Talk:Anti-intellectualism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents 1 Weasel words 2 Forrest Gump image 3 Editing lead section 4 China, USSR, Cambodia 5 Education and morality 6 NPOV? 7 Let her rip 8 Involvement of race 9 Recent "Giant Article Syndrome" problems 10 destruction of Iraqi academia 11 Paul Graham 12 Left-Wing Bias & Obscurantism 13 US Iraq imbalance 14 NeoCons 15 This article is getting huge again... 16 Reframing? 17 Populism "major strain of anti-intellectualism"?

[edit] Weasel words

Can someone give examples of who actually says these things:

"Such critics would say, for example, that not teaching kids multiplication tables in primary school and not making sure that they learn algebra by graduation is a blatant example of anti-intellectualism and malfeasance on the part of many schools. They would similarly criticize allowing students to graduate without learning the key facts about their country's national history, or without having read lots of Shakespeare."

"It may be argued that in these countries it is generally believed that high school education has given a student sufficient exposure to general education topics. No such confidence is usually shown by observers of the American school system."

"On the other hand, there exists much anecdotal evidence of anti-intellectualism among African American youth who may consider focusing on school studies a "white" thing."

"Today, Christian thinkers, who have less influence in society, no longer consider education in general evil, although they may object to some of its specific un-Christian aspects, e.g. alleged anti-religious or pro-abortion propaganda in schools and colleges."

If no one can give instances of these arguments without using weasel words ("such critics", "would say," "may be argued," "may consider," etc), then there is no reason to think these are real arguments, and not mere straw men.

Take this example: "...there is no serious national debate about intellectualism of these fields of inquiry in American colleges because the educational establishment generally ignores such claims, sometimes calling the critics anti-intellectuals." Give examples of critics who call them "anti-intellectuals." Also who or what is this "educational establishment" described? And how could a (presumably) non-human entity have the ability to "ignore" claims? I'd be interested to see how somebody could possibly back that up. --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 07:05, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Such critics would say, for example, that not teaching students multiplication tables in primary school and not making sure that they learn algebra by graduation is a flagrant example of anti-intellectualism and malfeasance on the part of many schools."

Sorry...it's been awhile since I was in elementary school, but can anyone name any public school in a developed country that doesn't teach multiplication tables? If not, this example is just sort of a red herring. Figureground 04:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This article has such barely-veiled contempt for the attitudes described in it. Populism is a "temptation" of democracy? (Presumably an evil temptation that must be resisted.) Anti-intellectual attitudes are "mired in internal contradictions" because there is more than one type of anti-intellecutalism? DanKeshet

Well, maybe. (I think it was better than what it replaced. :-) Still, I think it's wrong to present "faith based world views" contrasted on similar "views" from "scholarship," as if they're somehow equal alternatives, or even talking about the same thing. The real problem as I see it is exactly that: religions make claims about natural history, the provenance of religious writings, and so forth, which makes them open to unwanted contradiction by people outside the tradition. Moreover, the way it reads now, omitting the credit for literacy and traditional art, strikes me as even more hostile to religion, a parodistic, one-sided view, than what I had originally wrote there. -- IHCOYC 16:19, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why would we not present religious and secular intellectual worldviews as "equals"? Does NPOV mean "degrade religion"?

Also, I thought the bit about religions being responsible for learning and how religious people own many books sounded very paternalistic, especially considering that you used the phrase "in fairness to religion...". It sounds like we're saying that intellectualism is a goal and religions are good insomuch as they facilitate it and bad insomuch as they prevent it. Could you imagine in an article on intellectuals: "Intellectuals, through their emphasis on book learning, tend to degrade and destroy the spiritual side of life. In fairness to intellectuals, though, their dogged pursuit of literacy has resulted in more people being able to read scripture." That's how the bit on religion sounded to me. DanKeshet 16:33, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you or someone else can write it better, do it. I do think that it should somehow point out that art, literature, and a lot of scholarship and other cultural endeavours are indeed related to the "spiritual side of life," rather than being somehow opposed to it; and that historically religions have done more to foster these things than oppose them. The conflicts tend to lie in the natural sciences and historical scholarship. -- IHCOYC 16:41, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I like your new version better, and I think what you just said here, that much of scholarship and religion are mutually compatible belongs in the article. I just don't want the article to "take sides" in the dispute, if there is one, between some religion and scholarship. DanKeshet 16:54, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Right now, though, it sounds like evangelical and fundamentalist religious traditions are the only source of anti-intellectualism. This is not so; at least, I notice that New Age also linked here already. I may try to work in something about it. -- IHCOYC 19:11, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I tried a change I hope others find an improvement. Also, I am troubled by the section on pragmatism, which actualy sounds pretty iognorant -- Perice, Dewey, and James were real intellectuals! SLR

