. Clardy provides a glimpse into the criticism black intellectuals face within their community. He notes this started to develop in the 60s and, prior to that time, there was widespread acceptance of intellectuals in the black communities. He also notes the what is likely the primary cause of the change, which was the breakdown of the traditional family and, by extension, the community support structures. Pilloried at the time, Patrick Moynihan (a Liberal intellectual widely admired) authored The Negro Family:
The Case For National Action, fortelling the disasterous effects of misguided policies and societal breakdown. The breakdown led to the marginalization and eventual ridicule of intellectualism within the black community. He offers ways to reverse the status quo and I'll let readers decide.
I feel certain Dr. Clardy would defend the intellectual weight of prominant conservative blacks. He certainly doesn't share their beliefs, but seems committed to ensuring academic stature is respected. The problem is that certain powers in the black community allow and possibly initiate some nasty smears on conservative blacks. Senator Reid, among others, openly characterizes Justice Thomas as "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court," yet never cite specific briefs as evidence. Pat Oliphant depicts Condi Rice as a mindless parrot and Jeff Danziger portrays her as Prissy in "Gone With the Wind". Where's the outrage? Left Wing/Right Wing nonsense aside, until the black community draws the line that such offensive and stereotypical attacks against any distinguished black American is unacceptable, the problem will persist.
The Case For National Action, fortelling the disasterous effects of misguided policies and societal breakdown. The breakdown led to the marginalization and eventual ridicule of intellectualism within the black community. He offers ways to reverse the status quo and I'll let readers decide.
I feel certain Dr. Clardy would defend the intellectual weight of prominant conservative blacks. He certainly doesn't share their beliefs, but seems committed to ensuring academic stature is respected. The problem is that certain powers in the black community allow and possibly initiate some nasty smears on conservative blacks. Senator Reid, among others, openly characterizes Justice Thomas as "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court," yet never cite specific briefs as evidence. Pat Oliphant depicts Condi Rice as a mindless parrot and Jeff Danziger portrays her as Prissy in "Gone With the Wind". Where's the outrage? Left Wing/Right Wing nonsense aside, until the black community draws the line that such offensive and stereotypical attacks against any distinguished black American is unacceptable, the problem will persist.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Deep Thinkers Missing In Action
Deep Thinkers Missing In Action discusses the presence of intellectualism on college campuses. Clayton notes, "Critical thinking, self-examination, and questioning of assumptions area all widely genuflected to as part of any good college education. That's not what's happening on many college campuses."
He goes on to state students seem more interested in using college to get a job than to pursue intellectual goals. Well, who's fault is that? Professors weakened curriculum, administators weakened admission criteria, and everyone involved made a tidy sum. We have this ridiculous notion that a college degree suddenly makes you worth more to the workforce. So, they let more people into college who wouldn't have made the cut 50 years ago, they broaden and weaken the curriculum, and then lament that not enough students want to spend free time at the library discussing metaphysics. Shocking.
Couple more things. He gave another source for possible review, "When Intellectual Life Is Optional for Students." Clayton also brought up Harvard's attempt to address grade inflation.
"It's possible to have kids who are very bright, capable, and hardworking, who are not neccessarily intellectual in terms of being inquisitive, part of the life of the mind, in pursuit of knowledge for its own sake." Aaron Friedburg.
They may not pursue the fields of knowledge you think are worthy. I'm an avid football fan. I study different schemes, offensive and defensive. I've studied the West Coast Offense and have a pretty solid grasp on the pre-snap read algorithms, the pass route selection and their progression methodology. I even read Jerry Sandusky's sawdust sandwich "Developing Linebackers the Penn State Way." I just have no time or interest in reading Wordsworth. Did enough of that in college (English major). Studying football isn't deemed "intellectual."
Again, is it really "anti-intellectual" by definition, or because a certain class won't dignify other fields as "intellectual." It is knowledge for knowledge's sake, right?
