Monday, December 13, 2004

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)?

No comments: