On Anti-Intellectualism
I've seen the charge thrown around that our side is anti-intellectual. We hate intellect and those who possess it! We're just a bunch of rubes.
Well, perhaps we are guilty of anti-intellectualism. But before I am found guilty, I think quaintly that my rights as a citizen give me the opportunity to speak in my own defense.
So, let's look at what we mean by anti-intellectualism. I think, in fact, that both our critics and some of our supporters often conflate two different kinds of anti-intellectualism.
There is one kind of anti-intellectualism that stems from a considered doubtfulness of any specialist’s ability to micro-manage extremely complicated, intractable problems.
There is another sort of anti-intellectualism that is suspicious of anything that is complex itself out of a kind of fear that such complexity is a tool being used to pull the wool over our eyes.
Let us regard these phenomena in turn together.
The first kind of anti-intellectualism has been given popular expression through Bill Buckley’s “Boston Phonebook” dictum and Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. These statements are more urgent than, but draw their power from, far deeper arguments found in the trenchant philosophical stances of the Scottish Enlightenment, in the skepticism of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, in the humility of Christian theology, in the self-examination of man by Montaigne, in the wisdom of the market found in Smith, and in the prudent statecraft of Edmund Burke and our Founders.
This anti-intellectualism wonders at and loves the complexity of man and the world. It observes carefully, analytically, notes the subtle gradations between man's motivations and the permanency of his nature. It has slow eyes, and slow hands. It looks to a program which can improve man and his estate but which regards perfection as impossible. It is therefore skeptical of the imaginings of some of the best and brightest that they have all the answers to all the problems, and need only be given the authority to implement perfect solutions. Its highest exemplars look down upon this kind of conceit, because from their height, seeing farther, they note the problems that the public intellectual is too clumsy to see. But, loving the best and brightest, especially in their youth, it speaks to them in an attempt to convert them to its way of thinking.
But there is another kind of anti-intellectualism, and this one stems from different sources, and comes to different conclusions. Herein, I would include the hearty, gut reaction, populist sentiment anti-intellectualism that says “that’s some sleight of hand, sonny. I’m being sold a bill of goods and I don’t buy it.” It has its roots in practical experience, and draws its strength from the practice of the Christian virtue of humility. It rebukes those who think themselves the best and brightest, it rejects them as foolhardy idealists and their studies as a time better spent on more practical things.
This anti-intellectualism is possessed of a firm faith in a few simple truths about the world that work. It is unaware, perhaps, that these truths may contradict one another, or at least it is unconcerned if they should. It is impatient with forms of thinking and argumentation that require extended periods of long reflection, practice, and learning, because it feels they get too caught up in things that have no immediate bearing on the world. It knows the truth already and longs for someone, anyone, who will just speak it loudly and plainly.
These two forms of anti-intellectualism do not fit together philosophically. They are often at odds temperamentally. It is a mistake to conflate them.
But they are permanent, and they are akin to two different musical chords which can be harmonized in a polity. They are both needed, I say, in their own way.
So, jurors, am I guilty?
- Comment (172)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
Comments :
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Needed!?! Even the folksy, "it must be leprechaun magic" anti-intellectualism? Explain.
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
In terms of percentage of the vote, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the dupes and drones and complete ignoramouses on the left far, far outdo the anti-intellectuals on the right.
The reason RINOs like David Brooks and Mike Murphy worry about the anti-intellectualism on the right is that, whereas on the left the intellectuals set the agenda and the drones do what they're told, the "little people" on the right are less amenable to taking instructions. They expect to be listened to.
Further, lots of professional RINOs are themselves bigoted and out-of-touch enough to imagine that being religious and morally serious--seeing religious and moral values as of pre-eminent importance in our society--is ipso facto anti-intellectual. They can't distinguish between the type who want to build creationist theme parks in Kentucky and the normally religious.
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Out of taxonomical rigor, I think we're all compelled to admit there's a third kind of anti-intellectualism: It cloaks itself in the guise of the second kind but is in fact laziness and unwillingness to read or think. It's not a partisan phenomenon.
Mar '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Claire,
I think there are various branches within the broader headings, and anti-intellectualism of all kinds is not a partisan phenomenon.
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Well if I grant Claire's third -- then I believe there is a fourth and I believe it is at the heart of the charge. It is the faith-based anti-intellectualism of social conservatives. (Ref: Mike Murphy's comments about the anti-Darwin wing of the party on the podcast.) Michele Bachmann and her husband carry this standard.
