Anti-intellectual Revolution
Like most people I talk to I am impatient for the election to be over and done with already. The rhetoric and the mudslinging is to be expected of course, but this time around the intensity is profound. I’ve mentioned here before my frustration with the assumption I encounter everywhere that people are only voting for Obama because they are blind sheep or have been brainwashed. Or that if we vote for him we are not “real Americans.” These attempts to solidify and intensify the divide between us and them are a sad reflection on our ability to understand the other. But what frightens me the most is the undercurrent of such sentiments - an anti-intellectual stance that turns educated into enemy.
To be educated in this politicized environment is to be written off as brainwashed, elitist, and unAmerican. The educated voter who asks thoughtful questions is mocked in favor of some self-esteem rally gone bad message that encourages an “I’m okay, you’re okay, anyone not like us is weird” attitude. The average Joe (be that six-pack or plumber…) is fed the lie that to be educated is to be liberal and to be liberal is to be evil, so therefore education (and thoughtful intellectualism of any sort) is evil. Flawless logic of course.
I recently had some guy link to my blog saying that it is because of educated liberals like me that he votes Republican. When did education become a bad thing? And worse, when did mocking it become a political slogan? I know that there are many wonderful educated Republicans, but what I keep hearing over and over from them is that it is far better to be average and stupid. Perhaps this is just pandering to persuade a vote out of those least likely to think through the issues, but is creating a new uneducated elite really the best thing for our country or the world? I’m all for democracy and the voice of the people, but to vilify thinking enters some dangerous territory. Maybe it’s some brilliantly insidious conspiracy theory - glorify the average, mock the intelligent, and pave the way for a brave new world (or something like that). Or perhaps it just plays off people’s fears and jealousy issues. Whatever the case, having an education and being a thoughtful person has nearly become a crime in this country.
Jacqueline Carey, one of my favorite fiction authors, wrote about this recent trend in her monthly blog -
Many things about the last eight years in America have disturbed me, and one of the most subtle, yet profoundly detrimental, is the rise of anti-intellectualism. It’s like being back in junior high, only with a weird secondary adolescence twist where being smart, intellectually curious, and well-informed makes a person a condescending, out-of-touch, latte-sipping elitist… Electing a president of the last remaining superpower in the world is a lot more important than electing the junior high prom king. I want the smart guy in charge. I don’t want another cowboy filled with steely-eyed resolve, ready to trust his gut instinct. We’ve had too many guts with lousy instincts in charge. It’s time to give the brainiacs a chance.
I’m all for that. And for the record I really don’t care about what degrees from which institutions people have (if they have them at all), just that they are willing to thoughtfully engage. Reverse this trend of anti-intellectualism America - please. I want my leader to expect me to be thinking - not lauding me for being too American to think.
Julie Clawson
October 31st, 2008 at 3:21 am
I have a slightly different experience of the anti-intellectual issue. I am quite tired of being told that I must be stupid, that I can’t possibly have taken a thoughtful look at the issues, that the candidate I support is dumber than the other guy because he is not as “progressive”, that being “progressive” is some how a sign of intelligence, that wanting less government is some how less compassionate (but I guess this last objection doesn’t really have anything to do with intelligence because we all KNOW that government knows best).
For the record–I think the implications you reference are valid and I agree I want voters to think and examine and ask questions and seek answers and become informed before they vote!!
October 31st, 2008 at 6:17 am
[quote]
When did education become a bad thing?
[/quote]
When it became something that many people felt was out of their reach to receive, and thus something to resent. Ironically, this is becoming more and more popular in spite of the fact that more and more people receive higher education every year than ever before, largely on federal grant and loan money which was largely put in place by progressives.
Minnow is right, however, that equally disturbing to the problem of certain “salt of the earth” type conservatives being openly hostile towards educated liberals is the problem of progressive liberals who flatly refuse to believe that anyone who is even slightly conservative isn’t therefore a bigoted luddite.
October 31st, 2008 at 6:23 am
My experience is similar to Minnow’s.
I live in a primarily academic community (perhaps a “blue” town in a “red” state?), and to have even considered McCain clearly makes me out to be the one who has not done the research, not thought through the issues, or worse. It’s the smart, thoughtful people around me who are voting for Obama. If you are reflective and intellectual, you can’t be a Republican, or so I am pressured to believe.