He goes on to state students seem more interested in using college to get a job than to pursue intellectual goals. Well, who's fault is that? Professors weakened curriculum, administators weakened admission criteria, and everyone involved made a tidy sum. We have this ridiculous notion that a college degree suddenly makes you worth more to the workforce. So, they let more people into college who wouldn't have made the cut 50 years ago, they broaden and weaken the curriculum, and then lament that not enough students want to spend free time at the library discussing metaphysics. Shocking.
Couple more things. He gave another source for possible review, "When Intellectual Life Is Optional for Students." Clayton also brought up Harvard's attempt to address grade inflation.
"It's possible to have kids who are very bright, capable, and hardworking, who are not neccessarily intellectual in terms of being inquisitive, part of the life of the mind, in pursuit of knowledge for its own sake." Aaron Friedburg.
They may not pursue the fields of knowledge you think are worthy. I'm an avid football fan. I study different schemes, offensive and defensive. I've studied the West Coast Offense and have a pretty solid grasp on the pre-snap read algorithms, the pass route selection and their progression methodology. I even read Jerry Sandusky's sawdust sandwich "Developing Linebackers the Penn State Way." I just have no time or interest in reading Wordsworth. Did enough of that in college (English major). Studying football isn't deemed "intellectual."
Again, is it really "anti-intellectual" by definition, or because a certain class won't dignify other fields as "intellectual." It is knowledge for knowledge's sake, right?
On Anti-Intellectualism
On Anti-Intellectualism, by John Hawkins, doesn't offer much that hasn't already been discussed. He does bring up a great quote by William F. Buckley. "Rather be governed by the first 300 names in the Boston telephone book than by the faculty of Harvard University." Hawkin also uses a hiring scenario to illustrate the American tendency to prefer work over study.
Rise and Fall of Intellectualism
Rise and Fall of Intellectualism is a short piece by Ed Quillen. If you're wondering why there are so many short works, I have two boys and doing any in depth reading is difficult. Quillen notes and interesting possibility. He states the rise of the "Social Darwinism" theory led to the Populism movement of the 1890s. An interesting idea in itself, but he continues, "And was it 'anti-intellectualism' or actually people of modest means organizing to protect themselves from rapacious millionaires and the experts who were happy to endorse any theory that justified greed."
Are "anti-intellectual" movements just termed as such in an attempt to marginalize them? There's no doubt that when it's used to describe the American populace, it's meant in a derogatory manner. Is it a matter of the powerful looking to discredit the movements?
In this situation, we see a more right wing movement ("Social Darwinism") encountering left wing resistance (Populism). Now, we see a left wing movement ("Progressivism" in all it's faces) encountering right wing resistance (talk radio, internet sites, Fox News, etc.). I'm pointing this out to open the possibility that the intellectualism vs. anti-intellectualism thing might actually be a power vs. power issue. That doesn't sound right. I'm trying to say the Left is not always the "Intellectuals" and it may not even be a reaction to intellectualism, but rather a an idea being pushed by the powerful (who paint themselves "intellectuals" so they can wear turtlenecks).
Quillen also touched on another "Intellectual" subject, eugenics. He notes it led to immigration controls and forced sterilization in some states. Later, it was discredited because the Nazis used it to justify human experiments (guessing Quillen never heard about the Japanese experiments). Sure, intellectuals may have batted the idea around, but isn't it more of a power issue and trying to control the populace? Would anyone confuse Hitler and his thugs with Pat Moynihan (the quintessential Liberal intellectual)?
Are "anti-intellectual" movements just termed as such in an attempt to marginalize them? There's no doubt that when it's used to describe the American populace, it's meant in a derogatory manner. Is it a matter of the powerful looking to discredit the movements?
In this situation, we see a more right wing movement ("Social Darwinism") encountering left wing resistance (Populism). Now, we see a left wing movement ("Progressivism" in all it's faces) encountering right wing resistance (talk radio, internet sites, Fox News, etc.). I'm pointing this out to open the possibility that the intellectualism vs. anti-intellectualism thing might actually be a power vs. power issue. That doesn't sound right. I'm trying to say the Left is not always the "Intellectuals" and it may not even be a reaction to intellectualism, but rather a an idea being pushed by the powerful (who paint themselves "intellectuals" so they can wear turtlenecks).
