Anti-intellectualism refers to a range of attitudes, characterized by skepticism,mistrust or criticism ofintellect,intellectuals, andintellectualism. It is commonly expressed as questioning the value or relevance of intellectual pursuits, includingeducation,philosophy and the dismissal ofart,literature,history, andscience as impractical, politically motivated, and even contemptible human endeavours.[1] Anti-intellectuals may present themselves and be perceived as champions of common folk—populists against political and academicelitism—and tend to see educated people as astatus class that dominatespolitical discourse and higher education while being detached from the concerns of ordinary people.[1]
Totalitarian governments have, in the past, manipulated and applied anti-intellectualism to represspolitical dissent.[2] During theSpanish Civil War (1936–1939) and the followingdictatorship (1939–1975) ofFrancisco Franco, thereactionary repression of theWhite Terror (1936–1945) was notably anti-intellectual, with most of the 200,000 civilians killed being the Spanishintelligentsia, the politically active teachers and academics, artists and writers of the deposedSecond Spanish Republic (1931–1939).[3] During theCambodian genocide (1975–1979), thetotalitarian regime ofCambodia led byPol Pot nearly destroyed its entire educated population. During thefirst andsecond Trump administrations, fake news andalternative facts became central pillars of discourse in theUnited States.[4][5]
Anti-intellectualism manifests in various forms across cultures and historical periods and is influenced by complex social dynamics. It can stem from a distrust of elites or institutions perceived as disconnected from everyday experiences, concerns about cultural identity, or competition in valuing practical knowledge over theoretical or academic expertise. As such, psychological research suggests that certain individuals with anti-intellectualism attitudes could sometimes lean towards a display of confidence in their personal experiences rather than trusting authorities,[6] while others adopt their anti-intellectual positions as a reaction to perceived threats to their social status or group identity.[7]
The topic of anti-intellectualism has become a more widely discussed phenomenon in recent years, particularly due to its role in shaping public perception of expertise in science and education.[8] This has led to widespread skepticism of scientific experts and advancements, raising questions about the dangers of anti-intellectualism in public health. The increasing use of anti-intellectualism in politics can be seen in modern society, such as theanti-vax movement.
The new rulers of Cambodia call 1975"Year Zero", the dawn of an age in which there will be no families, no sentiment, no expressions of love or grief, no medicines, no hospitals, no schools, no books, no learning, no holidays, no music, no song, no post, no money – only work and death.
In the 20th century, societies systematically removed intellectuals from power to expediently end public political dissent. During theCold War (1945–1991), theCzechoslovak Socialist Republic (1948–1990) ostracized the philosopherVáclav Havel as a politically unreliable man unworthy of ordinary Czechs' trust; the post-communistVelvet Revolution (17 November – 29 December 1989) elected Havel president for ten years.[10]Ideologically-extreme dictatorships who mean to recreate a society such as theKhmer Rouge rule of Cambodia (1975–1979) pre-emptively killed potential political opponents, especially the educated middle-class and theintelligentsia. To realize theYear Zero of Cambodian history,Khmer Rougesocial engineering restructured the economy by de-industrialization and assassinated non-communist Cambodians suspected of "involvement in free-market activities" such as the urban professionals of society (physicians, attorneys, engineers,et al.) and people with political connections to foreign governments. The doctrine ofPol Pot identified the farmers as the trueproletariat of Cambodia and the true representatives of theworking class entitled to hold government power, hence the anti-intellectual purges.
In 1966, the anti-communist Argentinemilitary dictatorship ofJuan Carlos Onganía (1966–1970) intervened at the University of Buenos Aires with theNight of the Long Batons to physically dislodge politically dangerous academics from fiveuniversity faculties. That expulsion to the exile of the academicintelligentsia became a nationalbrain drain upon the society and economy of Argentina.[11][12] In opposition to the military repression of free speech, biochemistCésar Milstein said ironically: "Our country would be put in order, as soon as all the intellectuals who were meddling in the region were expelled."
