Difference between revisions of "Anti-intellectualism"
m (Text replacement - "http://" to "https://") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:lighterstill.jpg]][[File:Anti-intellectual.jpg|right|frame]] | [[File:lighterstill.jpg]][[File:Anti-intellectual.jpg|right|frame]] | ||
| − | *[ | + | *[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century 1821] |
==Definition== | ==Definition== | ||
*1: opposing or [[hostile]] to [[intellectuals]] or to an intellectual view or approach | *1: opposing or [[hostile]] to [[intellectuals]] or to an intellectual view or approach | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Because "anti-intellectual" can be pejorative, defining specific cases of anti-intellectualism can be troublesome; one can object to specific [[facets]] of intellectualism or the application thereof without being dismissive of intellectual pursuits in general. Moreover, allegations of anti-intellectualism can constitute an [[appeal]] to [[authority]] or an appeal to [[ridicule]] that attempts to discredit an opponent rather than specifically addressing his or her [[arguments]]. | Because "anti-intellectual" can be pejorative, defining specific cases of anti-intellectualism can be troublesome; one can object to specific [[facets]] of intellectualism or the application thereof without being dismissive of intellectual pursuits in general. Moreover, allegations of anti-intellectualism can constitute an [[appeal]] to [[authority]] or an appeal to [[ridicule]] that attempts to discredit an opponent rather than specifically addressing his or her [[arguments]]. | ||
| − | Anti-intellectualism perhaps saw its most [[extreme]] form during the [ | + | Anti-intellectualism perhaps saw its most [[extreme]] form during the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970's 1970s] in Cambodia under the rule of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot Pol Pot] and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge Khmer Rouge], when people were killed for being [[academics]] or even for wearing eyeglasses in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Fields Killing Fields]. |
| − | Anti-intellectualism usually is expressed through declarations of [[otherness]] — the intellectual is “not one of us” and may be [[dangerous]], due to having little [[empathy]] for the [[common folk]]. Historically, this resulted in portrayals of intellectuals as an [[arrogant]] class, whom [[rural]] communities viewed as “city slickers” indifferent to country ways; such [[communities]] tended to [[stereotype]] intellectuals as foreigners or as racial and ethnic [[minorities]] who “think differently” than the [[natives]]. [[Religious]] [[critics]] describe intellectuals as prone to mental instability, proposing an organic, causal [[connection]] between [[genius]] and madness; they are unlike regular people because of their assumed [[atheism]], and are indecent given their sexual [[mores]], [[homosexuality]], sexual [[promiscuity]], or [ | + | Anti-intellectualism usually is expressed through declarations of [[otherness]] — the intellectual is “not one of us” and may be [[dangerous]], due to having little [[empathy]] for the [[common folk]]. Historically, this resulted in portrayals of intellectuals as an [[arrogant]] class, whom [[rural]] communities viewed as “city slickers” indifferent to country ways; such [[communities]] tended to [[stereotype]] intellectuals as foreigners or as racial and ethnic [[minorities]] who “think differently” than the [[natives]]. [[Religious]] [[critics]] describe intellectuals as prone to mental instability, proposing an organic, causal [[connection]] between [[genius]] and madness; they are unlike regular people because of their assumed [[atheism]], and are indecent given their sexual [[mores]], [[homosexuality]], sexual [[promiscuity]], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celibacy celibacy]. |
| − | Economist Thomas Sowell argues for distinctions between unreasonable and reasonable wariness of [[intellectuals]]. Defining intellectuals as "people whose occupations deal primarily with [[ideas]]" as distinct from those who apply ideas [[practically]], Sowell argues that there can be good cause for distrust of intellectuals. When working in their fields of [[expertise]], intellectuals have increased [[knowledge]]. However, when [[compared]] to other careers, Sowell suggests intellectuals have few disincentives for speaking outside their expertise, and are less likely to face the [[consequences]] of their [[errors]]. For example, a [[physician]] is judged by effective treatment, yet might face malpractice lawsuits if he harms a patient. In [[contrast]], a university professor with [ | + | Economist Thomas Sowell argues for distinctions between unreasonable and reasonable wariness of [[intellectuals]]. Defining intellectuals as "people whose occupations deal primarily with [[ideas]]" as distinct from those who apply ideas [[practically]], Sowell argues that there can be good cause for distrust of intellectuals. When working in their fields of [[expertise]], intellectuals have increased [[knowledge]]. However, when [[compared]] to other careers, Sowell suggests intellectuals have few disincentives for speaking outside their expertise, and are less likely to face the [[consequences]] of their [[errors]]. For example, a [[physician]] is judged by effective treatment, yet might face malpractice lawsuits if he harms a patient. In [[contrast]], a university professor with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure tenure] is less likely to be judged by the effectiveness of his [[ideas]] and less likely to face repercussions for his errors: |