Perhaps the kind of "pragmatism" in the article does need to be distinguished from philosophical pragmatism. -- IHCOYC

What's with the "Anti-intellectualism is found in every nation on earth, but has become associated in particular with the United States of America" BS? How NPOV is that? Anti-intellectualism is a broad phenomenon. It is not NPOV to talk about this in terms that either state openly and at least in slightly veiled form that all anti-intellectualism has to do with America and Christianity. -- Watcher

I am removing this thing: "For example, in 1843, Bayard R. Hall wrote of frontier Indiana, that "(w)e always preferred an ignorant bad man to a talented one, and hence attempts were usually made to ruin the moral character of a smart candidate; since unhappily smartness and wickedness were supposed to be generally coupled, and incompetence and goodness." " This way out of context and makes no sense here, other than for the purpose of pouring dirt on all things American. There are plenty of realistic examples of anti-intellectualism in American popular culture without this particular pearl.

This here statement: "When Richard Nixon evoked the virtues of a "silent majority," he indicated by implication that he was governing with their interests in mind, as opposed to the interests of a minority that was unrepresentatively vocal and loud in their beliefs." has nothing to do with anti-intellectualism. Who says that the silent majority was somehow anti-intellectual? The silent majority surely included plenty of very intelligent and educated people who remained just as silent as the average Joe.

Ok, I am finished editing it for today. I think now it is much more informative and not nearly as POV as before. Nevertheless, that may be my POV :) so feel free to weigh in. -- Watcher

[edit] Forrest Gump image

The Forrest Gump DVD cover image placed in the article by User:Ihcoyc is problematic for two reasons.

• While the character in question was "simpleminded", there's no indication that he was actively anti-intellectual in his views.
• The use of the image is potentially a copyright violation.

I'm reverting the edit for now. Discuss? - Korpios 00:16, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Forrest Gump image was found at, and originally used at, the Forrest Gump article. If it's a copyvio here, it was a copyvio there first. My understanding is that the reuse of publicity materials like book and DVD covers is fair use, at least by consensus here. I did not upload the picture.

I added the picture because Forrest Gump --- the naïf with a heart of gold --- may not express anti-intellectual opinions, he is an example of a stereotype with anti-intellectual implications, and a part and example of anti-intellectual mythology. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:52, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After discussion in #wikipedia, it seems you're right about the fair use consensus; I still feel that Gump is a bad example... and the DVD cover is just tacky for an article on anything but the movie itself. Is there an image of a kid wearing a dunce hat somewhere? That would be cute, and would convey the tone well. - Korpios 06:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Main reason why I added the picture is because I am contemplating nominating this for featured article candidates; there are those who insist that all nominees must contain an illustration, even if it's only marginally relevant. Will try to think of something else. Smerdis of Tlön 13:52, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The new image is acceptable IMHO, yet I feel adding one merely to win "featured article" is contrary to the principle of providing a solid informational source. An image doesn't add anything of merit to some articles, and I feel this is one of them — but I don't feel it's a big enough deal in this case to seriously oppose. - Korpios 20:04, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd consider the film "Forrest Gump" and its great popularity to be prime examples of American anti-intellectualism. On a totally different topic related to anti-intellectualism, perhaps there should be some mention of the Italian Futurists, who, despite being intellectuals themselves according to any definition of the word, were quite anti-intellectual in their rhetoric and did have influence.

[edit] Editing lead section

I understand that there may be strong feelings about POV in this article, so I'll try to explain very fully the changes I've just made in the lead section:

As the lead section stands before my change, it seems to me to be very POV. The first two paragraphs of alternative definitions are probably meant to balance each other, but they really don't. The definition of anti-intellectualism as a bad thing — the first paragraph — is neutral in tone, but the definition as a good thing — the second paragraph — has warm, approving words like "broader", "simply" (twice!), "a grain of salt" and "understood" in it. Those words say that here comes the real dope. The first definition is stated to be one sense (very distant and neutral choice of words) and the second definition to be a broader sense (very approving choice of words). No balance.

