Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:Most people, I'm assuming, see anti-intellectualism as the province of uneducated reactionaries or religious zealots, but I've also known plenty of highly educated people who were anti-intellectual. For instance, plenty of poets see literary criticism as some kind of vulgar demystification of their purely intuitive art. Punk rockers can tend toward a similar stance.
Great Thread, i deal with this all the time and am consistently confronting my conflicting attitudes.
I like what you have said here. There is definitley a reactionary sentiment which surrounds anti-intellectualism. Its the argument "Fucking Jefferson said we were supposed to be a bunch of farmers so shut the fuck up about all this Derrida crap!" I bear witness to this kind of weak argument a lot, and sadly, I think a lot of it has to do with a friend of mine being surrounded by family members who are ex-liberals turned neo-cons. Its an emotional position, and obviously not an intellectual one. However, I don't think its an empty, bullshit position. I think it is more of an intuitive appeal than anything else. When a conversation is going poorly, its easy to get out of it by saying "well its all a bunch of bullshit anyway." Probably not the most noble thing to do, but I can't lie and say that I haven't done it now and again when the conversation gets a bit on the Utopian side. Being a reactionary though, and cursing other people for actually giving a shit about something and wanting to learn as much as they can, that is the worst kind of CRAP. Some analysis is vulgar dymystification, some isn't. Art is something, at least since the 19th century, which is an expression of ones feelings and intuitive sense. Sometimes I say, leave it be, its not meant to undergo deconstruction or feminist critique. Or better yet, go ahead, just don't spout off about it in the presence of others who are trying to get something from it emotionally. There's a right and a wrong place for everything, sometimes criticism is just out of place.
Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:Such people, it goes without saying, are fools. If art is good, we can pick it apart for hours on end, and it will still retain that mystery that eludes us and makes us want to read or listen to or look at it again.
I differ with you here, but I still respect your argument. For some people, analysis of a work, in either a literary or a technical sense, can impose on the "mystery" you speak of. Some people can analyze a work and come back to it and still get an emotional response from it, some people can't. For example, those who study film are taught about every camera angle there is and what each is supposed to represent in an academic sense. Some of the students in the class will undoubtedly have trouble watching a film without paying attention to technical details which weren't glaringly obvious berfore. These details can falsely affect their understanding of the narrative, or may even annoy them to a degree which warrents turning off the movie. Can they help this? Maybe, maybe not. I don't think its that certain and definitley not an accurate gauge of how "great" a work is, simply because for some, the mystery remains. I just think this is a bit of an over-generalization.
Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:Anti-intellectuals are those who fear others becoming smart or informed enough to expose them--the anti-intellectuals--as the charlatans and opportunists they suspect themselves to be.
Do I get annoyed by academics? Yes, quite frequently.
For those with a more intuitive understanding of the world, its only natural that a person's INTENT about what they are saying is infinitley more important than the psychobabble which is flowing from their mouth. As such, getting annoyed when someone of the academia starts pontificating about Derrida or Kant or fucking Zoroastra has more to do with the motivation behind what they are saying, to make themselves appear superior to their opponent and awe the humble masses. To me, this is equally appalling and high faluting.
I suppose that another reason that anti-intellectualism exists is because some people trust their feelings on issues moreso than data. Also, the academic world is littered with self rightous attention whores who like to get on the soapbox to further their own social standing. I know a lot of people like this. They are into philosophy or politics because its the "cool" knowledge to have and suggests a rebellious, intelligent nature. Asshats, all of them. Not wanting to be a part of that scene... I understand that. This helps to explain why so many well educated people do not go on to get a doctorate, because doctorate programs are filled with these types. These types, in the end are also responsible for anti-intellectualism because intellectualism is, a lot of the time, driven by the desire to appear smarter than others. One bad apple ruins.... yea you guys get it.
But Ive had teachers who are sincerely interested in the topic they teach, and aren't interested in using their knowledge as social artillery. A lot of them don't bother discussing topics in their field unless asked a question out of respect for themselves, those around them, and most importantly for the dead philosophers, poets, writers, scientists etc... who would probably be rolling over in their grave if they heard some of the shit the kids are saying on their behalf.
I guess im a big fan of keeping your dumbass mouth shut sometimes. (Something I apparently am not very good at... see THIS POST) That said, Ive pretty much devoted my education to philosophy, political science, and literary studies. I wouldn't say Im an anti-intellectual, just more annoyed by the few that give the rest a bad name.
Ok, im done ranting. Just my two cents on this. Good thread.
