Fragments, Fallout, and Freedom--Part 17

Anti-intellectualism

A recent post by a Facebook friend set in motion a cascade of memories and insights for me, some of which I believe relate to what I observe in the current Christian and political world.  I believe that how Christians respond to Covid-19 is related as well.

My FB friend is a professor at a Mennonite university.  He recounted the experience of entering a bookstore, and finding a book that he considered a treasure:  Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter.  This book was required reading for one college class I took sometime around  1980.  Hence the trigger for a memory avalanche.  It was published in 1963 and had been awarded a Pulitzer Prize after that.  I remember finding the book revealing and profound, but I specifically remember only one main idea:  Over time, America has become progressively less and less a society that values intellectualism.  This memory fragment vaulted my thinking straight into the mess that many Christians seem to me to have made of their involvement in politics and the way they deal with a pandemic.  I believe that some Christians are among the Americans who have an anti-intellectual bias, and this has affected their perspective negatively on many crucial issues.

Some of my reading friends will probably conclude about now that I have finally gone right over the edge into heresy, so let's get some caveats in place right away. I would like to reassure readers who are already thinking of many "yes, but . . . " responses to the above thesis. 

1.  Intellectualism is not a replacement for spirituality, relationships with others, common sense, or practical experience.  I see it as an enhancement for all of them.

2.  Intellectualism is not the same as going to college.  Intellectualism values the activity of a mind engaged in rational thinking.  This can happen inside or outside the walls of a classroom.

 3.  Intellectualism deliberately minimizes the role of emotions in evaluating and decision-making.

 4.  Intellectual approaches are limited and can be misguided, but are most often valid and preferable to many of the alternatives, sensationalism and irrationality, for example.

5.  "Knowing" through divine revelation is distinct and different from intellectualism, and is sometimes classed as anti-intellectual. I prefer to think of divine revelation as being different also from anti-intellectualism, since I don't believe a bias against learning (knowing) comes with the territory of divine revelation.

Now for some thoughts on anti-intellectualism:

1.   Anti-intellectualism is not the same as innocence. The former is an acquired bias; the latter is connected to a lack of experience.

2.  Anti-intellectualism is not the same as ignorance.  Ignorance means "not knowing."  Being anti-intellectual includes being suspicious of one who "knows,"  who is not ignorant, in other words.

3.  Anti-intellectualism is fundamentally a pride issue--the idea that we have no need of further learning,  As such, anti-intellectualism is a hindrance to much that is desirable in human experience

4.  Anti-intellectualism can be thought of in terms of its opposites.  Although anti-intellectualism is probably the only true opposite of intellectualism, Google coughed up a quick list of 75-90 words that answer the search for "opposites of intellectualism."  From this list, I filtered out five terms that seem to me to be the most applicable to the issues of politics and pandemics:  unthinking, shallow, short-sighted, materialist, and vulgar (in the old-fashioned sense of the word).  The word imprudent comes from the same site.  Gullible is related also, in my thinking. 

*************

In a pandemic, anti-intellectualism will reveal itself primarily by deep distrust of "experts" and a corresponding reliance on loud voices denouncing experts.  The distrusted experts will include statisticians and scientists.  Everyone who has accumulated degrees in any health-related field will be under suspicion--the more advanced the degree, the greater the suspicion elicited.  The experts will be labeled as fear-mongers, and those who believe them will be labeled as fearful.

Personal autonomy will become a priority with anti-intellectuals during a pandemic.  Any guidance from experts that seems to curb personal autonomy will be countered, contested, and ultimately ignored--as long as the repercussions do not seem too onerous. Loss of freedom will be lamented and actively resisted.  Individual rights will be asserted, claimed, and actively defended.

In a pandemic, anti-intellectuals will magnify the voices of quasi-experts.  For example, someone with knowledge of OSHA laws on workplace safety will be taken as the "voice of reason" on the merits or hazards of mask wearing.  Experts on infectious diseases and results of careful studies will be summarily dismissed if they counter the OSHA guy's quasi-expertise. 

Cautions from experts on how to avoid spreading disease will be discounted by those who are anti-intellectual.  In doing so, the nay-sayers will likely use spiritual-sounding or positive-language terms about living fully, being ready to die, having a different perspective, etc.  They will likely not see the blatant disregard of facts or the selfish beginning and end of their "logic" as problematic. 

During a pandemic, those who are anti-intellectual will plead for their viewpoints to stand on equal footing with all others.  Some will not plead, but invoke thundering rhetoric.  Most Amish or Mennonites will gravitate to the former. 

Higher value will be placed on business activity than on charitable acts and attitudes.

During a pandemic, anti-intellectuals will not see value in quiet, solitary pursuits--because they do not sufficiently prioritize the life of the mind and spirit.

**************

In politics, anti-intellectualism will reveal itself in celebration of coarse, blunt, and offensive language. 

Decisive action will be valued above proceeding thoughtfully and carefully.

Short-term expediency will take precedence over prudent consideration of long-term effects.

Almost anything that is good for business and for making money will be considered a good thing.  Anything that places limits on making money will be seen as a bad thing.

Manual labor will be seen as more honorable than working at jobs that primarily require "soft" skills. Sometimes this value requires wearing blinders, if people touting this value actually are themselves preoccupied with activity that does not involve manual labor. 

Great emphasis will be placed on improving of one's circumstances by individual effort.  People who are unable to accomplish this are thought to have expended too little effort. 

Helplessness is not regarded with compassion, but with disdain. 

Derogatory labels and sweeping generalizations will be applied to all who are perceived to be "other" than oneself--especially politically. 

***************

I know that the above lists are incomplete, but for now, they'll need to stay that way.

Before I leave this space, I want to acknowledge several more things: 

1.  Highlighting anti-intellectualism as I have done leaves me wide open to accusations.  I'm trying to prepare for that, but I already know that I don't like hearing accusations directed at me.  I'm committed to being honest in hearing such, however.

2.  Stability might be considered the best outcome of anti-intellectualism.  Think about it.  The anti-intellectual person does not welcome thinking about change or implementing it.  If change is minimized, less disruption occurs than otherwise.  "No disruption" can serve as one definition for  stability.  Stability can be a good thing, but if it means that atrophy sets in, stability is no longer a good thing.

After all this thinking about intellectualism versus anti-intellectualism, I hope none of us choose to live fully in either camp. Living in the good pleasure of the Heavenly father's ways requires leaving those camps in pursuit of better things.  Truth and love are two of those better things.