The paragraphs do balance one another in another way, though: they use negative words to about the same extent. There's "hostility" and "attack" in the first paragraphic, "vain" and "narcissistic" in the second. "Vain" and "narcissistic" are more directly negative, but on the other hand "hostility" and "attack" are more sneakily negative, so on the negativity score I reckon the paragraphs weigh about the same.

To fix the balance, you could either rewrite the first paragraph to be "warmer" or the second to be "colder". I'm not sure which is the best way, but I've tried "cooling" the second. I think it's stronger, not weaker, for it, and with a better focus. (Please notice that I've still got the same amount of negative words — "proud of their vocabulary", "fond of hearing their own voices" — better than the original ones, I think — so that the balance in that sense remains.) Somebody else is welcome to try the opposite. I've introduced a link to Academic elitism that I think is helpful in the context, so please consider keeping that, if you want to edit or revert the section.

Incidentally, I'm removing the human archetype in the second paragraph because it doesn't make any sense, especially not with the definition of archetype in the article that it links to. Also removing "intellectualism" for being a non-existent -ism. Bishonen 16:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have attempted to recast the second paragraph of the opening. Feel free to rip it apart. FWIW, the editor who made the comment about religion and morality (below) changed the tag here to "totally disputed"; this seems to me to go too far, especially since I think that too has been changed in a way that should meet his reasonable objection. Could this be reverted? Smerdis of Tlön 15:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] China, USSR, Cambodia

I removed a good deal of material from the sections on the USSR, China, and Cambodia that was POV, inaccurate, irrelevant, or some combination of the three. I'll be glad to discuss ways to rework it, but as it was it was hopelessly inappropriate for an encyclopædia.

This article also greatly understates the rôle of anti-intellectualism today in the United States. Shorne 05:18, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Point out the specific mistakes rather than deleting wholesale, please. It seems biased to me that you want to delete material on some nations while expanding it on others. Stan 06:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If the material is hopelessly bad, there can be no "adding". I'm sorry for deleting it wholesale, but I can find hardly anything worth keeping in the sections that I deleted. Shorne 06:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's kind of a copout - if declaring material "hopelessly bad" with no further explanation is sufficient reason to delete, then what's to stop me from emptying out every article because I've decided it's "hopelessly bad"? Stan 06:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just rewrote those three sections, taking pains to salvage every word that I could. Not much remains unchanged, so don't expect it to look the same.

I've already discussed my reasons in connexion with the request to have this made into a featured article (can't find the link just now; sorry), and I don't feel the need to go over them again in great detail here. Suffice it to say that the sections on various countries were little more than POV nonsense and reds-under-the-beds propaganda. It is worthy of note that the only ones mentioned are the US (the sine qua non of Wikipedia), China, Cambodia, and the USSR. And China and Cambodia are discussed only within a very limited chronological context. Is there nothing to say about anti-intellectualism in Brazil, Canada, or Indonesia? Shorne 07:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Better, although the China bit still leaves it unclear if that was past policy or current, and is still vague on just what happened/s to individuals in practice. Presumably the government now sees value in sending students to US graduate schools instead of out to the fields, for instance. The US anti-intellectualism section should probably move out to its own article, leaving a summary paragraph and link behind, so as to make room for info about other nations. (I'm speaking as a would-be reader rather than a contributor - not an area I know much about myself, and have no books on the subject.) Stan 15:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I changed the Soviet section title from "former Soviet Union" to "Soviet Union". The former title (pun) means: the successor states to the Soviet Union. The article discusses what happened in the Soviet Union, not what happened in places that were formerly the Soviet Union. Zaslav 07:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education and morality

The article contains the following:

Historically, anti-intellectualism did play a prominent role in American culture. Some of it originated from the commonly held view among conservative Christians of old that education subverts morality and religious belief. The validity of this view, in fact, was well substantiated by the spread of atheism and Deism among the educated during the Enlightenment.

Oh, was it, now? Can anyone "well substantiate" that the educated became less moral during the Enlightenment? "Christian" does not mean "moral," nor do "atheist" and "Deist" mean "immoral."

