There is a definite nostalgia for the past in lower class america, especially right-wing lower class america. Michael Kimmel, in his book, "Manhood in America", talks about three basic archetypes of Manliness in America (Artofmanliness.com did some writeups, which I will link herein) The Genteel Patriarch The Heroic Artisan The Self-Made Man You might ask what kind of crazy tangent I've gone on. I do have a point here. It comes with this section in the first article: This idea can most clearly be seen played out in the political arena. Ever since Andrew Jackson took the White House with a campaign promising to represent the common man, presidential candidates have had to make of a show of their rugged masculinity while downplaying characteristics that would mark them as the Genteel Patriarch, or in modern parlance, an “elitist.” A candidate must be intelligent, but not snobbishly so, articulate and well-mannered, but able to drink beer with factory workers and eat corn dogs at state fairs. This is why it is an insult to be called "Professorial". I recommend those three articles (I've never read Kimmel's book, but if those articles are the result it's probably worth the chance) The argument comes down to "Why would you look back on the past and look for bad things? Aren't you proud of your country? Or are you too good for where we are and who we are?" They are accusing those who look to closely at history as being too elitist, and in opposition of their own values of what it means to be a man.
In the end, according to Kimmel, the Self-Made Man won out, and American manliness today is defined by the archetype of the rugged, self-reliant man who through sheer force of will can shape his destiny no matter his circumstances. While the Self-Made Man triumphed as the defining ideal of American masculinity, the Genteel Patriarch and the Heroic Artisan archetypes still influence how Americans think about manhood.
As he did in the 19th century, the Genteel Patriarch today serves as a foil to more popular forms of masculinity. Men who seem too cultured, refined, and style-conscious are sometimes dismissed as wimpy and not sufficiently masculine. It is now, as it was then, really a class issue-guided by the belief that only those with gobs of money have the time to attend to the minutiae of etiquette and fashion, while “real men” are too hard at work to notice such things. The Genteel Patriarch archetype remains suspect in many minds because of its perception as non-democratic.
As erudite and well-spoken as your argument is, I think it's simpler. - John Cotton, 1642 Stalin rounded up the intelligentsia and deported them. Mussolini stripped them of rights. Chairman Mao exported them to Tibet and Franco suggested they should be killed. Populism often rides hand-in-hand with anti-intellectualism; look at it this way: If you're in Oklahoma, and you're voting Republican, odds are you weren't in AP classes. If your political system is architecturally flawed you do better to get rid of anyone who can point it out. Of course, when your system collapses you're pretty much fucked (see: Franco, Mussolini, Stalin, etc) but you're dead by then so you don't give a fuck. If you're of average intelligence but your opponent is of above average intelligence, you benefit by getting everyone of below-average intelligence to revile intelligence. The clever people will likely get spun up in a debate over eugenics and free will while the idiots will get their deer guns. No leader in the history of the world has ever suffered short term from steering things toward stupid.'the more learned and witty you bee, the more fit to act for Satan will you bee. ... Take off the fond doting ... upon the learning of the Jesuites, and the glorie of the Episcopacy, and the brave estates of the Prelates. I say bee not deceived by these pompes, empty shewes, and faire representations of goodly condition before the eyes of flesh and blood, bee not taken with the applause of these persons.'
I think we're saying the same thing - Just your argument is better in most ways. welp.
I don't think we are. It seems to me that you're arguing that anti-intellectualism has its basis in culture, while I'm arguing that anti-intellectualism is a deliberate political maneuver by demagogues. I don't think there's a natural distaste for intelligence amongst humans, but I do think that when you don't pride yourself on your intelligence and somebody smart tells you to do something you don't want to do, you're ripe for a huckster to come in and explain that intelligent people are bad because intelligence is bad, let me count the ways. After all - we want our kids to grow up smart. We like to think we're more clever than the person who sold us a car/stereo/boat/house/whatever. Internally, we value intelligence. Externally, however, we value conformity more.
