The Origins of American Anti-Intellectualism?

[Johonebesus]

Anyway, my main gripe was the idea that big money somehow benefitted from anti-intellectualism in general and that they somehow promoted it; but actually a well educated populace is more productive and a well to do populace consumes more, so that is not really the case.

The most obvious example of science getting in the way of profits is global warming. There is a good consensus among scientists that we are changing the environment, and that this probably isn't a good thing. There is much debate over exactly what the consequences will be, and how severe and how fast the planet will warm, but no-one really contends that it isn't happening. Except the energy industry, which doesn't want regulation and conservation and reduction in consumption to cut into their profits. So they sponsor studies and think tanks that aren't taken seriously by the scientific community at large to bolster their lobbying against environmental policies.

Most historians and social scientists say that having a workforce that is well paid, has good medical care, and good job security is good for the economy and the society at large. Yet, for some reason, companies fight against unions, workplace safety regulation, and worker health care. Wal-Mart has been known to shut down stores rather than allow unions in. Despite that the American workforce is so poorly educated that foreign companies are starting to find Canada more attractive so they can save money on trying to train illiterate American workers, there have been few corporations lobbying for better primary and secondary education.

Companies do not always do what will increase long-term profits and opportunity. They tend to focus myopically on increasing this quarter's profits at all consts. That means cutting production costs by any means necessary, even if the larger effect is an impoverished society that can't buy all the nice goods. That means fighting against universal health care, whether through better employer insurance or more taxes, even though the cost to society is huge. That means passing up opportunities, like the V.C.R., since they don't want to spend the money on R&D. Contrary to what republicans tell you, corporations do not act rationally and in their long-term best interest. They just don't.

[chaoschristian]

I wrote:

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who idealized and envisioned the US remaining a citizen/farmer agrarian utopia?

I've got to learn to use emoticons. Before everyone starts to think I've got something against Tom Jeff, let just say that I'm his biggest fan-boy:

Not only is Thomas Jefferson responsible for writing the best literature in America, he was also its greatest innovator and inventor. After creating his first time machine he went back in time and published his earliest works under the pseudonym of "William Shakespeare." He then flashed forward and personally tutored a young Abraham Lincoln on how to read and write and penned the first draft of the Gettysburg Address that Lincoln kept hidden and rolled up in those stovepipe hats he wore until he needed it.

Tom is also responsible for winning the so called Louisianna Purchase, not by buying it, but by thumb-wrestling Napoleon in a best of contest wherein Tom naturally swept the floor with L'Petit Emporer.

During the War of 1812 he personally manned all of the guns at Fort McHenry simultaneously and in between loading rounds would swim out to the English fleet to help Francis Scott Key edit "The Star Spangled Banner."

Rumors of his death are greatly exaggerated.

Many are his exploits and too short is the time to tell them!

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Jefferson also did a fair bit of research into pseudoscience, as well, though, among his many other actual accomplishments. FOr this, refer to his "anthropology" in the "Notes on the Sate of Virginina"

[Elfdart]

Many good points, but I think a large part of it was started by anti-immigrant sentiment. Immigrants from Central Europe were eyed with a lot of suspicion after 1848. It was considered bad enough when peasants and serfs from Europe came over and competed for jobs, but bookworm Germans, Czechs, German Jews, and later, the Ostjuden brought with them foreign ideas that might infect the minds of young WASPs. The reason socialism (and other "isms") is such a bugaboo in the US is because it was the work of overeducated foreigners with funny mustaches. Darwin, Marx, Freud, Neitsche, Von Mises -it doesn't matter what part of the political spectrum.

This also explains why demagogues in the US smear anything they don't like as "un-American".

[Zero]

"I don't trust books. All fact, and no heart." - Steven Colbert, The Colbert Report

This is the reason I think anti-intellectualism is really strong. Most people are stupid, and can barely come to understand some of the most basic concepts behind almost anything with any reasonable complexity. People prefer messages with heart and emotional pleas behind them above things that actually matter.

Think about the way that sensationalist bullshit always does better then issues which actually merit any real attention, and it'll make perfect bloody sense. The cold, objective words that intellectuals use to describe things just don't have the appeal of the warm 'good old days' mentality. It doesn't have the appeal of dramatic music and displays of the American flag. Wanting the best thing for the future of the US is less patriotic these days then apparent symbols that really mean absolutely nothing, such as the american flag, or a bumper sticker proclaiming your devotion to some ideal. The bumper stickers and the flags carry better then realities, because realities can be depressing, and may actually require some work to fix.