Quillen also touched on another "Intellectual" subject, eugenics. He notes it led to immigration controls and forced sterilization in some states. Later, it was discredited because the Nazis used it to justify human experiments (guessing Quillen never heard about the Japanese experiments). Sure, intellectuals may have batted the idea around, but isn't it more of a power issue and trying to control the populace? Would anyone confuse Hitler and his thugs with Pat Moynihan (the quintessential Liberal intellectual)?
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Reader Response to "Blue Anti-Intellectualism"
back40 certainly helped with the apparent contradiction.
"Think tanks aren't educational institutions, they don't affect young minds in need of initial training in critical thinking. Apples and oranges."
This got me thinking about the target audience of the work. The target for academic work in predominantly 18-23 year olds. Even if fully indoctrinated in one way of thinking, what impact can the graduates have on society? Employment immediately following college is rarely, if ever, in a key decision making role and I doubt any district would vote in a young college grad to any state or federal legislative office (constitutional restrictions aside).
This places the student in the work force. Few employers are willing to pay for intellectual pursuits (grads going to advocacy groups could be an exception). Most employers are interested in an immediate return on their investment.
Even if the student received and accepted the full slate of thoughts from the professors, the graduate faces a world less interested in those ideas and more interested in Microsoft Access competancy.
Another point back40 touched on was the makeup of those institutions. How many think tanks are populated with career intellectuals? That's not to say a CEO of MegaCorp can't be an intellectual, but he earned his money in a world of the practical. Results matter and results must be measured to be considered. If your finished products reference actual measured results, they would more likely resonate in the non-intellectual (not neccessarily anti-intellectual) culture.
So why don't Liberal think tanks resonate? back40 contends, in essence, that academia did not challenge them vigorously enough. Gaps were not exposed, theories were not pushed to logical ends, and their arguments were incomplete.
Well, that's a judgement call. Twain's thought to have said, "My opinions may change, but the fact I am always right never will." That is, what we've held as a firm and bullet-proof idea one time in our lives may seem flawed a decade or so later. Point is, and I feel fairly certain back40 would agree, conservatives can also fall into that trap.
I wonder if it's a matter of think tank composition. If the tanks are comprised of people with near identical backgrounds (academia, longtime political operatives, etc.) and they more often professionally associate with people of similar mindset, they can fall into that trap. If the tank is made of people with similar opinions, but whose professional experience has been apolitical or in an intellectually hostile environment (conservative on the NY Times editorial board), they should be less likely to let their rhetorical skill atrophy.
So, to sum up, I think the audience and what role the audience will play makes a difference. I also wonder if certain think tanks are ineffective because they draw from the same pool. A linguistics professor who becomes a staffer for a liberal senator and takes a position at a progressive think tank really only changed seats in the same auditorium. A liberal joining an environmental think tank after 25 years working for 3M may likely bring more to the conversation and may make the message resonate.
Is American anti-intellectual, or are the people who claim the title "Intellectual" just awful at getting their point across? When the message is ignored, do the chattering classes dismiss the masses, rather than asking for tougher introspection?
"Think tanks aren't educational institutions, they don't affect young minds in need of initial training in critical thinking. Apples and oranges."
This got me thinking about the target audience of the work. The target for academic work in predominantly 18-23 year olds. Even if fully indoctrinated in one way of thinking, what impact can the graduates have on society? Employment immediately following college is rarely, if ever, in a key decision making role and I doubt any district would vote in a young college grad to any state or federal legislative office (constitutional restrictions aside).
This places the student in the work force. Few employers are willing to pay for intellectual pursuits (grads going to advocacy groups could be an exception). Most employers are interested in an immediate return on their investment.
Even if the student received and accepted the full slate of thoughts from the professors, the graduate faces a world less interested in those ideas and more interested in Microsoft Access competancy.