It's a very difficult area because to overcome it requires engaging in the most earnest, intellectual and generous debate, which is often not possible between right and left.To learn that someone has doubts about evolution or regards homosexual union as defying natural law instantly conjures fears (well-founded or not) of religious-based discrimination and of a foreign policy agenda that at some level smacks of proselytizing.
We barely survive our own Rico-skirmishes over gay marriage because we all grant one another the benefit of the doubt. When that benefit is replaced by fear or ridicule, it is difficult to overcome. It takes a great deal to acknowledge that you can disagree with someone over these tensions of faith and science but vote for him or her anyway based on shared views over, say, fiscal policy.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
I don't really buy that characterization. Certainly not in the case of Murphy. I don't even think it applies to Brooks. Maybe you aren't assigning that type of snobbery to them, but I think a lot of posters here at Ricochet do. My guess is some of these "professional RINOs" just know a lot more liberals and independents than the average conservative. I think being exposed to people who don't agree with you on a much more regular basis causes one to become a lot more pragmatic as to the average voter's amenability to the arguments from the right or to the authoritaties that the right respects. Realizing that there are limits to the effectiveness of citing Hayek or making moral arguments to people who don't share your morality doesn't qualify as bigotry in my opinion.
Edited on Jul 12, 2011 at 6:41amDec '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
I don't know. I think you romanticize the second type too much. If we take Thomas Sowell's definition of an intellectual, that is, someone who's end product is ideas, there are anti-intellectuals who disdain people who's end product is invisible, as if mental exercise is useless. I believe this is the type Mike Murphy and David Brooks would like to purge from the party.
With this understanding, there is some overlap between the two types on a selective basis. I happen to disdain much of what passes for leftist intellectualism because I believe the ideas the left generates are either useless, foolish, or destructive. But, I still believe there is purpose in mental exercise and there are occasionally, infrequently, some profoundly important ideas generated, usually by conservative thinkers.
Count me among the Selective Anti-Intellectuals. I'm against bad ideas.
Feb '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Let me suggest that the term "intellectual" today is mainly an assertion of a claimed status position, often backed up by educational credentials and mannerisms of speech, rather than being based on any serious evidence of an individual's knowledge base, intelligence, or thoughtfulness.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Great post Trace.
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Trace, you provide an example of what I point out above: the failure to distinguish between being faith-based and socially conservative and being anti-intellectual.
There ARE some--I grant freely--whose brand of faith is anti-intellectual, but its not a just characterization of even the majority of "social conservatives".
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
BThompson
I don't really buy that characterization. Certainly not in the case of Murphy. I don't even think it applies to Brooks. Maybe you aren't assigning that type of snobbery to them, but I think a lot of posters here at Ricochet do.
Edited on Jul 12 at 06:41 am
I truly am not familiar enough with either Mike Murphy or David Brooks to be fair in accusing them of bigotry. But there is no question that both are far, far too dismissive of the concerns and arguments of social conservatives.
They tend to lump tea party activists too easily with those they call "crazy", "purists", "absolutists", etc. They don't engage those concerns and arguments, they scoff at them as absurd and destructive.
Feb '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Partly what we're seeing is a reaction to the exaggerated and sometimes outright false claims of expertise from many academics and other holders of advanced degrees. In the late 1950s and the 1960s, science and engineering had enormous prestige due to space exploration, nuclear energy, radar, computers, etc...this prestige was "borrowed" by social scientists who claimed that they could provide equivalent levels of expert knowledge in dealing with social problems This may have been an innocent mistake initially; it's not innocent any more.
Jan '11
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Crow's Nest:
So, jurors, am I guilty? ·
Why this conservative penchant for feeling guilty? Guilty of thinking? We differ from liberals in that respect only in that we feel personal guilt, liberals feel that others are guilty.
It's one thing to be an intellectual, quite another to be a thinker; the two are not invariably synchronous. They can, and often do, exist independently of one another.
Edited on Jul 12, 2011 at 7:16amMay '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
katievs
Trace, you provide an example of what I point out above: the failure to distinguish between being faith-based and socially conservative and being anti-intellectual.
There ARE some--I grant freely--whose brand of faith is anti-intellectual, but its not a just characterization of even the majority of "social conservatives". · Jul 12 at 7:03am
And you provide Katie an illustration of the point I was trying to make as to just how sensitive this area of discussion can be. I am far less likely than your average Democrat to unfairly characterize "social conservatives," as anti-intellectual and here I have already hit a trip wire.