For a conservative Christian, they do mean those things. At least, for those I've met or heard of myself. --Illythr 20:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the mention of "morality." The claim that education subverts religious belief would in fact be substantiated by the spread of atheism or deism among the educated. Smerdis of Tlön 18:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

I've questioned whether the NPOV flag can and should be removed from this article already above. This apparently related to the treatment of various Communist countries, which I believe has been resolved by curtailing those sections. I also reverted back to the original flag from the totally-disputed flag, which was added by an anon editor who was apparently unhappy about the connection made between lack of religious faith and immorality; that too has been edited out. I have also revised the opening for a more NPOV tone, at least as I in my possibly warped judgment see it. At any rate, is any flag still needed, wanted, or warranted here? —Smerdis of Tlön 15:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking at this article, I see a mish-mosh of different PoVs, each having a sentence or paragraph that claims as fact that some other group is anti-intellectual or supports anti-intellectualism. It may well be that this is unavoidable under this title. I do not accept this as NPoV. Some articles, like Fair Tax just have to live with the flag. Septentrionalis 20:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Though I am unable due to severe instability of connection to make an edit removing or clarifying the phrase I suggest that the following be removed by one who is able to do so: "However, there is no serious national debate about intellectualism of these fields of inquiry in American colleges because the educational establishment generally ignores such claims, sometimes calling the critics anti-intellectuals." It states nothing and only implies POV that the university system unreasonably ignores complaints without any proof and without any clear suggestion of evidence.

I find this article to be ridiculously biased. The US and UK are cited as main examples of anti-intellectualism and the mass purges of intellectuals in China is conspicuously absent. "Urban students were encouraged to spend time in the countryside"? Are you kidding me? The article is so outrageous in its unsubstantiated and biased claims that it should be deleted and started over from scratch. Xj 04:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I said a while ago this should be split into subarticles. And yes, "encouraged" is understating it by just a bit! Mjk2357 00:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This entire article is POV. Maybe you should provide a precise definition and leave it at that.

I also *looove* the part about how Christians = anti intellectuals because they disagree with some things in public schooling. That must be where all the well performing christian colleges and private schools come from - the poorly hidden anti-intellectual meaning of Christianity! Make sure you don't qualify Christian at all, they all agree about everything, because religion is the opiate of the masses of sheep and all that. (This last paragraph was entirely sarcasm, if that was not obvious.)

If you read the article it doensn't say all Christians. It says Fundamentalists. No one would argue that a Christian university like, say, Georgetown, is anti-intellectual.

Some tips about the talk page: Check for an appropriate topic heading for your topic before starting a new one, and if you do start a new heading, it goes at the bottom of the page, not the top. Use the "+" button in the toolbar. Also, sign your comments. Thanks for your thoughts. Mjk2357 18:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let her rip

As somewhat of an anti-intellectual myself, I agree that the article has something of a POV, but I don't consider it unnecessarily blatant and I don't see how one could straighten it out without losing the sense of it. Though somewhat overlong, and in places hyperbolic, it nonetheless has some truth to it. It seems to me that the subject itself is inherently POV, no?

So let's take off the scare warning and let it rip. Everyone can figure it out for themselves. Let's get this show on the road. (For you intellectuals, that's an anti-intellectual phrase). wgoetsch 20:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

wgoetsch said: "It seems to me that the subject itself is inherently POV, no?"

That does seem to be the nature of the problem here- describing what is in its essence a general POV attitude and concept with NPOV prose. I am going to prowl through it a bit and see what can be tweaked.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Involvement of race

it seems to me that bringing stereotypes based on 'anecdotal evidence' is unprofessional in the extreme, and is not suitable in an encyclopedia resource. You wouldn't open Britannica and find 'people often think black kids hate study because whites like it, and by the way, asians study really hard'. The other point is that it adds nothing of substance to the article. I propose we remove the references to race.

203.122.212.51 09:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Jo

You are quite right; that section wasn't very good, and was quite easy to replace with properly attributed views. Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Those views may not be properly encyclopedic, but they sure seem to be the truth.Lestrade 19:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Recent "Giant Article Syndrome" problems

I deleted a lot of rambling today... to the (anonymous) person who wrote it - some of your material was valuable and was incorporated. But most of it belongs in "Criticism of the Bush Administration," "Criticism of O'Reilly," etc.

If this article mentioned every modern American figure who's supposedly anti-intellectual it would be as long as the phone book.

