http://www.flickr.com/photos/smoorenburg/ / CC BY 2.0
Note: donations to the Red Cross for Haiti made through the Grand Circle Foundation will be matched 100%.
This is the second post in a new series (yet to be named) on the history of American money values.
A recent David Brooks column in the New York Times noted the increasing wave of American anti-intellectualism, specifically opposition to almost all beliefs and values attributed to the “educated class.” If you google “educated class” you see’ll a link to Brooks’ column as well as a myriad of articles attacking his points. The column itself has 464 comments, many of which disagree with Mr. Brooks. One commenter was particularly vehement:
“If you don’t leave us alone, if you do continue to bother us; we will remove you from power and replace you with those who don’t have your credentials. I can hardly see where Sarah Palin or Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader can do worse than you have done. And, we don’t really care whether they wear the proper school ties. We really don’t care.”
Lest you think American anti-intellectualism is always directed at liberals, the post Who’s the anti-intellectual? by Timothy Sandefur attempts to set the record straight: liberals also embrace anti-intellectuals who push their agenda.
Where does American anti-intellectualism come from? Prof. Steven Dutch, University of Wisconsin – Green Bay, believes that human curiosity is mostly of a low order, “concerned with immediate gratification of a particular desire to know, and mostly oriented toward immediate practical results.” In other words, since intellectualism doesn’t serve our immediate needs, it’s not a priority.
In Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (summary of ideas here), historian Richard Hofstadter sees anti-intellectualism as rooted in the institutions of American democracy, the egalitarian ideals exemplified by figures such as president Andrew Jackson, American business values such as ambition and practical common sense, and religious Evangelical movements emphasizing the value of emotional experience above rationality.
What strikes me is the polarizing of ideas that aren’t necessarily opposing in nature. For example, why can’t you value both emotional experience and rational thinking?
The positive arguments given in support of anti-intellectualism disguise its true basis: anti-intellectualism, or populism, arises periodically in American culture as a challenge to the power and wealth concentrated in the educated class. But I don’t see how (unless you’re willing to completley overthrow democracy) anti-intellectualism helps redistribute wealth and power? Instead, I agree with Kate Horsley that Anti-intellectualism dehumanizes and disempowers.
And it hurts your wallet! As the economic events of the last couple of years have made abundantly clear, financial competence and savvy are important skills to develop if for no other reason than to protect yourself from unethical financial professionals. It takes formal education and intellect to master the concepts underlying personal finance.
So by all means, use every weapon in your arsenal to challenge wealth and power, but don’t succumb to the falsehood that anti-intellectualism is an effective weapon against that power.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Susan. Very provocative post – and well done!
I’d like to focus on some terminology that really eats at me.
Specifically the terms: “Anti-intellectualism” and “the educated class.”
According to Brooks: the “educated class” believes in global warming, supports abortion rights, and supports gun control.
The term has become common place, but how did liberal ideals ever come to be associated with those of the “educated class” anyway?
Don’t those titles seem a bit, well, to put it nicely, self-serving?
They do to me.
I say global warming is a sham, gun control only harms the law-abiding public, and abortion rights should be left up to the individual states to decide for themselves.
Would Brooks consider me to be part of the “educated class?” I doubt it, even though I have a BS in Electrical Engineering and an MBA. But because my beliefs don’t align with his, one can conclude that I am, by default, part of the uneducated class.
I’m curious, would Horsely consider me to be intellectual or anti-intellectual? I very strongly suspect the latter – although she might not admit it. To Horsely, deep down I suspect I’m just another “dumb ass,” to use her words for the anti-intellectuals. Then again, she does consider Jefferson to be an intellectual, whose beliefs are more aligned with today’s Republicans, conservatives and libertarians than Democrats and liberals – so maybe I should give her the benefit of the doubt.
When it comes down to it, I think these type of discussions would be better served if we used more accurate and less-obfuscating terminology such as conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism, and socialism.
I find the other terms are too nebulous and detract from the real discussion.
Thanks for letting me give my two cents!
Best,
Len
Len Penzo dot Com
Hi Len,
. I would agree that it’s all too easy to regard those with whom you disagree as being the ones who are not part of the educated class but don’t agree that it’s just liberals who do this. The commenter I quoted from Brooks’ column groups Brooks together with Bush as being part of the educated class–two conservatives. And Timothy Sandefur is a serious intellectual not of a liberal persuasion. I would consider you to be part of the educated class, but within that class I believe you’re in the minority regarding global warming as a sham. What evidence do you have to support this position?