Another point back40 touched on was the makeup of those institutions. How many think tanks are populated with career intellectuals? That's not to say a CEO of MegaCorp can't be an intellectual, but he earned his money in a world of the practical. Results matter and results must be measured to be considered. If your finished products reference actual measured results, they would more likely resonate in the non-intellectual (not neccessarily anti-intellectual) culture.
So why don't Liberal think tanks resonate? back40 contends, in essence, that academia did not challenge them vigorously enough. Gaps were not exposed, theories were not pushed to logical ends, and their arguments were incomplete.
Well, that's a judgement call. Twain's thought to have said, "My opinions may change, but the fact I am always right never will." That is, what we've held as a firm and bullet-proof idea one time in our lives may seem flawed a decade or so later. Point is, and I feel fairly certain back40 would agree, conservatives can also fall into that trap.
I wonder if it's a matter of think tank composition. If the tanks are comprised of people with near identical backgrounds (academia, longtime political operatives, etc.) and they more often professionally associate with people of similar mindset, they can fall into that trap. If the tank is made of people with similar opinions, but whose professional experience has been apolitical or in an intellectually hostile environment (conservative on the NY Times editorial board), they should be less likely to let their rhetorical skill atrophy.
So, to sum up, I think the audience and what role the audience will play makes a difference. I also wonder if certain think tanks are ineffective because they draw from the same pool. A linguistics professor who becomes a staffer for a liberal senator and takes a position at a progressive think tank really only changed seats in the same auditorium. A liberal joining an environmental think tank after 25 years working for 3M may likely bring more to the conversation and may make the message resonate.
Is American anti-intellectual, or are the people who claim the title "Intellectual" just awful at getting their point across? When the message is ignored, do the chattering classes dismiss the masses, rather than asking for tougher introspection?
Friday, December 10, 2004
Islamic Intellectualism
Islamic Intellectualism looks like it would make a fascinating book. Skimming through the two pager, however, you eventually fall on a fatal conclusion.
"Twelfth Assumption: "Islam will become the dominant religion of the 21st century. If my first eleven assumptions are correct, my final assumtpion is that, Allah willing, thanks to the efforts of Muslim intellectuals, Islam may well become the dominant religion of the 21st century, at least in North America and parts of Europe, with enormous repercussions for the rest of the globe."
Islam's role in the 21st century aside, it's not likely Islam will get any considerable foothold in the US. That is to say, the US is reflexively anti-intellectual and has a strong, cross-ideological support for a separation between church and state.
How strong is ant-intellectualism in the US? Ask yourself this question. You are a production plant owner. You are retiring and need to appoint a successor. Two applicants - a foreman from a similar production plant in another state with little to no post-secondary education or a business management professor of 25 years from the town university. Regardless of how you decide, did you just get an image of a stuffy academic type who studies economic models, but hasn't turned a wrench in 25 years? And does that give you more apprehension than the forman's inability to quote Adam Smith?
I just don't see how Islam can make such deep inroads when American culture is more influencial around the world. I'm no fool to history. I know of Islam's history of rapid expansion. So, I'm aware I could be speaking with blind exceptionalism.
It just seems like Hoffman's engaged in wishful thinking. Battling anti-intellectualism, maintaining a unique Islamic culture even as young Muslims wear Nikes and watch Hollywood's movies, and assuaging American skepticism regarding policies with subtle religious overtones (abortion, for example) is a tall order.
Hoffman may find the opposite to be true. If the grand "neo-con experiment" is successful and representaive government spreads in the Islamic world, there won't be enough tension to fuel the need for expansion. Unless I'm missing something, other nations with democracies (general sense) are careful with any pressure toward the US or don't attempt it at all.
Europe? Olde Europe will be Islamic before you can blink. I don't think they have the intellectual strength to preserve their heritage. Nothing wrong with an Islamic society. I'm just stating I don't get the impression Europeans have the means to stop a booming Muslim population and the inevitable ramifications. Christianity and Judaism have, after bloody measures, developed into complementary or secondary value systems. Not entirely certain a predominantly Muslim nation could hold laws contrary to the Muslim faith (same sex marriage, for example).