[edit] destruction of Iraqi academia

Mjk2357 removed the Iraqi section with this comment: 05:20, 22 January 2006 Mjk2357 (→Anti-intellectualism in Iraq 2003-2006 - deleted vanity link)

i'm afraid i don't understand this. If there exist claims that Robert Fisk and the BRussels Tribunal are wrong, then please add the counterclaims with external sources. Iraq had one of the most highly educated societies in the region (apart from Israel), and the deliberate destruction of its professors by targetted killings is the same type of anti-intellectualism as what happened in USSR and PRC, even if it's on a much smaller scale and the situation is different.

If there is a valid reason for not having the section "Anti-intellectualism in Iraq 2003-2006", then please explain it here.

i added a sentence about the lack of knowledge of who's doing the campaign. Boud 14:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this group. Their claims could be true- the history of Chile and Iran shows the lengths the US gov't will go to in order to achieve its aims. I deleted your stuff not out of political reasons but because this article is too huge already. If we add a reference to every obscure activist who makes a claim of anti-intellectualism it will get even more out of control.

The killings of intellectuals in Nazi Germany and under Stalin are not disputed. This group on the other hand seems largely unknown and highly controversial. I wouldn't mind a subarticle "Claims of anti-intellectualism in Iraq" but let's try to keep the size of the main article below 40kb, ok?

Any objections to deleting this stuff other than from Boud? Mjk2357 20:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Obscure activists? Let me quote the names of a few of these obscure activists who have claim that Iraqi intellectuals are being systematically killed - see http://www.brusselstribunal.org/AcademicsPetitionList.htm:

• Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, Philosophy of Language, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Linguistics & Philosophy, USA According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any living scholar, and the eighth most cited source overall. (from the NPOV wikipedia entry)
• Tony Benn, President of the STOP THE WAR COALITION, Former MP, Cabinet Minister and Chairman of the British Labour Party, UK
• Dario Fo, Nobel Prize in Literature 1997, Italy
• José Saramago, Nobel Prize in Literature 1998, Portugal
• John M. Coetzee, Nobel Prize in Literature 2003, South Africa
• Harold Pinter, Nobel Prize in Literature 2005, UK
• Denis J. Halliday, former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General 1994-98
• Hans von Sponeck, former United Nations Assistant Secretary General, U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq 1998-2000, Germany

Do you really call these obscure activists?

As for highly controversial, i do not see any claims by groups external to the wikipedia that the BRussels Tribunal has made false statements or summaries, and i don't see any statements denying the claims of deliberate assassinations. Wissam S. al-Hashimi was vice-president of the International Union of Geological Sciences from 1996 to 2002, he was kidnapped and shot despite the fact that the ransom was paid. In any case, if there did exist claims that the claims of a systematic campaign are wrong, then it would be sufficient to add that and present the NPOV version - not remove it from the article.

If the article is too long, then all sections should be shorter, but removing a section is highly POV IMHO, suggesting that, for example, Arab countries don't have important intellectuals, so that systematically killing their intellectuals is irrelevant.

Are you really suggesting that a systematic campaign to kill Arab intellectuals is less important than those to kill Soviet or Chinese intellectuals? Boud 01:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Graham

Yeah I think the Paul Graham stuff should go too... not what he said but the inline reference to him. I am fighting Enormous Article Syndrome/vanity links here. I wouldn't mind him in a footnote.

Any objections other than from the reverter?

Mjk2357 21:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am the reverter. I think that the Paul Graham essay Why Nerds are Unpopular relates directly to the subject of anti-intellectualism, and specifically to the subject of anti-intellectualism in youth culture. I am not Paul Graham, and I am not sure why you think that this piece, which has a fairly substantial article of its own here, is either "vanity" or irrelevant. Smerdis of Tlön 19:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in because general-topic articles like this one tend to become humungous. When I see that warning on the edit page that the file is over 40kb I start to worry... I actually read the Graham essay and found it pretty insightful, if a little outdated (are nerds really unpopular anymore?) Anyway, nothing against Graham who seems like a smart enough guy but he's too minor a character to be mentioned in a general-topic article. I'm sure plenty of bloggers have written about why nerds are unpopular... we can't insert a reference to them all and that's the problem. It's the same problem I had with including that Iraq stuff... for all I know it could be true - the US has a long history of skulduggery, but we can't go around including the claims of every group. In an article like this we have to stick to the big stuff. I'm even pretty leery about including someone like Joe Scarborough in the article, but I pick my battles.