So can you elaborate on how you define the three categories: super-set "social conservative," sub-set "faith-based," and sub-sub-set "anti-intellectual?" And do you have a perspective as to which category Michele Bachmann belongs?
Nov '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
The two best treatises on Intellectuals are Paul Johnson's and Thomas Sowell's. Reading these I found to be most helpful in understanding the intellectual mind set which is stereotypically lacking in humility and a certain healthy dose of self doubt.
My favorite is Karl Marx pontificating endlessly about agrarian reform without ever once having visited a farm. Maybe this is another feature -- so stuck in theory that practicality is ignored.
Dec '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
It's been touched on a little bit, but I'll expound. I attribute the charge of anti-intellectualism more to conservative wariness of social "scientist" intellectuals. As I've been completing my degree over the last 3 years I've realized that sociology (or socialistology as I like to call it) has wormed its way into every aspect of non-hard scientific study. The problem with sociology is that it always concludes that Marx is the answer to every problem. As I've told every class I've been in, if Marx is the answer the question is faulty. All the faith bashing by the left (and some on the rightish middle) is just a cover for revering those intellectuals who revere Marx. Run to its logical conclusion the charge of anti-intellectualism will lead us further down the road to socialism.
Sep '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Trace Urdan
katievs
And you provide Katie ire.
So can you elaborate on how you define the three categories: super-set "social conservative," sub-set "faith-based," and sub-sub-set "anti-intellectual?" And do you have a perspective as to which category Michele Bachmann belongs? · Jul 12 at 7:20am
Oh, Trace. You're too much of a gentleman for me to sit and watch. Both Katievs and I are Catholics who've imbibed a fair amount of high Octane philosophy, but its pretty clear to me that the disdain is a whiff of contempt for "those nasty Evangelicals".
At the beginning of the 20th Century, the Ruling Class thought those messy immigrant Catholics were going to swamp the United States with their 20 kids and kitschy votive candles. Now that northeastern Catholics have been effectively subdued and neutered as a cultural force -- with a few notable exceptions --Evangelicals are seen as the new Ostrogoths and Uruk Hai at the Battle of Helm's Deep.
Sep '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Trace Urdan—To learn that someone has doubts about evolution or regards homosexual union as defying natural law instantly conjures fears (well-founded or not) of religious-based discrimination and of a foreign policy agenda that at some level smacks of proselytizing.
I agree that Michelle Bachmann carries Constantine's sword in the culture wars, and this is something that makes me very wary of voting for her—I do not wish for the state to lecture the populace about abortion or homosexuality any more than I want the state to proselytize about poverty and environmental catastrophe. But I think it is not incidental but crucial politically whether an idea is well founded or not. If it is well founded, then it can be argued and the holder of the idea should be able to stand firmly with it, not be pulled under by the first teapot tempest. It only makes it worse that our era's self-styled oracles are more often prescient than not.
Sep '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
I'm not unwilling to take your word for it, Michael, but it would be great if you could provide a couple of examples of "leprechaun magic" anti-intellectualism? I'm genuinely curious and might well agree.
Michael Labeit
Needed!?! Even the folksy, "it must be leprechaun magic" anti-intellectualism? Explain. · Jul 12 at 4:59am
May '10
Re: On Anti-Intellectualism
Trace Urdan
So can you elaborate on how you define the three categories: super-set "social conservative," sub-set "faith-based," and sub-sub-set "anti-intellectual?"
Well, I can make a start.
A social conservative, broadly speaking, is someone who sees the preservation of moral values as critical to our wellbeing as a society and inseparable from the American Experiment. Abandon those and the civil society will collapse. Abortion and homosexual marriage are perhaps the most important issues.
Most, but not all social conservatives are also religious. From that point of view, you could say that their moral values and political views are "faith-based." But being "faith-based" does not mean being anti-intellectual. Witness conservative leaders like Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Roger Scruton, Robert George, Thomas Sowell, Mary Ann Glendon, Norman Poderetz, Pope Benedict, Cardinal Schoenborn, and countless others.
I have among my close friends and family members many deeply religious professional intellectuals. Some of them have PhDs from Harvard or Oxford or MIT.
A person who can be fairly characterized as an anti-intellectual faith-based social conservative is the kind who would says, e.g., "The Bible condemns homosex, therefore it should be illegal."