I have heard the sorts of things you mention, I just haven’t heard them around here. (I do, however, get ridiculous e-mails from my extended family spouting the dangers of voting for Obama and are chock-full of lies about him and his history.)
All of that to say, it depends on where you live, but it would be more fair to say there are pressures coming from both sides. It’s not just the Republicans who think the Obama-supporters are lemmings. I have been pressured to feel like a lemming, and I supported McCain in the primaries, back when he didn’t sound so, well, Republican.
Thanks for raising this issue.
October 31st, 2008 at 6:52 am
the message i hear so much, as people want to pressure and condemn each other, is about fear - us vs. them, me vs. you - you’re educated so you’re liberal; you’re liberal so you’re unamerican/ socialist/ evil; you’re for obama so you invite terrorism and godlessness. it’s exhausting.
i watch myself, and pray hard, that i don’t do the same thing to those who are sending these messages toward me and the things i believe to be possible. but it’s hard work. even though i’m right . . .
October 31st, 2008 at 7:18 am
AMEN, sister. I really, really want to believe that the people at the wheel of the country are smarter than I am.
And I’m SO tired of the divisiveness–we’re polarized in so many ways, around intellectualism, religion, sexual orientation, red/blue, the list goes on.
Here’s to a radical change in direction!
October 31st, 2008 at 8:32 am
I’m exhausted and really stressed. I just want this election over. I sent you an email…..
October 31st, 2008 at 8:40 am
What’s really frustrating to me is how, whenever someone points out this anti-intellectual trend, one tends to find responses like the following that I got when I said something on Jesus Creed:
“Beware of making the mistake of thinking that anyone who disagrees with you about the value or correctness of Wright, Kimball, McManus et al. are just anti-intellectual or stupid; that way lies madness, and does the debate no good at all. Have a little respect for your opponents, please.”
I did concede (in that thread) that my previous statement ended up being more all-encompassing than I’d intended, despite trying to include language that I had hoped would make it clear that I was speaking from my experience and opinion, and NOT about literally ALL who disagree with the scholars in question (that thread wasn’t about politics, but the statement still applies). Even so, the reality behind what I was trying to say was completely dismissed.
Why is it that so many people seem to assume that if we’re concerned about the growing trend of anti-intellectualism in certain circles, our concerns ONLY arise out of our disagreement? Give us a little more credit, please!
October 31st, 2008 at 8:54 am
I’m with commenters 1, 2 and 3. Prejudice happens on both sides. One of my best friends is a PhD, an accomplished professor at a secular private liberal arts college with a good regional reputation. He’s also a conservative politically - a very thoughtful one. He’s more conservative than I am and we’ve had some interesting, challenging (for both of us) discussions over the years. But because of his political and religious views he is treated like a pariah by his fellow faculty and like an embarrassment by the administration, most of whom are less published and less intellectually rigorous than he is. What happened to the free exchange of ideas, the search for truth in the academy? It’s hard to have much of that when 90% of your faculty and administration are liberal democrats and the remaining 10% are pressured not to speak up.
I don’t like the anti-intellectualism that is all too common on the political (and theological) right, but I’m no more of a fan of the left’s own brand of group-think and stereotyping, either.
October 31st, 2008 at 10:38 am
i’ll swing myself back the other direction, now, though. i’m currently reading “Amusing Ourselves to Death”, which was written in 1985. and one pertinent point that it makes to this conversation:
the protestantism of the 17th and 18th centuries are what -built- the intellectual giant that The United States of America became moving into the 19th century. mandatory grammar school, founding colleges and universities… protestants ensured their ability to defend their theology against each other by trying to make their congregations as literate, well read and well educated as possible. this was not something that just this or that sect did, they all engaged in a massive push for educating the masses.
can you imagine the protestantism of today doing anything remotely similar? the protestantism that wants to ban books, ban scientific discussion, paints anyone well educated as a coastal, progressive effete? no, you can’t.
somewhere along the line, American protestants went from being the vanguard of education and intellectual rigor in this country, to being the millstone around the neck of intellectual progress.
let’s focus less on who’s right and who’s wrong and who’s conservative and who’s progressive, and more on -why- we have become a culture more obsessed with -being- right than knowing -why- we’re right, and how this obsession makes growing fruit like compassion, understand, and peace impossible.
