In America, anyone who is not living as a hermit in the woods somewhere likely agrees that there exist dichotomies of thought, belief, culture, education, and politics which seem inexplicably insurmountable in the present day. With social, political, and economic situations so complex and nuanced that no one person could understand fully or be objectively correct about, it is more essential than ever to participate in productive discourse on particularly divisive issues. There are unfortunately, however, a variety of key factors at play in the U.S. which are hindering any such discourse.
One of these key factors has been a perceived spike in the movement of anti-intellectualism in America. In his book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, Richard Hofstadter, historian and Pulitzer Prize winner, defines the mindset behind the movement as “a resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind, and of those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition constantly to minimize the value of that life.” In simpler terms, it is a systematic process of thought in which facts, institutional authorities, and the desire for knowledge are diminished in value.
Within the context of America, this movement has been most often associated with political strategies which have been employed to sway large demographics of citizens. This is so pervasive, in fact, that according to Matthew Motta in his book titled Anti-Scientific Americans, about 1 in 3 Americans hold anti-intellectual ideals at any given time. More specifically, this movement has been one factor of a strategy employed by the political right to unite voters amongst the “Average Americans,” which for the Republican party has meant many Christian denominations as well as middle and working-class Americans, against a perceived threat from an establishment.
This populist approach has been overwhelmingly successful in creating a juxtaposition between class in a variety of manners relevant to American life and politics. As Irving Louis Horowitz says in his article “The Changing Face of Republicanism,” regarding the positive direction of the Republican party post-2008, “Populism is the theme of the Republican Party not only in terms of class, gender, and racial factors, but also in painting the Democratic Party as the defender of an elite culture at the expense of a mass-media culture.” The push towards anti-intellectualism has occurred as a result of the populist-right themes of connecting the political opposition to the elite, and to the establishments of the elite, which in this case are those of academia. This appeal to anti-intellectualism is not new,
however, and has roots that can be traced back long before even the founding of America. As long as there have been classes of people, there have been those who fight vehemently against those classes which are allegedly better off. For proof of this, look at any civil war, revolution, or any war of class throughout history. Anti-intellectualism is and has been a highly complex sociological issue, and as such is multi-faceted in a manner that is difficult to discuss in so few words. However, Hofstadter conveniently outlines three specific forms which anti-intellectualism can and has taken, that being anti-rationalism, anti-elitism, and unreflective instrumentalism.
Anti-rationalism, the first form which Hofstadter identifies, relies primarily on the notion that reason, rationalism, and critical thinking (in the general sense of the words) are inherently passionless, cold, and without human emotion. This notion instills a deep mistrust in the process of “emotionless” deep and critical thinking, which leads directly into the conflict between absolutism and relativism. Those under the banner of absolutism hold that there are some human
truths beyond the scope of reason, as they do not trust the devolution of ideas essential to their belief systems in the hands of relativists. As Hofstadter says, “Religious anti-rationalism expresses the fear that nothing is sacred in the land of the critical thinker.” The absolutist movement has historically been most connected to religious anti-rationalism, in which it is posed that absolute truths do in fact exist within the context of religion.
Relativists, though, believe that all human truth is relative to the situation and perspective, and as such do not believe in absolute truths. They, unlike absolutists, believe that moral inquiry and discourse can only be beneficial to society (Rigney 439). The conflict between these two opposing ideas has been evident in the development of culture and popular belief in America’s history, especially through the lens of the Industrial Age. In this time, the secularization of society through reformation in economic and governmental systems, as well as deepened scientific understanding meant there was a rise in rational thinking, directly challenging traditional views of absolutism. Scientific views such as creationism and sociological topics such as preferred form of government were beginning to be questioned more deeply at this time due to the rise of standardized education and rational thinking.
The second form of anti-intellectualism which Hofstadter identifies is anti-elitism, in which the knowledge or claims of the educated are not trusted because of the perceived elite status of the educated (Rigney 441). It is important to note that unlike anti-rationalism and unreflective instrumentalism, anti-elitism is in opposition to the class labeled as intellects, instead of intelligence itself. More specifically, anti-elitism is a reflection of a class conflict more than anything else, that between the educated elite and those who are neither of those things. As such, it is the category which is especially prevalent in populist anti-establishment ideas of Republican-led political agendas, although not exclusively so.