InThe Campus War (1971), the philosopherJohn Searle said,
[T]he two most salient traits of the radical movement are its anti-intellectualism and its hostility to the university as an institution. ... Intellectuals, by definition, are people who take ideas seriously for their own sake. Whether or not a theory is true or false is important to them, independently of any practical applications it may have. [Intellectuals] have, as Richard Hofstadter has pointed out, an attitude to ideas that is at once playful and pious. But, in the radical movement, the intellectual ideal of knowledge for its own sake is rejected. Knowledge is seen as valuable only as a basis for action, and it is not even very valuable there. Far more important than what one knows is how one feels.[13]
InSocial Sciences as Sorcery (1972), the sociologistStanislav Andreski advised laymen to distrust the intellectuals'appeals to authority when they make questionable claims about resolving the problems of their society: "Do not be impressed by the imprint of a famous publishing house, or the volume of an author's publications. ... Remember that the publishers want to keep the printing presses busy, and do not object to nonsense if it can be sold."[14]
InScience and Relativism: Some Key Controversies in the Philosophy of Science (1990), philosopher of science and epistemologistLarry Laudan said that the prevailing type of philosophy taught at universities in the U.S. (Postmodernism andPoststructuralism) is anti-intellectual, because "the displacement of the idea that facts and evidence matter, by the idea that everything boils down to subjective interests and perspectives is—second only to American political campaigns—the most prominent and pernicious manifestation of anti-intellectualism in our time."[15]
In the U.S., the conservative[16] American economistThomas Sowell argued for distinctions between unreasonable and reasonable wariness of intellectuals in their influence upon the institutions of a society. In defining intellectuals as "people whose occupations deal primarily with ideas", Sowell conveys the view that they are different from people whose work is the practical application of ideas. Under this framework, the cause for layman's mistrust lies in the intellectuals' supposed incompetence outside their fields of expertise. The portrayed view is that, although having great working knowledge in their specialist fields when compared to other professions and occupations, the intellectuals of society could face little discouragement against speaking authoritatively beyond their field of formal expertise and thus are unlikely to face responsibility for the social and practical consequences of their errors. Hence, a physician is judged competent by the effective treatment of a patient's sickness, yet might face a medicalmalpractice lawsuit should the treatment harm the patient. In contrast, atenured university professor is unlikely to be judged competent or incompetent by the effectiveness of their intellectualism (ideas) and thus not face responsibility for the social and practical consequences of the implementation of the ideas.
In Britain, the anti-intellectualism of the writerPaul Johnson derived from his close examination of twentieth-century history, which brought him to the conclusion that intellectuals have continually championed disastrous public policies forsocial welfare andpublic education, and warned the layman public to "beware [the] intellectuals. Not merely should they be kept well away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice."[17] In that vein, "In the Land of the Rococo Marxists" (2000), the American writerTom Wolfe characterized the intellectual as "a person knowledgeable in one field, who speaks out only in others."[18]In 2000, British publisher Imprint Academic publishedDumbing Down, a compilation of essays edited byIvo Mosley, grandson of the British fascistOswald Mosley, which included essays on a perceived widespread anti-intellectualism byJaron Lanier,Ravi Shankar,Robert Brustein,Michael Oakshott among others.[19]
Discrimination of excellence[20] is the violation of formalequality of opportunity[21] and meritocracy,[22] which reward merits of individuals andoverachievement.[20] Discrimination of excellence can be caused by different reasons, includinglegacy preferences,[23]nepotism,substantive equality,[21] affirmative action[24], ageism[25] or randomluck.[26]
An example is when academics, teachers, and students were targeted during theCambodian genocide.[24]Khmer Rouge chose new teachers byideology,affirmative action, and not by teaching excellence, which resulted in highilliteracy.[24]Gifted education has been criticized onsubstantive equality grounds.[27]
Legacy preferences for college admissions have been criticized.[23] Discrimination against excellent students during admissions toIvy League has been debated during2019 college admissions bribery scandal. TheUnited States Department of Justice scrutinized higher education over potential systemic biases in college admission standards that would underweight transparent standardized testing criteria due toaffirmative action.[28]Harvard College has been sued inStudents for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College due to individuals outperforming on standardized college admission tests but not being admitted. Non-merit-based admissions practices, degree conferral or promotion standards have been criticized.[29] Some Universities perform affirmative action on men, in order to maintain a gender balance.[30][31][32][33][34]
InThe Powring Out of the Seven Vials (1642), the PuritanJohn Cotton demonized intellectual men and women by saying that "the more learned and witty you bee, the more fit to act forSatan will you bee. ... Take off the fond doting ... upon the learning of theJesuits, 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".[35] Yet, not everyPuritan concurred with Cotton's religious contempt forsecular education, such asJohn Harvard, a major early benefactor of theuniversity which now bears his name.[citation needed]
InThe Quest for Cosmic Justice (2001), the economist Thomas Sowell said that anti-intellectualism in the U.S. began in the early Colonial era as an understandable wariness of the educated upper classes because the country mostly was built by people who had fled political and religious persecution by the social system of the educated upper classes. Moreover, few intellectuals possessed the practical hands-on skills required to survive in the New World of North America, which absence from society led to a deep-rooted,populist suspicion of men and women who specialize in "verbal virtuosity", rather than tangible, measurable products and services:[36]
From its colonial beginnings, American society was a "decapitated" society—largely lacking the top-most social layers of European society. The highest elites and the titled aristocracies had little reason to risk their lives crossing the Atlantic, and then face the perils of pioneering. Most of the white population of colonial America arrived asindentured servants and the black population asslaves. Later waves of immigrants were disproportionatelypeasants andproletarians, even when they came from Western Europe ... The rise of American society to pre-eminence, as an economic, political, and military power, was thus the triumph of the common man, and a slap across the face to the presumptions of the arrogant, whether an elite of blood or books.