"Twelfth Assumption: "Islam will become the dominant religion of the 21st century. If my first eleven assumptions are correct, my final assumtpion is that, Allah willing, thanks to the efforts of Muslim intellectuals, Islam may well become the dominant religion of the 21st century, at least in North America and parts of Europe, with enormous repercussions for the rest of the globe."
Islam's role in the 21st century aside, it's not likely Islam will get any considerable foothold in the US. That is to say, the US is reflexively anti-intellectual and has a strong, cross-ideological support for a separation between church and state.
How strong is ant-intellectualism in the US? Ask yourself this question. You are a production plant owner. You are retiring and need to appoint a successor. Two applicants - a foreman from a similar production plant in another state with little to no post-secondary education or a business management professor of 25 years from the town university. Regardless of how you decide, did you just get an image of a stuffy academic type who studies economic models, but hasn't turned a wrench in 25 years? And does that give you more apprehension than the forman's inability to quote Adam Smith?
I just don't see how Islam can make such deep inroads when American culture is more influencial around the world. I'm no fool to history. I know of Islam's history of rapid expansion. So, I'm aware I could be speaking with blind exceptionalism.
It just seems like Hoffman's engaged in wishful thinking. Battling anti-intellectualism, maintaining a unique Islamic culture even as young Muslims wear Nikes and watch Hollywood's movies, and assuaging American skepticism regarding policies with subtle religious overtones (abortion, for example) is a tall order.
Hoffman may find the opposite to be true. If the grand "neo-con experiment" is successful and representaive government spreads in the Islamic world, there won't be enough tension to fuel the need for expansion. Unless I'm missing something, other nations with democracies (general sense) are careful with any pressure toward the US or don't attempt it at all.
Europe? Olde Europe will be Islamic before you can blink. I don't think they have the intellectual strength to preserve their heritage. Nothing wrong with an Islamic society. I'm just stating I don't get the impression Europeans have the means to stop a booming Muslim population and the inevitable ramifications. Christianity and Judaism have, after bloody measures, developed into complementary or secondary value systems. Not entirely certain a predominantly Muslim nation could hold laws contrary to the Muslim faith (same sex marriage, for example).
Blue Anti-Intellectualism
Blue Anti-Intellectualism brings to light some intriguing points. The first point touches on observations of anti-intellectualism in the student body. Later, I intend to read Student Anti-Intellectualism and the Dumbing Down of the University. Jones (Blue A-I) writes, "More importantly, it is the cause of the crushingly stupid policy proposals developed in such places, in effect dumbing down all of society since they are operationally anti-intellectual whatever their intention or pretentions."
He goes on:
"Society is diminished by this system and the ideas of liberals are underdeveloped or stigmatized, contributing to the rightward drift of society in recent decades. There are liberal ideas that have worth, that would improve society, but the polarization created by liberal dogmatism has reduced the influence of those ideas on policy. We would be improved by better balance."
He raises a good point, but misses another. During the last two presidential elections, there was talk in the policy wonk circles about the Conservative movement's investment made decades ago. I'd stop reading after the first section, as Sally Covington begins to wander off the ranch. The history is noted, though.
Isn't it contradictory? Think tanks can provide new ideas or re-shape policy, but groupthink stagnates movements. A dollar to anyone who can explain that thinking. True, two different people make those points. However, I'm sure I could get both people to nod their heads in agreement to each statement individually if they were asked two weeks apart. An intellectual society (think tank) advocating anti-intellectual policies (reduced oversight). America, I love you.
Get back to an earlier point. Is student anti-intellectualism a sign of diminished curiousity or is it a reflection of academia's inability to communicate outside the echo chambers?
He goes on:
"Society is diminished by this system and the ideas of liberals are underdeveloped or stigmatized, contributing to the rightward drift of society in recent decades. There are liberal ideas that have worth, that would improve society, but the polarization created by liberal dogmatism has reduced the influence of those ideas on policy. We would be improved by better balance."