<blockquote>By encouraging, or even requiring, students to take stands where they have neither the [[knowledge]] nor the intellectual [[training]] to seriously [[examine]] [complex] issues, teachers promote the [[expression]] of unsubstantiated [[opinions]], the venting of uninformed [[emotions]], and the [[habit]] of acting on those opinions and emotions, while ignoring or dismissing opposing views, without having either the intellectual equipment or the personal [[experience]] to weigh one view against another in any serious way.</blockquote> | <blockquote>By encouraging, or even requiring, students to take stands where they have neither the [[knowledge]] nor the intellectual [[training]] to seriously [[examine]] [complex] issues, teachers promote the [[expression]] of unsubstantiated [[opinions]], the venting of uninformed [[emotions]], and the [[habit]] of acting on those opinions and emotions, while ignoring or dismissing opposing views, without having either the intellectual equipment or the personal [[experience]] to weigh one view against another in any serious way.</blockquote> | ||
| − | Similar [[arguments]] have been made by others. Historian [ | + | Similar [[arguments]] have been made by others. Historian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson Paul Johnson] argued that a close examination of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century 20th century] history reveals that intellectuals have championed innumerable disastrous [[public]] [[policies]], writing, "beware intellectuals. Not merely should they be kept well away from the levers of [[power]], they should also be objects of [[suspicion]] when they seek to offer [[collective]] advice." Journalist Tom Wolfe described an intellectual as "a person knowledgable in one field who speaks out only in others."[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism] |
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*'''''[[Fundamentalism]]''''' | *'''''[[Fundamentalism]]''''' | ||
Latest revision as of 23:45, 12 December 2020
Definition
- 1: opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach
Description
Anti-intellectualism is hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible. Alternatively, self-described intellectuals who are alleged to fail to adhere to rigorous standards of scholarship may be described as anti-intellectuals.
In public discourse, anti-intellectuals usually perceive and publicly present themselves as champions of the common folk — populists against political elitism and academic elitism — proposing that the educated are a social class detached from the everyday concerns of the majority, and that they dominate political discourse and higher education.
Because "anti-intellectual" can be pejorative, defining specific cases of anti-intellectualism can be troublesome; one can object to specific facets of intellectualism or the application thereof without being dismissive of intellectual pursuits in general. Moreover, allegations of anti-intellectualism can constitute an appeal to authority or an appeal to ridicule that attempts to discredit an opponent rather than specifically addressing his or her arguments.
Anti-intellectualism perhaps saw its most extreme form during the 1970s in Cambodia under the rule of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, when people were killed for being academics or even for wearing eyeglasses in the Killing Fields.
Anti-intellectualism usually is expressed through declarations of otherness — the intellectual is “not one of us” and may be dangerous, due to having little empathy for the common folk. Historically, this resulted in portrayals of intellectuals as an arrogant class, whom rural communities viewed as “city slickers” indifferent to country ways; such communities tended to stereotype intellectuals as foreigners or as racial and ethnic minorities who “think differently” than the natives. Religious critics describe intellectuals as prone to mental instability, proposing an organic, causal connection between genius and madness; they are unlike regular people because of their assumed atheism, and are indecent given their sexual mores, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, or celibacy.
Economist Thomas Sowell argues for distinctions between unreasonable and reasonable wariness of intellectuals. Defining intellectuals as "people whose occupations deal primarily with ideas" as distinct from those who apply ideas practically, Sowell argues that there can be good cause for distrust of intellectuals. When working in their fields of expertise, intellectuals have increased knowledge. However, when compared to other careers, Sowell suggests intellectuals have few disincentives for speaking outside their expertise, and are less likely to face the consequences of their errors. For example, a physician is judged by effective treatment, yet might face malpractice lawsuits if he harms a patient. In contrast, a university professor with tenure is less likely to be judged by the effectiveness of his ideas and less likely to face repercussions for his errors:
By encouraging, or even requiring, students to take stands where they have neither the knowledge nor the intellectual training to seriously examine [complex] issues, teachers promote the expression of unsubstantiated opinions, the venting of uninformed emotions, and the habit of acting on those opinions and emotions, while ignoring or dismissing opposing views, without having either the intellectual equipment or the personal experience to weigh one view against another in any serious way.
Similar arguments have been made by others. Historian Paul Johnson argued that a close examination of 20th century history reveals that intellectuals have championed innumerable disastrous public policies, writing, "beware intellectuals. Not merely should they be kept well away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice." Journalist Tom Wolfe described an intellectual as "a person knowledgable in one field who speaks out only in others."[1]