In U.S. history, the advocacy and acceptability of anti-intellectualism have varied, in part because the majority of Americans lived arural life of arduousmanual labor and agricultural work prior to theindustrialization of the late nineteenth century. Therefore, academic education in the Greco–Roman classics was primarily perceived as having impractical value, and the bookishscholar deemed an unprofitable occupation. Yet, Americans of the nineteenth century were generallyliterate people who readShakespeare for intellectual pleasure and the Christian Bible for emotional succor; thus, the ideal American was a literate and technically skilled man who was successful in histrade, ergo a productive member of society.[37] Culturally, the ideal American was theself-made man whose knowledge derived from life-experience, not an intellectual man whose knowledge of the real world was derived from books, formal education, and academic study; thus, the justified anti-intellectualism reported inThe New Purchase, or Seven and a Half Years in the Far West (1843), the Rev. Bayard R. Hall, A.M., said about frontier Indiana:[35]
We always preferred an ignorant, bad man to a talented one, and, hence, attempts were usually made to ruin themoral character of a smart candidate; since, unhappily,smartness and wickedness were supposed to be generally coupled, and [like-wise] incompetence and goodness.
Yet, the "real-life" redemption of theegghead American intellectual was possible if he embraced themores andvalues of mainstream society; thus, in the fiction ofO. Henry, a character notes that once an East Coast university graduate "gets over" his intellectual vanity, he no longer thinks himself better than other men, realizing he makes just as good acowboy as any other young man, despite his common-man counterpart being the slow-witted naïf of good heart, a pop culturestereotype from stage shows.
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge'.
In 1912, New Jersey governorWoodrow Wilson described the battle:[39]
What I fear is a government of experts. God forbid that, in a democratic country, we should resign the task and give the government over to experts. What are we for if we are to be scientifically taken care of by a small number of gentlemen who are the only men who understand the job?
InAnti-intellectualism in American Life (1963), the historianRichard Hofstadter said that anti-intellectualism is a social-class response by the middle-class "mob", against the privileges of the political elites.[40] As the middle class developed political power, they exercised their belief that the ideal candidate to the office was the "self-made man", not the well-educated man born to wealth. The self-made man from the middle class could be trusted to act in the best interest of his fellow citizens.[41] As evidence of this view, Hofstadter cited the derision ofAdlai Stevenson as an "egghead". InAmericans and Chinese: Passages to Differences (1980),Francis Hsu said that Americanegalitarianism is stronger in the United States than in Europe, e.g. in England,[42]
English individualism developed hand in hand with legal equality. American self-reliance, on the other hand, has been inseparable from an insistence upon economic and social as well as political equality. The result is that a qualified individualism, with a qualified equality, has prevailed in England, but what has been considered the inalienable right of every American is unrestricted self-reliance and, at least ideally, unrestricted equality. The English, therefore, tend to respect class-based distinctions in birth, wealth, status, manners, and speech, while Americans resent them.
Such social resentment characterises contemporary political discussions about the socio-political functions of mass-communication media and science; that is, scientific facts, generally accepted by educated people throughout the world, are misrepresented as opinions in the U.S., specifically aboutclimate science andglobal warming.[43]
Miami University anthropology professor Homayun Sidky has argued that 21st-century anti-scientific and pseudoscientific approaches to knowledge, particularly in the United States, are rooted in a postmodernist "decades-long academic assault on science:" "Many of those indoctrinated in postmodern anti-science went on to become conservative political and religious leaders, policymakers, journalists, journal editors, judges, lawyers, and members of city councils and school boards. Sadly, they forgot the lofty ideals of their teachers, except that science is bogus."[44]
In 2017, aPew Research Center poll revealed that a majority of American Republicans thought colleges and universities had a negative impact on the United States. In 2019, academics Adam Waters andE.J. Dionne stated that U.S. PresidentDonald Trump "campaigned for the presidency and continues to govern as a man who is anti-intellectual, as well as anti-fact and anti-truth."[45][46] In 2020, Trump signed an executive order banninganti-racism bias trainings from offices of federal agencies, grant programs, and federal contractors[47][48] as part of a larger strategy to combat a perceived progressiveacademic bias, like emphases on thepolitical legacy of American slavery, with "patriotic education" instead.[49][50]
The U.S. ranks at a middling quality of education compared to other countries, and Americans often lack basic knowledge and skills.[51][52]John Traphagan of theUniversity of Texas attributes this to a culture of anti-intellectualism, noting thatnerds and other intellectuals are often stigmatized in American schools and popular culture.[53] At universities, student anti-intellectualism has resulted in the social acceptability of cheating on schoolwork, especially in the business schools, a manifestation of ethically expedientcognitive dissonance rather than of academiccritical thinking.[54]