He raises a good point, but misses another. During the last two presidential elections, there was talk in the policy wonk circles about the Conservative movement's investment made decades ago. I'd stop reading after the first section, as Sally Covington begins to wander off the ranch. The history is noted, though.
Isn't it contradictory? Think tanks can provide new ideas or re-shape policy, but groupthink stagnates movements. A dollar to anyone who can explain that thinking. True, two different people make those points. However, I'm sure I could get both people to nod their heads in agreement to each statement individually if they were asked two weeks apart. An intellectual society (think tank) advocating anti-intellectual policies (reduced oversight). America, I love you.
Get back to an earlier point. Is student anti-intellectualism a sign of diminished curiousity or is it a reflection of academia's inability to communicate outside the echo chambers?
Liberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual
In "Liberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual", Mark Bauerlein goes in a direction I'm not willing to follow, at least in the context of this endeavor. He asserts, as the title states, liberals engage in groupthink in academia. In doing so, they neccessarily limit their worldview to one similar to existing norms, namely modern American liberalism. He goes one step further to indicate the nature of groupthink is anti-intellectual. I'm not interested in turning this into a Left/Right issue. I've noticed two cultures with anti-intellectual strains (USA and Australia). Why pin myself to the dead-end arguments of Left/Right on an issue that transcends borders and generations?
Does this mean consensus politics leads to anti-intellectualism? Perhaps, but there is consensus politics in France and that nation most definitely loves their over-blown intellectuals (Sartre). Don't get me wrong. I find a good deal of Sartre's work interesting ("No Exit," Hell is other people - brilliant twist on an old topic). The French just seem to go ape over anyone with a tweed jacket, leather patches, and a penchant for despising everyday life.
Does this mean consensus politics leads to anti-intellectualism? Perhaps, but there is consensus politics in France and that nation most definitely loves their over-blown intellectuals (Sartre). Don't get me wrong. I find a good deal of Sartre's work interesting ("No Exit," Hell is other people - brilliant twist on an old topic). The French just seem to go ape over anyone with a tweed jacket, leather patches, and a penchant for despising everyday life.
The Renaissance of Anti-Intellectualism
In The Renaissance of Anti-Intellectualism, Todd Gitlin, is helpful at times.
Unfortunately, he can’t separate his bias from his work. He peppers his piece with shots at Republicans. Reagan as "intellectually challenged," Bush is "lazy minded," even George Will took a shot as a writer hired for "his sneers, not his logical mastery or historical depth." The first two are fairly tired plays on the recurring theme of Republican presidents as amiable dolts (Ike, Reagan, Bush 43) or out of touch (Nixon, Bush 41). Suggesting Will has no sense of historical depth is absurd. His columns are peppered with historical references, some well known and some obscure. Full disclosure: I’m a fan of Will. Of course, I’m a fan of his work precisely because he shows an enormous breadth of knowledge and is almost coldly analytical. Pensive envy?
Not surprisingly, Gitlin also pulls out the standard media line for Democrat presidents as "too smart for their own good" (Carter, Clinton, Gore). Now, he’s writing an opinion piece. However, dipping into ad hominem while attempting to show the benefits of intellectualism is an odd approach. I went off on a tangent, I admit. Back to the topic.
Regardless, Gitlin does note possible sources. Intellectualism in American Life, by Richard Hofstadler. Gitlin notes:
"Hofstadter described three pillars of anti-intellectualism -- evangelical religion, practical-minded business, and the populist political style. Religion was suspicious of modern relativism, business of regulatory expertise, populism of claims that specialized knowledge had its privileges. Those pillars stand. But, as Hofstadter recognized, something was changing in American life, and that was the uneasy apotheosis of technical intellect."
Gitlin also cites Alexis de Tocqueville. This may be a good reference tool for me to note any cultural consistencies or variances.
Gitlin does go on to make "populism" a more recent tactic of Republicans. Not sure I entirely agree. Populism was a movement made popular by William Jennings Bryan and he used it for his Democratic presidential platforms in the late 19th century. More recently, the populism trademark "stand up for the little guy" is more closely associated the rhetoric of the Democratic Party. True, Pat Buchanan tried his hand in it, but it’s a stretch to say the Republicans embraced it to tap into an anti-intellectualism sentiment.