[Lusankya]

ANti-intellectualism isn't something intrinsic to the US: Most societies go through periods of anti-intellectualism at various stages in their histories, particularly when the people feel insecure.

China, which has a culture that by and large values education, routinely went through periods of anti-intellectualism at the turn of every dynasty: the intellectuals were the ones who knew how to think about things (because thinking is a skill that must be trained, much like any other, despite what some people might think), and thus constituted a threat to imperial power. If they hadn't been persecuted, they might have considered that the problem wasn't with the old emperor, but with the system, and the new emperor didn't want to encourage such thoughts.

I would also suggest that average intelligence is not that smart to begin with, and that only a small amount of the population has the ability to become a true intellectual, especially considering that there are plenty of people with good intelligence, but not the right kind of intelligence/mentality to seriously engage in "intellectual" pursuits. Thus any politician who wishes to appeal to the "common man" has to appeal to the non-intellectuals much more than to the intellectuals. This can lead to them even saying that being a non-intellecual is more desirable than being an intellectual, because everyone likes being told that they're part of the best group.

This might be more common in a country where the head of government is elected directly, but I couldn't say for sure. I just think that where the head of government is elected more indirectly, as the head of his party, people are more likely to vote for the party they prefer than the politician they prefer, which could somewhat dilute the effect of an individual politician's attempt to appeal to as broad an audience as possible.

[Aeolus]

Ah, but you see, nostalgia for primitive pre-industrialized agrarian life only sounds absurd when you're intelligent. When you're a moron, it's so perfectly logical that you consider it self-evident.

Its not limited to the poor and uneducated. Quite a few wealthy and well educated individuals have claimed to desire a return to an idealised agrarian past. The yearning for the "good old days" plus the whole rural vs urban rivalry you pointed out and the idea that intelectuals are elitest snobbs plus good old jelousy all add up.

[Uraniun235]

I would suspect that a lot of it comes from the isolation of rural communities, where an insular group of people could/can be effectively lorded over by the threat of ostracization; deviation from the group could lead to isolation, which in good circumstances can be traumatizing and in some contexts can be fatal. This isolation also makes it easier for new (heretical) ideas to be silenced.

I think with the rise of television, and lately the Internet, we're seeing this structure starting to crumble, and as a result the reactionaries are reacting even more loudly. Of course, with change comes people being scared by change, and as such religion gets new recruits. I suspect, however, that eventually even the most rural and insular communities will be either forced to adapt, or to turn fully inwards like the Amish do.

I think someone had a good idea when they mentioned the Communists; for forty years the Cold War was often characterized as "the god-fearing, righteous Americans versus those god-damned atheist Commies", and that cannot have been a healthy influence on the national psyche.

[Lusankya]

True, it's harder to be different in rural communities. In the city, it's much easier to make a community of people with similar interests to yourself, but in the country, there aren't enough people for there niche communities to form. If you're different, then you're socially ostracised, and most people aren't prepared for that.

It's harder for new people to be accepted into rural communtities as well. My family moved to a country town when I was five, and the people there still considered people whose families had moved there a generation ago to be outsiders, even if the children had been born there. It wasn't in America, but the attitude is typical of a small town. They want to preserve their town's "identity", even if that means making their town crappier than it could be.

baka ne.

[Lord Zentei]

Anyway, my main gripe was the idea that big money somehow benefitted from anti-intellectualism in general and that they somehow promoted it; but actually a well educated populace is more productive and a well to do populace consumes more, so that is not really the case.

No, a skilled workforce is more productive. There is a subtle difference between skills training and education; you can generate a skilled workforce by putting most of the population through tech schools and community colleges. But that's not the kind of education that one needs for political, social, and scientific awareness.

Science education at least does promote the kind of skills that incease productivity and this will continue to increase . In any case, I'm still not really seeing big money promoting anti-intellectualism.

[Lord Zentei]

Most historians and social scientists say that having a workforce that is well paid, has good medical care, and good job security is good for the economy and the society at large.

Actually, that would be the economists talking.

Yet, for some reason, companies fight against unions, workplace safety regulation, and worker health care. Wal-Mart has been known to shut down stores rather than allow unions in.

Whoah, there, non-sequitur. Let's not get ahead of ourselves: the things you mentioned ares are certainly not the exclusive province of unions, nor does anti unionism mean anti intellectualism.