I think What I'm arguing is that the political maneuver by demagogues works so well because of the basis in culture. Now, That's not to say that this strategy doesn't work in other cultures - Indeed, many of the extremist views currently being purported in the middle east use similar tactics (going so far as to burn books and destroy libraries). It's just that these ideals allow for But then, I'm totally willing to be painted wrong here.Intelligenstia used LOGIC
It's not very effective...
Demagogue used ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM
It's SUPER effective!
I think where we quibble is that I'm unconvinced anti-intellectualism has any more native traction than anti-elitism, anti-immoralism or any other anti-ism. If your opponent is smart, make smart a bad thing. If your opponent is agnostic, make agnosticism a bad thing. If your opponent is wealthy, make success a bad thing. If your opponent is famous, make charisma a bad thing. Put another way - I think anti-intellectualism is one of many expressions of tribalism, not its own special breed of hatred. The book-burners of Islam aren't against "learning" after all, they're against "learning that doesn't come from the Koran or mullahs."
That's not mutually exclusive from what coffeesp00ns has said, though. You're arguing that anti-intellectualism exists at a fundamental level in human societies, and all sp00ns is doing is showing a specific cultural context that these attitudes, which you argue are inherent, appear in.
What I'm trying to argue is that anti-otherism exists at a fundamental level in human societies, and that anti-intellectualism is just one of many shapes it takes. I don't think anti-intellectualism is necessarily more approachable than anti-piety, for example.
I thought you started off by talking about anti-intellectualism (quoting John Cotton), and then used some examples from early 19th century history. What I'm trying to understand is why you disagreed with him in the first place, when it seemed like you were taking the same view. It seems like you further elaborated, so that your advocacy was about otherization in general, but I'm not sure if this is the same view as your first comment. I get that you're making appeals to populism being a driving factor of anti-intellectualism (or at least that anti-intellectualism is a form of populism), but what I don't understand is why this makes it so significantly different from sp00n's original comment, and why this became a point of contention. Sorry if this comes off as argumentative, by the way! You seem very knowledgeable, and I don't want it to look like I'm questioning you too much!
No, not at all. I just want to be clear. Sp00ns, from my point of view, was coming from the position of "culture" being responsible for anti-intellectualism. It's this thing that happens naturally, that is just a factor in being human and living with other people. Mr. Art of Manliness never uses a proper noun in his descriptions - anti-intellectualism is this thing that happens to people, as opposed to something that is done to them. Which, from my point of view, is incorrect: there's nothing inherent in human society that says "intelligence is bad." My reading and my experience bear out the notion that most people think intelligence is good until someone convinces them otherwise. The act of convincing them otherwise, as far as that's concerned, is just one of many acts perpetrated by people who wish to influence others and convincing people that intellectualism is bad is no more prevalent than convincing people that success is bad, that beauty is bad, that wealth is bad, that any other generally-accepted virtue can be painted as a vice by people looking to benefit. Does that make sense? Spoons' argument was that anti-intellectualism just sorta happens; mine is that it's one of many methods of slander employed by demagogues.
Yes, perfect! Thank you, sorry for making you cover for my own misunderstanding like that. I would tend to agree with you. There are plenty of examples in history (many of which you've already drawn upon) of a political leader using a given group as a scapegoat to unify a population--which is why I think the mechanism we're talking about (which I don't have a word for) must extend beyond generally-accepted virtues. It seems easier to manipulate people to hate something they already dislike, which is why I think it'd be easier to pull from already existing cultural opinions. To that extent, I think that you're both right, partially. Anti-intellectualism, when institutionalized, is something inflicted on people, but it can't come from nowhere.
Even in your examples, Mao was leading a political party that relied on guerrilla warfare and the proliferation of soviets among the poor agricultural classes, many of which resented upper classes. Franco was coming out of the Second Republic and a civil war, and wanted to get rid of political dissidents; the Leftist/Rightist governments and the Popular Front had left plenty of people disillusioned with intellectuals, as far as I remember. Nevertheless, we both know that the simple act of a charismatic and trusted leader assigning blame to a given out-group is effective at this unification. Not sure if you agree with my breakdown, but c'est la vie. Anyways, this was interesting discussion, thanks! Again, sorry if I was frustrating at any point.