Your comments are always welcome
The anecdotal evidence for global warming is hard to ignore. The receding glaciers, the vanishing snow packs, The changing weather patterns just to mention a few. There are also measurements that show the earth is in a warming trend. The real questions are: What is the nature of the warming? What is causing the warming? Will it continue or is it a part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling? What can be done and what should be done?
A person who states that global warming is a sham is not necessarily an anti-intellectual if that person then refutes the evidence of global warming. That would probably be an enlightening discussion.
Anti-intellectualism occurs when a person makes a statement from an emotional level and will not engage in dialogue over the point. Thus, there a both liberal and conservative anti-intellectuals.
The “educated class” that Brooks refers to are those that have either formally or informally educated themselves on certain topics and will engage in rational discussion over the points. Thus the “educated class” contains both liberals and conservatives.
My thoughts.
Martin
I think “educated class” is used to denote people who not only have educations, but who have studied heavily in those areas that were once thought of as “gentlemanly,” like literature, art, liberal arts, political theory, et cetera. The stuff for which there is not an obvious, immediate market application. There is a difference between being an MBA and an Engineer, for example, and being oh, let’s say, a PhD in English — just off the top of my head. Engineering is applied, an MBA is a means of making more/getting further with a degree in Engineering. The “educated classes” are educated for the sake of the knowledge rather than the application.
Is there a snottiness and elitism to this? Sure! But then, intellectuals are routinely called fake Americans, when there is nothing more American than questioning authority and demanding integrity from our leaders. Both sides do it.
I used to bristle at the term “anti-Intellectualism” because it sounded like there were meetings going on where people would get together and plot to overthrow smart people. But it’s more of just a kind of undercurrent that is suspicious of intellectuals, not understanding why they do what they do when there is no monetary reward, much less how they are able to afford to do it. And that is very, very American.
A quick note on the global warming issue: I find it amusing that the name of this phenomenon has been changed not once, but twice in the last several years in response to the “anti-intellectual” critics.
First, it was called “The Greenhouse Effect”, which denoted a cause for the phenomenon and was refuted on that basis. Then it was changed to “Global Warming”, which has since been largely abandoned due to those (even people in Congress) who make foolish claims that because the winter where they live was especially cold, or the summer mild, that “Global Warming” must be a sham. Now we call it “Climate Change” and hope that people will recognize that – be it warmer, colder, or simply more extreme – it’s hard to refute that the climate IS changing. I wonder what they will call it next…?
While I find many populist/anti-elitist/anti-intellectual movements to be troublesome (setting aside those in response to oppression, like the opposition movement in Iran), overall their ability to affect the general populace seems minimal and relegated to the fringes, such as the current Tea Party movement, which may be able to generate big rallies in DC but is unlikely to achieve any real presence beyond the cable news networks (how many Tea Party members do you think will be in congress next year?) The same is true of the intellectual elite, like David Brooks. Both sides are extremes on a spectrum where most folks live somewhere in the middle. Few people are desperately passionate and full of populist rage, and even fewer have time to keep up with every aspect of intellectual sociological debate with David Brooks, Paul Krugman and the like.
So, in the end I find both sides to be more of a curiosity and less of a serious presence in our day-to-day lives.
Regarding finance, this is one area where I think the masses in general are in broad agreement with a decidedly populist sentiment. The elite classes screwed things up badly for all of us and now they (at least the bankers) are bailed out, back in the black and reaping the rewards while the rest of society suffers the consequences of their actions. While I think reaction to Wall Street bonuses, for example, are somewhat overblown, it’s frustrating to see these people rewarded so soon after the massive bailouts, ridiculous fee hikes (credit cart rates near 30%) and a general failure to lend public money back to the public.
This is just one example of how easily the “elite” can become completely detached from the rest of society and even I find myself tempted to pick up a torch and pitch fork and throw my lot in with the angry mob…
@abdpbt I should have clarified the use of “educated class” in quotes as it specifically refers to a phrase coined by David Brooks in his book BOBOS* in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They got there (*Bourgeois Bohemians), affiliate link below:
The new upper class consists of high-achieving meritocrats, most of whom come from the upper-middle-class, but not necessarily from the older WASP privileged elite class. Brooks sees the same difference you describe, dividing the new upper class Americans into two groups: predators and nurturers. “Predators are the lawyers, traders, marketers–the folk who deal with money or who spend their professional lives negotiating or competing or otherwise being tough and screwing others. Nurturers tend to be liberal arts majors. They become academics, foundation officials, journalists, activists, and artists–people who deal with ideas or who spend their time cooperating with others or facilitating something.” In my experience, academics who disapprove of intellectual pursuits for monetary gain tend to be liberal arts academics influenced by socialist political ideas. I’ll be revisiting this in more detail in future posts, but one general comment I would make is that these same academics often come from families of privilege, develop highly lucrative post-academic careers and/or marry someone with a highly lucrative career. In other words, being a poor academic at some point in one’s life doesn’t necessarily imply exclusion from the upper class.