October 31st, 2008 at 11:36 am
[...] mudslinging in the election and why educated is often synonmous to many Christians to mean liberal. There is such a danger in our society to mold Jesus after ourselves. If we are not educated, [...]
October 31st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
jhimm, you make a good point. At the same time, there has been a rise in conservative protestantism’s doing just what has been lacking. Alan Wolfe’s October 2000 piece in the Atlantic Monthly took a look at what he called “The Opening of the Evangelical Mind.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/10/wolfe.htm
That trend still has a long way to go before it’s characteristic of evangelicalism as a whole. But it’s there. So to your question of: “can you imagine the protestantism of today doing anything remotely similar?” - I would answer “yes, I can because in some areas it’s actually happening. People like Julie are evidence of it, in fact.
Wolfe: “Wheaton College is part of a determined effort by evangelical-Christian institutions to create a life of the mind. At Calvin College, in Michigan; Fuller Theological Seminary and Pepperdine University, in California; Baylor University, in Texas; Valparaiso University, in Indiana; and even the Catholic Notre Dame, also in Indiana, evangelical scholars are writing the books, publishing the journals, teaching the students, and sustaining the networks necessary to establish a presence in American academic life. Should they fail, the reaction of most secular academics — those who bother to notice — will be “I told you so.” But should they succeed, their efforts will matter. Christian Smith, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, relying on a 1996 survey, concluded that 29 percent of Americans could be described as conservative Protestants, with roughly equal numbers of evangelicals and fundamentalists, making them the largest religious group in America. Even if a relatively small number of them want to participate in the wider world to which a good education has always provided entree, the rest of America cannot continue to write off conservative Christians as hopelessly out of touch with modern American values. “
October 31st, 2008 at 10:10 pm
All this “but the other side does it too”, just makes me want to respond “So what? Two wrongs don’t make a right.”
November 1st, 2008 at 6:54 am
@ Mike–I for one am not suggesting “But the other side does it, too.” as an excuse to be anti-intellectual. I am however suggesting that neither attitude promotes a healthy exchange of ideas. Blindly thinking it is more noble (Christ-like, humane, sensitive…) to be liberal than to be conservative is not progress, even if we lable it progressive. Nither is blindly thinking it is more noble (righteous, patriotic, responsible…) to be conservative than liberal. We must figure out a way to take the best of what both sides have to offer, address the fears each side raises, and begin to find solutions to the problems our whole nation (world) faces. I think it begins with a willingness to try rather than the perpetual blame shifting, name calling (labling so one can argue against a sterotype instead of wrestle with ideas), and whining. I actually believe you began to say the same thing but you stopped with whining about the problem.
Here’s my confession–I am guilty of thinking of Senator Obama (and most young democrats) as full of nice sounding ideas but not too ready for the grunt work. They are more interested in getting their degrees so they can earn a six figure income then in rubbing elbows with the folks on the bottom of the pile. They may raise the minimum wage for the voting poor, and throw more money at entitlement programs but only so they can stay in power.(And to really throw a wrench in the soup–I have been equally guilty of thinking of most conservative Christians as moral snob who refuse to open their eyes, get their hands dirty, and give a damn about what Jesus would DO).
November 1st, 2008 at 8:13 am
I agree that this is often bipartisan. I was speaking from my experience and the reactions I have personally encountered.
I understand that McCain supports generally have thought out why they are voting for him, I just disagree with them. But I’ve found I don’t receive that same understanding and respect from many of them. It is from that camp that I hear that to be educated is evil which is different than just thinking someone is stupid because of how they vote. That is what I find dangerous. Anytime thinking is discourage I see serious red flags.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:17 am
You’re right. Blindly thinking anything isn’t good. But what if you really did become more “liberal”, “progressive”, whatever after becoming more educated and critically thinking through the issues on a deeper level? I’m not saying this happens for everyone who becomes more educated (as Julie acknowledged right from the get-go, there are plenty of well-educated, intelligent Republicans), but this is what happened to me. If education does lead some people to become more liberal is that a good reason for others to therefore demonize or disdain education? (And just speaking personally, I’ve encountered that anti-intellectualism far more often than the reverse - yes, even at Wheaton, Karl.)