Shit, dude, I moderate a default subreddit. We ban people for hate speech and unban them for haikus. Any guesses what percentage of hate speech-employing redditors are incapable of correctly executing a haiku the first time? Any guesses as to how they generally respond for being told they're not allowed to call people faggots just 'cuz their no-homo internet bros think it's cool? So don't worry 'bout frustration; my tolerance is pretty high. Anyways. That's another tab in the browser. To the point: The mechanism you're talking about is tribalism. This is how we can form a visceral hatred of NE Patriots fans, or suddenly revile that nice couple you've been hanging out with when it's revealed that they're Republicans. Simply put, our identity is tied up in our allegiances and the stronger those allegiances, the greater our identity. More than that, once someone has been coerced into doing something they wouldn't do if it weren't for the tribalism, they're driven further into the tribe. This is the mechanism employed in hazing - one of us, one of us, one of us, etc. Works great for Kony et. al. It gets to the point where someone who has nothing against, say, smart people will happily shout for intellectuals to be shot because whoever is telling the dogs how to bark has dictated that intellectuals should be shot. In the end, the tribe matters more than other social allegiances, and if it's useful for the tribe leader to wipe out the intellectuals, the intellectuals will be wiped out.Go moderate the rest of those fucking subs and watch your life slowly slip away underneath your fedora. You think me saying faggot is hateful? You are a moderator of a sub that literally calls out a redditor and hates on him. Fucking hypocrite cunt
Ah, damn. Reddit feels like a necessary evil at times--I hate a lot of people who use it, I'm neutral towards the majority, and the top 15% (on my own completely objective and fair scale) are pretty cool. If Hubski were bigger, I could see myself spending all my time here. (Also, any theories on why we're so small?) You might be interested in reading about social identiy theory, though I assume you probably know something about it already (I'm forming theories of omniscience around you). I'd encourage you to follow the links in the introduction section if they interest you, particularly the ones concerning self-categorization theory. I can get out some actual authors and my own analysis if you'd like, but it'd require shuffling through some notes, so wikipedia will have to suffice for now. It's a psychological view of the anthropological phenomenon of tribalism, I think it might appeal to you. Also, I'd like to realize my parenthesis to paragraph ratio is pretty high.
The trick is to only opine on subjects you understand, and to ask polite questions about subjects you don't. At least, that's what I try to remind myself. I like finding out new things so I try not to be an asshole when I'm on shaky ground. Well, wait. I try not to be an asshole anyway (believe it or not) but I try harder when I don't know what I'm talking about. Often that involves shutting the hell up. I've heard of social identity theory, but only in passing amongst the pop psychology I tend to devour. I do far better with books than with Wikipedia so if you have recommendations, I'm all ears. Literally. I can do two or three audiobooks a month but printed matter I'm around 2 a year.
I think it's also a factor that Conservatism, by definition, believes the past was better, and we need to stick to it, and return to it. Which is hard to believe while recalling past atrocities. Which is why Fox lauds the shirtless Putin in derision of Obama. The Genteel Patriarch may be identified by his use of phrases such as "in modern parlance."There is a definite nostalgia for the past in lower class america, especially right-wing lower class america.
presidential candidates have had to make of a show of their rugged masculinity
the Genteel Patriarch, or in modern parlance, an “elitist.”
See, I don't necessarily agree. In America, yes, I think that this is generally the case, but I think it is possible to be a conservative person without holding a whole lot of cognitive dissonance as to the past (or the future). A conservative person, for example could be all for public health care, and just be concerned with how to pay for it. In America, this is exacerbated by the fact that just talking about taxation is political suicide. Yeah, Brett from art of manliness often takes himself a little too seriously sometimes.I think it's also a factor that Conservatism, by definition, believes the past was better, and we need to stick to it, and return to it.
The Genteel Patriarch may be identified by his use of phrases such as "in modern parlance."
I don't think I ever really understood it as a question from ignorance, but rather a rhetorical one. On the plus side, asking the question rhetorically allows other people to interact with it without attempting to "educate" you. Like, we can talk about it without people saying "well kingmudsy, let me tell you a story..."
*all about how My life got flipped-turned upside down. And I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there - I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel Air