Unfortunately, he can’t separate his bias from his work. He peppers his piece with shots at Republicans. Reagan as "intellectually challenged," Bush is "lazy minded," even George Will took a shot as a writer hired for "his sneers, not his logical mastery or historical depth." The first two are fairly tired plays on the recurring theme of Republican presidents as amiable dolts (Ike, Reagan, Bush 43) or out of touch (Nixon, Bush 41). Suggesting Will has no sense of historical depth is absurd. His columns are peppered with historical references, some well known and some obscure. Full disclosure: I’m a fan of Will. Of course, I’m a fan of his work precisely because he shows an enormous breadth of knowledge and is almost coldly analytical. Pensive envy?
Not surprisingly, Gitlin also pulls out the standard media line for Democrat presidents as "too smart for their own good" (Carter, Clinton, Gore). Now, he’s writing an opinion piece. However, dipping into ad hominem while attempting to show the benefits of intellectualism is an odd approach. I went off on a tangent, I admit. Back to the topic.
Regardless, Gitlin does note possible sources. Intellectualism in American Life, by Richard Hofstadler. Gitlin notes:
"Hofstadter described three pillars of anti-intellectualism -- evangelical religion, practical-minded business, and the populist political style. Religion was suspicious of modern relativism, business of regulatory expertise, populism of claims that specialized knowledge had its privileges. Those pillars stand. But, as Hofstadter recognized, something was changing in American life, and that was the uneasy apotheosis of technical intellect."
Gitlin also cites Alexis de Tocqueville. This may be a good reference tool for me to note any cultural consistencies or variances.
Gitlin does go on to make "populism" a more recent tactic of Republicans. Not sure I entirely agree. Populism was a movement made popular by William Jennings Bryan and he used it for his Democratic presidential platforms in the late 19th century. More recently, the populism trademark "stand up for the little guy" is more closely associated the rhetoric of the Democratic Party. True, Pat Buchanan tried his hand in it, but it’s a stretch to say the Republicans embraced it to tap into an anti-intellectualism sentiment.
Intellectualism and Anti-Intellectualism
I'm primarily more interested in studying anti-intellectualism. It's a fascinating topic because it seems to be popular in the US and Australia. What are the roots? Are there other cultures that more widely embrace (doens't need to be a majority, just widely embraced) anti-intellectualism? What can be learned about the cultures?
It's clearly important to compare those cultures with those embracing intellectualism. Differences, similarities, histories. What moves one Western culture toward intellectualism and one away from it?
I'll try to keep the research to online material, but I'll likely have to re-type research from the library.
First up is a definition of terms.
Dictionary.com provides a pithy, if unfulfilling definition. Wasn't expecting it to be an end-all. And don't draw conclusions because I started with the dictionary (reminiscent of Homer Simpson studying progressively simpler books on marketing until he ends with a dictionary).
"The doctrine that knowledge is derived from pure reason"
Here's a more complete definition.
"As an approach to philosophy and to values, the word intellectualism often has the same meaning as philosophical or psychological rationalism and commonly has the same negative connotations of over-reliance on theoretical models to the detriment of practical living."
It's clearly important to compare those cultures with those embracing intellectualism. Differences, similarities, histories. What moves one Western culture toward intellectualism and one away from it?
I'll try to keep the research to online material, but I'll likely have to re-type research from the library.
First up is a definition of terms.
Dictionary.com provides a pithy, if unfulfilling definition. Wasn't expecting it to be an end-all. And don't draw conclusions because I started with the dictionary (reminiscent of Homer Simpson studying progressively simpler books on marketing until he ends with a dictionary).
"The doctrine that knowledge is derived from pure reason"
Here's a more complete definition.
"As an approach to philosophy and to values, the word intellectualism often has the same meaning as philosophical or psychological rationalism and commonly has the same negative connotations of over-reliance on theoretical models to the detriment of practical living."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)