November 1st, 2008 at 9:04 am
It seems that once the candidates have veen decided by the conventions of the major parties, the rhetoric becomes entirely about personalities, and nothing about policies, and descends to an incredibly juvenile level. People seem to think they are making a very witty comments by twisting the names of the candidates, but it rapidly becomes very boring.
November 1st, 2008 at 11:45 am
I am so glad I have found your blog. My husband and I have had the most awful fights because he keeps telling my I’ve been brainwashed by my brothers because wow I don’t agree with him on who to vote for, on the environment, etc. I try to tell him that I came to these conclusions on my own and researched these issues a great deal-but he’s determined since I don’t agree with him and the conservative extreme right I’m stupid.
Thanks so much for speaking up on this issue-helps me know I’m not alone in being treated like this.
November 2nd, 2008 at 4:38 am
“But I’ve found I don’t receive that same understanding and respect from many of them. It is from that camp that I hear that to be educated is evil”
I am grieved that this has been your personal experience. I personally have never heard anyone refer to being educated as being evil.
“which is different than just thinking someone is stupid because of how they vote.”
This part of your statement is troubling to me. Perhaps because being thought stupid because of my POV has been my experience I am more sensitive to how deeply such an attitude cuts.
“That [I assume you mean thinking education is evil] is what I find dangerous. Anytime thinking is discourage I see serious red flags.”
I absolutely agree. And I would add–assuming someone has not thought is arrogant. We would be much better off and more likely to work through differences if we asked people to tell us their stories–what brought them to their conclusions? What are their priorities? How have they been involved in the issue?–and not just their opinions. Sharing your experience helps me see through different lenses. I appreciate the vulnerability you have shown on your blog in this regard, by the way.
November 2nd, 2008 at 5:41 am
@ Mike–”If education does lead some people to become more liberal is that a good reason for others to therefore demonize or disdain education?”
To answer your question directly–NO. I find no reason to demonize education, per se. I personally believe that indoctrination is as alive and well in our educational institutions as it is in many evangelical circles, however. I wonder if perhaps some of those whom you see as anti-intellectual are in truth trying to, A). defend themselves against what they see as an attack of their intelligence because the attacker does not consider them “well” educated and, B). trying to put forward the argument that getting an “education” doesn’t always mean we have been taught how to think, sometimes it only means we have been taught what to think. (Which BTW is why I say per se. Being “lead” by education could imply indoctrination).
Your question/statement: “But what if you really did become more “liberal”, “progressive”, whatever, after becoming more educated and critically thinking through the issues on a deeper level? I’m not saying this happens for everyone who becomes more educated…but this is what happened to me.” troubles me in a couple ways. First the list “liberal, progressive, whatever,” dismisses the point being made about using the lable progressive synonomously with liberal–that being that liberal is not necessarily (although it could very well be at times) progressive. Secondly, the intent of your statement is unclear. Do you mean to equate becoming more educated (and we are assuming via an institution of “higher” learning) with a new ability to think critically and more deeply as if education in and of itself causes such to happen? Or did these two things (becoming educated and beginning to think more critically/deeply) simply happen at the same time for you? Can you see how your intent might change my response? If I did not stop to wonder but instead jumped to a conclusion as to how you meant your question/statement I could very well begin to accuse you of intellectual snobbery. Not intending the meaning I took away from your statement you could very well begin to feel like I was attacking the fact of your education (depending on how I expressed my hurt feelings). Meanwhile we have sadly moved very far away from a healthy/helpful exchange of ideas. And of course, we blame the “other” for trying to make the debate about personality.
Oh we are a vain and fragile lot, we humans.
November 2nd, 2008 at 7:36 am
I too, have witnessed this … and it’s crazy-making. But on the flip side of the coin I just now had the experience of a friend (who is a McCain supporter) joke with me about something election oriented. It was light-hearted and we were both able to laugh at our respective positions. She knows my position (and respects it); I know hers and respect, but we still like each other more than our politics. That’s the America I know and love.