@Jason B, per my response to @abdpbt, “educated class” includes all the educated high achievers comprising the new elite, not just liberal arts intellectuals, and whereas some of the educated class may be and stay poor, e.g., liberal arts intellectuals opposed to monetary gain, most do not. Most of the power and wealth of the country is concentrated in this new elite class, an increasingly smaller portion of which comes from the old WASP elite. Only a portion of the educated class are “intellectuals” in the sense of liberal arts intellectuals, but most are not anti-intellectual. You’re right that a small percentage of Americans belong to the elite class, but it is most definitely not on the fringe—it runs most of the public and private sector.
But you make a good point that the elite classes have really screwed things up, and that’s a unique characteristic of the latest populist uprising. In the past, populist movements sought to redistribute power, but more on ideological grounds, not necessarily because the elite had abused its power. The latest movement is fueled by ideology and revenge, a potentially powerful mix.
Actually, I am quite certain that I am in the majority when it comes to ALL scientists (not just those in academia who are writing the majority of the papers) who believe global warming is a cyclical event, completely unrelated to what man does.
The “global warming” crowd, which changed the term to “climate change” after it was conclusively shown by “the uneducated class” that world temps fell over the past 10 years despite rising CO2 levels.
I will argue that this movement has been exposed as being “a sham” with the stunning news that scientists from that side actually manipulated data and tried to hide the truth to push their agenda. True scientists with any sense of ethics and decency would never do such a thing – they would let the data speak for itself.
As you know, Susan, I repeatedly make the case on y blog that global warming is a political movement – it has nothing to do with science.
The entire global warming theory is based on a scientifically flimsy house of cards; it depends upon highly dubious models and wild assumptions.
For those that are interested, here’s a great primer from the UK’s Daily Express on 101 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
Best,
Len
@Len, I understand that there is controversy regarding the science supporting climate change, but words like “fraud” and “sham” and links to one-sided politically motivated pieces do not make your case in my opinion. If you think they do make your case, then we must disagree regarding what it means to engage in a formal debate.
I don’t even know where to begin. This is an intriguing idea – Anti-Intellectualism, but I don’t know who exactly this is trying to define. Is Brooks trying to describe a very specific group of people? I’m not so sure that this would define everyone in the middle- to upper-classes. Surely there are many people who are intellectuals that belong to these classes. I’ll check out your links to better understand this term. Thanks for the thought provoking post!
@Little House, yes, per my response to @abdpbt and @Jason B, Brooks is describing the American upper class and probably to some extent the American upper-middle-class. This class used to consist mainly of old money WASP elites, but is now comprised of persons with a baccalaureate degree or higher (approximately 27% of US population) from more varied socioeconomic backgrounds, e.g., Jewish middle class, etc. The upper class is now a more diverse group and educational achievement matters more to this group than factors like club membership. Because of the emphasis on education, Brooks coined the term “educated class” to distinguish them from the older term “privileged elite” as the older term indicated inclusion solely based on your family background and connections. These days your family background and connections still help, but aren’t the deciding factor. You have to achieve academically and with rigorous distinction. For example, to get into Harvard now your SAT scores have to be way higher than they needed to be in the 1950s.
It’s interesting to me that the very definition of populism is under debate. I would argue that populism is any movement from “the masses” in reaction to the current governing class. Education, wealth, etc. is irrelevant. Only that regular citizens are displeased with those in power.
To my thinking, it was a wave of populism that got Barack Obama elected and it is a different wave of populism that is rising against his leadership. The first was a reaction to the decidedly anti-intellectual Bush and the second is a reaction to Obama’s intellectual (if not inspirational) style of governing.
Check out the debate on this very topic between Shields and Brooks on the News Hour from yesterday:
http://video.pbs.org/video/1387129234/chapter/8/
Jason,
I agree that it’s hard to define exactly who is populist or anti-intellectual. Hofstadter specifically lumps together groups of intellectuals that disagree, e.g., Mencken and W.F. Buckley are still intellectuals even though they mercilessly criticized professors.
Your New Hours link was actually to the 01/15 show, here’s the link for Friday Jan 22:
http://video.pbs.org/video/1393398091