Despite that the American workforce is so poorly educated that foreign companies are starting to find Canada more attractive so they can save money on trying to train illiterate American workers, there have been few corporations lobbying for better primary and secondary education.

Yet, the US economy is growing faster than the Canadian one, so I'd say that this is a hasty generalization.

Companies do not always do what will increase long-term profits and opportunity. They tend to focus myopically on increasing this quarter's profits at all consts. That means cutting production costs by any means necessary, even if the larger effect is an impoverished society that can't buy all the nice goods. That means fighting against universal health care, whether through better employer insurance or more taxes, even though the cost to society is huge. That means passing up opportunities, like the V.C.R., since they don't want to spend the money on R&D. Contrary to what republicans tell you, corporations do not act rationally and in their long-term best interest. They just don't.

"Contrary to what Republicans tell you"? Oh, please. You think that economics is a Republican only pseudoscience?

[Darth Wong]

Anyway, my main gripe was the idea that big money somehow benefitted from anti-intellectualism in general and that they somehow promoted it; but actually a well educated populace is more productive and a well to do populace consumes more, so that is not really the case.

No, a skilled workforce is more productive. There is a subtle difference between skills training and education; you can generate a skilled workforce by putting most of the population through tech schools and community colleges. But that's not the kind of education that one needs for political, social, and scientific awareness.

Science education at least does promote the kind of skills that incease productivity and this will continue to increase. In any case, I'm still not really seeing big money promoting anti-intellectualism.

So you've decided to simply ignore the well-known existence of all these fucking Christian lobby groups? Fine, be that way. If you can point a man to well-funded, well-known groups which have testified in front of congress and he still says they don't exist, there's not much else which can be said. Or by "big money", are you saying that it has to be certain kinds of big money?

[Lord Zentei]

So you've decided to simply ignore the well-known existence of all these fucking Christian lobby groups? Fine, be that way. If you can point a man to well-funded, well-known groups which have testified in front of congress and he still says they don't exist, there's not much else which can be said. Or by "big money", are you saying that it has to be certain kinds of big money?

Actuallly, I thought that "big money" referred to the business sector in the context of this debate. I'll concede instantly that Christian lobby groups are anti science and anti intellectual, though, and I'll be first in line to blast them and the influence they hold (as I think my posting history here not to mention my sig should make clear).

[Darth Wong]

The business lobby only sends money toward things that affect them in the short term, but the social conservative anti-intellectual trend benefits them anyway because the social conservative and laissez-faire capitalist movements have largely been welded together in the US.

[Lord Zentei]

The business lobby only sends money toward things that affect them in the short term, but the social conservative anti-intellectual trend benefits them anyway because the social conservative and laissez-faire capitalist movements have largely been welded together in the US.

While it is true that social conservatism and laissez-faire capitalist movements see fit to work together within the Republican party, this is more an alliance of convenience than anything else, as there is nothing intrinsically in laissez-faire capitalism that requires social conservatism. In fact it could be convincingly argued that government interference in people's lifestyles is contrary to that philosophy.

[Darth Wong]

The business lobby only sends money toward things that affect them in the short term, but the social conservative anti-intellectual trend benefits them anyway because the social conservative and laissez-faire capitalist movements have largely been welded together in the US.

While it is true that social conservatism and laissez-faire capitalist movements see fit to work together within the Republican party, this is more an alliance of convenience than anything else, as there is nothing intrinsically in laissez-faire capitalism that requires social conservatism. In fact it could be convincingly argued that government interference in people's lifestyles is contrary to that philosophy.

Of course it could, but that's not what's happening, and only an intellectual would notice this contradiction.

[Lord Zentei]

While it is true that social conservatism and laissez-faire capitalist movements see fit to work together within the Republican party, this is more an alliance of convenience than anything else, as there is nothing intrinsically in laissez-faire capitalism that requires social conservatism. In fact it could be convincingly argued that government interference in people's lifestyles is contrary to that philosophy.

Of course it could, but that's not what's happening, and only an intellectual would notice this contradiction.

Can we then at least agree that the so called "laissez-faire capitalist movements" in the US are posers?

It might be pointed out that given the above dichotomy and that laissez-faire capitalist philosophy promotes profit, the alliance with social conservatism is not neccesarily going to be a lasting one (moreso since historicaly both Democrats and Republicans have had their fair share of religionists in their respective parties).

I'll concede, though, that due to the emphasis on short term interests there is at present a de facto alliance, though I'll continue to question the claim that the business sector is in and of itself intrinsically anti-intellectual.