November 2nd, 2008 at 7:59 am
[...] read Julie’s post for yourself even though I will try to summarize for sake of continuity. The anti-intellectualism [...]
November 2nd, 2008 at 8:10 am
Thanks for this post. I’ve lived outside of the U.S. for the last 20+ years and it’s sadly true that many people perceive the average American to be none too bright when it comes to politics, the environment and the rest of the world.
November 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 am
Full disclosure: I will be voting Independent
I have certainly heard the sort of statements that Julie has experienced, but there is a correlary just as common from the liberal camp, and that is the idea that to vote Republican means you have no brain.
Democrats have been characterizing those who vote Republican as uneducated as long as I can remember, which is about the last 20 years of elections. This has become one of their favorite methods of subtly denouncing Republicans. But I suspect this assertion is a fallacy - as far as I can tell, it is working class (low educaiton level) and extreme upper class (generally highly educated) that tend to vote Republican. The Democrat demographics are generally urban low income (hence low education) and upper-middle class (generally well educated).
It would be nice if we were able to “be convinced in our own mind” without having to make judgements on the motives of others for voting the way they do.
November 3rd, 2008 at 4:18 am
This has been a very interesting read.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:07 am
@ Mike, who wrote: “And just speaking personally, I’ve encountered that anti-intellectualism far more often than the reverse - yes, even at Wheaton, Karl.”
Sure Mike, anti-intellectualism and/or closed-mindedness occur in some form within any institution, even those that pride themselves on their open-mindedness and intellectualism. That is true whether you are talking about Wheaton or Wellesley. Challenging the prevailing orthodoxy in either place could be hazardous. Going to Wheaton for undergrad and a secular college for grad school I encountered closed-mindedness in both places, from different directions; even though both places were also full of interesting people, stimulating discussions and vigorous exchanges of ideas.
And no, saying “the other side does it too” doesn’t make it right. Of course not. But standing and loudly decrying one side’s doing of “it” as if the problem lay with “that side” rather than with a tendency found in human nature as a whole with both sides equally guilty, runs the risk of losing credibility with anyone not already on your side. How can I see to remove the speck in my brother’s eye . . .
Minnow also makes a good distinction between being educated (knowing a lot of things) vs. being taught to think critically. There are lots of educated people, both conservative and liberal, who lack the ability to think critically and deeply - or if they have that ability at least don’t seem to practice it much.
November 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I think Karl has put his finger on the issue: challenging the dominant orthodoxy of the prevailing culture of wherever we find ourselves. Here in Berkeley, I constantly find myself defending conservative Christians even though I am extremely liberal. Obviously, we’ve all had similar experience, though perhaps with different groups and in different scenarios.
I’m struck by how everyone seems to be saying the same sentiment with different labels.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
@karl - my limited experience as a graduate of Gordon College with students from other christian colleges (and through friends who are graduates of other christian colleges) did very little convince me that today’s christian colleges are doing very much to promote what i would consider genuine intellectualism.
there was very little tolerance in these places for asking (let alone attempting to answer) the difficult questions many thinking persons have about mainstream theology. maybe all that’s changed since my time and that would be great. but from what i hear from time to time, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
in any regard, until places like Kansas stop trying to replace Biology books with the first two chapters of Genesis, i can’t imagine present day protestantism promoting genuine intellectualism. yes, some of us on the fringe are trying, but we hardly are anything remotely like representative of the main cultural thrust of the movement. the protestantism that built the academic backbone of this country was -the- driving cultural force of its day. the protestantism of today is one of two or three driving forces and none of them are particularly intellectual.
November 13th, 2008 at 7:58 am
jhimm, I’m not surprised that was your experience, although I’m sorry that’s still the case. Nevertheless, you should read that Atlantic Monthly piece for a more generous take (by a non-evangelical) on some encouraging intellectual trends within at least parts of evangelicalism.
But aside from suggesting that evangelicalism isn’t *quite* as intellectually benighted across the board as some would argue, my main point was to observe that it can be just as dangerous and un-tolerated to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy at Berkley or Wellesley, as it is at Gordon or Wheaton. David said it well in comment #26. Neither side has a monopoly on closed-mindedness. The question is rather which ideas their minds are closed toward. We’re really talking about a human trait - not just a conservative or evangelical trait.