Thoughts from others, pro or con? If not it's 1-1 and I don't have time for a revert war! Mjk2357 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see input from other users here. But let me put it this way: we can either have vague unsubstantiated assertions in that bit --- I think we both agree that anti-intellectualism in youth culture needs to be mentioned --- or we can give a brief reference to a writer of some fame (at least on teh Intarweb) who both documents the issue and provides an attempted explanation. I prefer the latter. I trimmed the section back, removed vague assertions, and merged two paragraphs, BTW. Smerdis of Tlön 06:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree references are also preferable, but the Graham reference sort of rests on nothing because his essay doesn't list any references of its own. How about replacing Graham with someone a bit better known? How about Murray Sperber who wrote "Beer and Circus"? (which has 32 citations by the way). Mjk2357 15:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I am only vaguely aware of who Murray Sperber is; was he a humorist? Graham is a "primary source"; he gets to write off the cuff. Smerdis of Tlön 19:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure Graham counts as a primary source just because he was/is a nerd! That's a pretty liberal interpretation of the term. Anyway, Sperber isn't a humorist he studies how colleges are more focused on sports and partying these days than academics (although of course this isn't true of all schools.) Mjk2357 22:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, while I have not read the Sperber book, I'm not sure that interest in sports and partying is as immediately relevant to the topic of anti-intellectualism as Graham's essay, which does attempt to provide a hypothesis explaining why "nerds" are looked down upon in some youth subcultures. (Colon reset) Smerdis of Tlön 04:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is, it's all about how the "jock" culture is held in more esteem than the "nerd" culture, and the reasons for this, although once again how true is that anymore? Anyway, so far no one else seems interested in our debate though, so I'm just going to let it go pending other comments. Mjk2357 15:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Left-Wing Bias & Obscurantism

This article is, of course, insanely biased, from start to finish. I'll give one point I severely disagree with: He takes on the anti-academic stance of some conservative thinkers, not paying attention to the fact they are intelectuals themselves and have devoted their lives to such a statute, nor that they are not writing libels against intelectuality itself. The closest a person got to that was Paul Johnson in his books Intelectuals, but he uses a very narrow (and weird) definition of intelectual in it, namely, that of the left-wing cultural agitator. If the article was called to be called Anti-academicism, it would be ok, but it's not. It should be entirely re-written, or at least, improved by a number of different people. Anyone willing?

I've been working on this article for some time... I tried to balance it out by adding sections about left-wing anti-intellectualism but as might be inevitable this article has a current-day American focus to it and at the present time anti-intellectualism is mainly a rhetorical tool of the Right in the US, at least in my opinion. So try to make it more NPOV if you want, whoever you are, but good luck! Everything is a product of its times. Mjk2357 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I read through the sections on anti-intellectualism on the Left and Right of the political spectrum, and it seems as though only "Religious fundamentalism", "1960's student culture", and "current themes" are truly anti-intellectual. "The conserative critiques of academia" does not so much criticise the practicality of intellectualism but rather it criticises a supposed anti-American bias in academia. Likewise, "The intellectual as a paid apologist for the status quo" suggests that members of the self-proclaimed intellectual class remain loyal to whomever is in power even if their ideas inspired others to oppose it. However, Fundamentalism regards knowlege as an enemy of faith, and both student culture and current themes seemed to regard intellectualism as an application of probabilities and statistics that have little practical or rational use. Overall, it seems as though there should be a distinction made between being opposed to intellectualism, and being opposed to the intellectuals of one's time.66.24.224.205 05:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd disagree with the idea that Fundamentalism thinks knowledge is the enemy of faith - that would be Obscurantism (the deliberate suppression of knowledge to maintain a pious society). Fundamentalism just has a different idea of what "knowledge" is compared to the intelligensia. To a fundamentalist evolution is not "knowledge" that needs to be suppressed but a vast conspiracy of secular/atheist/Marxist/satanic (take your pick) bad guys that are themselves suppressing the real truth. I think that's an important distinction. Otherwise your comments are quite valid - conservatism does not equal anti-intellectualism. If it would how would we classify George Will and Podhoretz ;) Mjk2357 06:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked the article on Obscurantism, and your comment definitely seems to be valid. However, where religious fundamentalism is definitely not entirely anti-intellectual, it nonetheless could be argued that some forms of fundamentalism are. According to the article on obscurantism, opponents of this ideology associate it with religious fundamentalism, perhaps the section on fundamentalism should be modified to reference obscurantism, or even replaced with one referring specifically to obscurantism, as not to give the impression that anti-intellectualism is being associated with all forms of fundamentalism. On a second note, although conservatism does not equal anti-intellectualism, it is also important to note that liberalism is not inherently anti-intellectual either, although there are anti-intellectual sentiments on either side of the political spectrum. For instance, the theory that in order to be recognized as a "professional thinker", one needs to have loyalty to those in power, even if thier ideas encourage otherwise, does not criticise intellectualism as a practice, but rather criticises certain individuals who are self-proclaimed "intellectuals", yet do not adhere to the principles they themselves put forth.66.24.224.205 19:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree Obscurantism should be mentioned in the article, but I don't think all the Fundamentalism stuff should be taken out. In my view Fundamentalism is anti-intellectual, I just wouldn't ascribe to it the idea that "knowledge is the enemy of faith." Fundamentalism presupposes a sincere faith, and if you really think your faith is contradicted by facts, then it isn't sincere. Obscurantism is mainly associated with elites that know religion is false but want to maintain it anyway for the sake of social stability. Usually it's an insult - few people would admit to being Obscurantists - although I did meet one, an evangical who admitted to me that he didn't really believe in his religion - he just thought it was necessary to keep the masses in line.