This mistrust in the elite has always existed, but the form it has taken in the U.S. has shifted constantly. Rigney points out that in pre-industrialization America, the charge behind anti-elitism was largely due to the conflict between populists and patricians (aristocratic elite). This was a time when education, and thereby the role of the educated, was limited in society, and as such most often served to the interests of the aristocratic elite. Again, though, industrialization caused a major shift to this dynamic, as the expansion of education resulted in a more positive attitude toward the educated, who were much more commonplace and essential cogs in the industrial machine (Rigney 442).
Simultaneously to this, there became a growing “culture of critical discourse” amongst intellectuals (Gouldner). This was the first time in which establishments of intellect were criticized from within, and as such a divide emerged within this class. There were those such as Hofstadter himself, who mourned the “decline of the ruling-class gentleman,” who desired the aristocratic, patrician status of past centuries. There were suddenly new members of the educated elite, though, who recognized the position that the classification of “educated” held, and sought to negate it through criticisms of elitist attitudes. Both this branch of anti-elitism, as well as the populist variety, still persist today, as is evident in ever-going discourse on the place and role that class has played in academia in the past and should play in the future.
The third category of anti-intellectualism, unreflective instrumentalism, which Rigney defines as “the devaluation of forms of thought that do not promise relatively immediate practical payoffs” (444). Hofstadter identifies this form most specifically within the institution of capitalism in America. To best understand this, the 19th century conflict between the established class of wealth and an emerging business class; between old and new money. During this time, business moguls such as Vanderbilt and Carnegie came into vast amounts of wealth despite their lack of education, and as such came to criticize institutions of education for their lack of
practicality in terms of capitalistic ventures (Rigney 445). The validity of the nature of education as a bastion of critical thought and reflection was drawn into question by men such as this.
The attitudes of the intellectuals in this time were equally disdainful, though. They believed that this new business class was inherently crude and atypical. The relationship between these groups changed, though, as it became more apparent that education did have indirect practical benefits within capitalistic endeavors through advancement of commercial, scientific, and technical programs for improved efficacy in the industrial world (Rigney 445). While this relationship has softened since this period, there still exists much of the same attitude of questioning the validity of education on the basis of practical application to life. Rigney argues in favor of academia by saying that “Neither bread nor philosophy is valuable for its own sake, but both may be valuable for what they contribute to human well-being and the quality of human life. It is the perennial task of critical discourse to reflect upon what ends, both material and ideal, are worth pursuing” (447). We could choose to no lead a reflective life, but in doing so we are denying ourselves any possibility of growth.
Anti-intellectualism may seem to be complex and arbitrary, and it may seem to be a collection of seemingly miniscule processes of thought that have no meaningful impact on one’s own experiences. On a national and even global scale, though, they have a synergy which makes the process of anti-intellectualism far greater than any of its individual, isolated parts. Admittedly, some motivation behind it is rooted in a genuine desire to reform places of intellect so they may not be as exclusive and geared towards an elite class. This is not the case for most anti-intellectual thought, though. Although not inherently necessarily a movement of ignorance and rejection of truth at its core, in practice anti-intellectualism often continues to reinforce patterns of thought which are inherently ignorant and potentially harmful to a learned world.
Works Cited
Hofstadter, Richard. Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1963.
Horowitz, Irving Louis. "The Changing Face of Republicanism." Chronicle of Higher Education, 17 Oct. 2008, www.chronicle.com/article/the-changing-face-of-republicanism/.
Huang, Edric, et al. "Understanding Anti-Intellectualism in the U.S." Studio ATAO, edited by Lesley Tellez, Zandie Brockett, and Hannah Seabright, Studio ATAO, 1 June 2021, www.studioatao.org/post/understanding-anti-intellectualism-in-the-u-s.
Motta, Matthew. Anti-Scientific Americans. Oxford University Press, 2024.
Rigney, Daniel. "Three Kinds of Anti-Intellectualism: Rethinking Hofstadter." Sociological Inquiry, vol. 61, no. 4, 1991, pp. 434-51. Sociology Source Ultimate.
Comments