[Darth Wong]

In their minds, it's not a contradiction because they think the government has no right to be in your wallet, but every right to be in your bedroom. In short, they think your finances are private business but your sex life is public business.

From a philosophical point of view, this is an absurd self-contradiction, but they can maintain this forever. American society has been butting its nose into private sexual affairs since its founding, but they fought a war of independence over taxes.

[Keevan_Colton]

In their minds, it's not a contradiction because they think the government has no right to be in your wallet, but every right to be in your bedroom. In short, they think your finances are private business but your sex life is public business.

If you want to see how daft it is, consider the way laws work in the US.

A lie in the news with serious potential health implications but protecting profit margins - Protected under the 1st ammendment.
A lie which affects the stock market, potentially devaluing investments - illegal and with still penalties up to jail time.

[Lord Zentei]

In their minds, it's not a contradiction because they think the government has no right to be in your wallet, but every right to be in your bedroom. In short, they think your finances are private business but your sex life is public business.

By "they" I surmise you mean the Republicans. And yes, unfortunately it is true.

From a philosophical point of view, this is an absurd self-contradiction, but they can maintain this forever. American society has been butting its nose into private sexual affairs since its founding, but they fought a war of independence over taxes.

I did concede that there is a de facto alliance at present. However, I would like to point out that my distinction between the current alliance between business leaders versus the question of whether there is an intrinsic anti-intellectual nature to business can be supported by the fact that industrialization can also be seen as a cause of liberalism for example with the growth of cities and anti slavery, etc. In any case, business leaders themselves have no reason to care who fucks who. The alliance need not be permanant given the right tactics (such as lobbying and campaigning with an emphasis on the contradiction).

Also, the distinction is of importance if one is to seek the causes of anti intellectualism. In that case I just can't see the connection with big business.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Besides, at the time, the economies of major world nations were primarily either agriculture or resource-based anyway. Agrarianism is not as absurd in that context as it is today.

The man was still an intellectual and economic troglodyte by even contemporary (by which I mean mostly European) standards. He deemed banks as ipso facto evil, and did not comprehend or bother to educate himself in the meaning of capital or economics. He said abominable things about blacks (he once famously claimed that blacks prefer to have sex with whites and monkeys prefered sex with blacks), even by contemporary standards. He admired France and sought approachment with them, even though they were culturally incompatible with the American colonies and had a much less tangible grasp on the New World than either Spain or Great Britain, to say nothing of the fact that despite his crooning about French virtues, they were far more despotic and autocratic than Great Britain. The only really revolutionary social idea Jefferson possessed was the full seperation of church and state. In all other manner, his political nemesis, Hamilton, was more visionary. One of the barest handful of early American politicians to completely and catagorically back abolition of slavery, to push for an upwardly mobile industrial capitalist society - in several instances using his own finances to fund projects to this effect, to say nothing of educating himself in contemporary banking and economics to restore the financial solvency of the U.S.

For all the popular historical interpretation of Jefferson as a man of the people and Hamilton as the aristocrat, it was Jefferson who was born and bred into landed affluence, educated in his ivory tower, then loosed to proclaim republican values - by which he meant for a state of white, landed, farmers like himself, where Hamilton was an illegitimate child and an immigrant; an economic progressive who favored a society which was meritocratic, where motivated and hard-working people like himself could also achieve greatness and be involved in the actions of the state; it was Hamilton who advocated for the abolition of black slavery, and it was Hamilton who understood the source for American liberal values in politics and economics, and the source of inspiration for the American martial prowess which could defend those values: Great Britain.

[PainRack]

Back on the topic, could it also be a backlash against the Vietnam War and a reversal to what is considered "American values"?

Despite reality, many Americans perceived that during the 50s, intellectuaism ruled the American adminstration, with elitist intellectuals determing policy without recourse to the common man. The "scientific" approach to government and the Vietnam war, most exemplified by McNamara and the stragety of attrition may had caused a full reversal of beliefs.

Instead of believing in the scientific and business barons, the business science approach that was embraced in the 50s, Americans chose to revert back to old frontier values, where innovation, the anti-hero won the day.

[arigo]

I think some of it has to do with accentuating the positive. A strong man is more likely to judge a person for his strength. We hear about how much better the education systems in other countries are, but we're too greedy/lazy to make ours better. We choose to define ourselves by our strengths, not our weaknesses.

It's rather ironic, but I think Americans like to see themselves as the realists, the doers. Then I take a look around and see most the stuff I own wasn't made here.