As for the left-wing stuff I added that based on complaints that the article was biased against conservatives, not because I think leftists are more innately anti-intellectual than rightists. Mjk2357 22:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, it still seems that there is a distinction to be made on this page between anti-intellectualism and opposition to certain intellectuals. For instance, this brings me back to the "paid apologist" section, which does not criticise intellectualism itself, but rather the supposed hypocrisy of the "professional thinkers" of their time period. Possibly an ideal solution to this would be to state at some point in this article that supposed anti-intellectualism may in fact have be an opposition to a certain form of Academia instead. In regard to my statement that fundamentalists believe that "knowledge is the enemy of faith", I was somewhat vague in defining knowledge, but the context I meant to use it in was in the sense of secular sciences, which are generally opposed by fundamentalism. However, their reason for oppposing it is apperently quite different than that of an obscurantist, where the fundamentalist has been genuinely convinced the information was false, the obscurantist believes it to be true, but that social order will weaken if people do not have any sort of dogma to keep them in line.

On a side note, perhaps the article on obscurantism should be expanded upon as well.66.24.224.205 00:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

<----All that sounds good to me. Mjk2357 07:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Iraq imbalance

There's a simple solution to the need to include the section on Anti-intellectualism in XXIst century Iraq and the large size of the article: split off Anti-intellectualism in the United States into a separate article Anti-intellectualism in the United States and leave just a short summary in this article. The United States constitutes only about 5% of humanity, there's no reason why it should constitute about 50% (?) of the geographical section of this article. Moreover, there are no reasons for excluding the present (claimed) campaign of systematically killing Iraqi academics. Boud 01:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

But it is clear that majority of English speaking anti-intellectuals are in United States. It is one article I wouldn't complain about being too US-centric.

Well, this is the English Wikipedia, and I think the US makes up about 50% of native English speakers, if not more, but anyway... subarticles are a good idea, but if US anti-intellectualism is in a subarticle than the Iraq stuff should be as well. Mjk2357 08:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia is supposed to be about external facts, not just facts about the people who speak the language - is US really responsible for 50% of all anti-intellectualism in the world? i doubt it. Anyway, i agree that both US and Iraqi anti-intellectualism could go into big articles on their own, with short summaries in this article. The US stuff is already ready for a big article, the Iraqi stuff is probably only ready for a summary at the moment IMHO. Boud 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone say before that Wikipedia "should" have the same content in all languages. That's a laudable long-term goal I suppose but hardly practical. I'll bet you'll find a bigger article about Oslo in the Norweigan version than in the English one -and I'm not losing any sleep over that. A focus on English-speaking countries in an English-language encyclopedia is no crime - as long as other parts of the world aren't shut out of the perspective entirely a la the local news. Anyway, if you want to make subarticles go for it - as long as the Iraq stuff doesn't get equivalent space in the main article as, say, Stalin does.

Now I sit back and wait for someone to call English the universal language, etc. etc...

Mjk2357 16:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NeoCons

I have problems with this section:

Current themes

More recently, in the politics of the United States, Democrats and liberals have become extremely suspicious of the neoconservative movement, which they often portray as a "cabal" of ivory-tower theorists who cause disaster when they gain power and try to put their abstract ideas into practice. The radical deregulation of the economy, tax cuts at a time of war, and the program to rapidly democratize the Middle East through military means are cited as examples of this.

Some even believe that neoconservatism is a front for a secret group that follows the teachings of the anti-democratic philosopher and intellectual Leo Strauss.

All of this lends to the portrait of neocoservatism as a sinister party of academics carelessly testing elitist theories on the suffering "ordinary people" of America.

In the interest of disclosure, I'm no fan of Bush et al. at all, but I am sympathetic with some of the foreign policy stuff. I hope that is irrelevant.

The issue here is partisan framing, i.e., cloaking the debate on neocon'ism with as if neocon'ism were a tried-and-true intellectual school. Neoconservatism is NOT part of a larger academic cannon, and the debate over both its intellectual foundations and its practicality is legitimate. The section seems to paint neoconservatism as the "Truth", just trying to get out. Without denying anti-intellectual trends on the left, by framing criticism of neoconservatism as "anti-intellectual", the author is then able to skirt a substantive response to the criticism raised. It is little more than a slightly-more-subtle-than-usual ad hominem attack. Nobody on the left is saying, gosh darnit, if Bush weren't such an intellectual, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Furthermore, the section offers no citations, uses highly perjorative language, and reduces criticism of neoconservatism to a straw-man. So I'm gonna put an NPOV tag on the section. I would love to hear your comments on this, but I really don't think the section can be salvaged, and should therefore be deleted.

By the way, whoever put up that picture of Adlai Stevenson is awesome! Zweifel 03:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• I concur the section in its current form should be revised or deleted BigE1977 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

First off, new comments go at the bottom of the page. I wrote the "Left-wing currents" section to answer criticism that the article was biased left. I certainly don't believe that Neo-Conservatism is the truth! Hope that helps. Mjk2357 23:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is getting huge again...

...we may want to split off historical anti-intellectualism into a separate article. Thoughts? Mjk2357 15:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reframing?

This article cites Hofstadter but doesn't discuss him; taking his argument as a given. Alternatively, Hofstader could be seen as one of them thar Foucauldian founders of discursivity. The Kulturkampf can be framed in other ways: don't have to use anti-intellectualism. Billbrock 04:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC) P.S.: yeah, I know it's an encyclopedia entry and WP:NOR, but the subject is inherently ideological. There is no hope of writing an NPOV entry w/out some reframing, IMHO. Billbrock 05:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In an article like this NPOV is an impossible ideal. All we can hope to do is present the various POV's in a non-flamewar fashion. Mjk2357 11:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Populism "major strain of anti-intellectualism"?

The Populism section currently begins:

Populism is another major strain of anti-intellectualism. Intellectuals are presented as elitists and tricksters whose knowledge and rhetorical skills are feared, not because they are useless, but because they may be used to hoodwink the ordinary people, who are conceived of as the 'salt of the earth' and the source of virtue.

My sense is that it is not correct to refer to populism as a strain of anti-intellectualism. It reads, "populism is a type of anti-intellectualism." No doubt there have been many populist movements with anti-intellectual tendencies and which have been outrightly anti-intellectual. But ant-intellectualism doesn't seem to follow necessarily from the definition of populism, and I think we can easily imagine populist movements which are not anti-intellectual. It is not difficult, for example, to conceive of a populist movement being anti-corporate or anti-upper class without being anti-intellectual. Just look at the salaries of most college professors if you have any doubt that professor (intellectual) does not imply upper class :)

Since this section doesn't cite any authoritative sources considering populism a "type of" anti-intellectualism as the currently scholarly opinion, I suggest we change this to instead say something to the effect that poplist movements have often been anti-intellectual and had anti-intellectual tendencies. The section already cites McCarthyism as an example of a populist movement with anti-intellectual tendencies or rhetoric.

dircha 22:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)