TheAmerican Council on Science and Health said thatdenialism of the facts of climate science and of climate change misrepresents verifiable data and information as political opinion.[55] Anti-intellectualism puts scientists in the public view and forces them to align with either a liberal or a conservative political stance. Moreover, 53% of Republican U.S. Representatives and 74% of Republican senators deny the scientific facts of the causes of climate change.[56]
In the rural U.S., anti-intellectualism is an essential feature of the religious culture ofChristian fundamentalism.[57]Mainline Protestant churches and theRoman Catholic Church have directly published their collective support for political action to counter climate change, whereasSouthern Baptists andEvangelicals have denounced belief in bothevolution and climate change as a sin, and have dismissed scientists as intellectuals attempting to create "Neo-nature paganism".[58] People offundamentalist religious belief tend to report not seeing evidence of global warming.[59]
The reportage of corporate mass-communications media appealed to societal anti-intellectualism by misrepresenting university life in the U.S., where the students' pursuit of book learning (intellectualism) was secondary to the after-school social life. That thereactionary ideology communicated in mass-media reportage misrepresented the liberal political activism and social protest of students as frivolous, social activities thematically unrelated to the academic curriculum, which is the purpose of attending university.[60] InAnti-intellectualism in American Media (2004), Dane Claussen identified the contemporary anti-intellectualist bent ofmanufactured consent that is inherent to commodified information:[61][62]
The effects of mass media on attitudes toward intellect are certainly multiple and ambiguous. On the one hand, mass communications greatly expand the sheer volume of information available for public consumption. On the other hand, much of this information comes pre-interpreted for easy digestion and laden with hidden assumption, saving consumers the work of having tointerpret it for themselves. Commodified information naturally tends to reflect the assumptions and interests of those who produce it, and its producers are not driven entirely by a passion to promote critical reflection.
The editorial perspective of the corporate mass media misrepresented intellectualism as a separate profession from the jobs and occupations of regular folk. In presenting academically successful students as social failures, an undesirable social status for the average young man and young woman, corporate media established to the U.S. mainstream their opinion that the intellectualism of book learning is a form of mental deviancy; thus, most people would shun intellectuals as friends, lest they risk social ridicule and ostracism.[63] Hence, the popular acceptance of anti-intellectualism led to populist rejection of theintelligentsia for resolving the problems of society.[64] Moreover, in the bookInventing the Egghead: The Battle over Brainpower in American Culture (2013), Aaron Lecklider indicated that the contemporary ideological dismissal of theintelligentsia derived from the corporate media's reactionary misrepresentations of intellectual men and women as lacking the common-sense of regular folk.[65]
In the first decade after theRussian Revolution of 1917, theBolsheviks suspected theTsaristintelligentsia as having the potential to betray theproletariat. Thus, the initialSoviet government consisted of men and women without much formal education. Moreover, the deposed propertied classes were termedLishentsy ("the disenfranchised"), whose children were excluded from education. Eventually, some 200 Tsarist intellectuals such as writers, philosophers, scientists and engineers were deported to Germany onphilosophers' ships in 1922 while others were deported toLatvia andTurkey in 1923.
During therevolutionary period, the pragmatic Bolsheviks employed "bourgeois experts" to manage the economy, industry, and agriculture and so learn from them. After theRussian Civil War (1917–1922), to achieve socialism theSoviet Union (1922–91) emphasized literacy and education in service to modernizing the country via an educatedworking classintelligentsia rather than anIvory Tower intelligentsia. During the 1930s and 1950s,Joseph Stalin replacedVladimir Lenin's intelligentsia with an intelligentsia that was loyal to him and believed in a specifically Soviet world view, thereby producing thepseudoscientific theories ofLysenkoism andJaphetic theory.
In October 1937, there was amass extermination ofBelarusian writers, artists and statespeople by theSoviet Union occupying authorities. This event marked the peak of theGreat Purge andrepressions of Belarusians in theSoviet-controlled area ofeastern Belarus. More than 100 notable persons were executed, most of them on the night of 29–30 October 1937. Their innocence was later admitted by theSoviet Union afterJoseph Stalin's death.[66]
At the beginning ofWorld War II, the Soviet secret police carried out mass executions of the Polishintelligentsia and military leadership in the 1940Katyn massacre.
Theidealist philosopherGiovanni Gentile established the intellectual basis ofFascist ideology with theautoctisi (self-realisation) that distinguished between the good (active) intellectual and the bad (passive) intellectual:
Fascism combats [...] not intelligence, but intellectualism, [...] which is [...] a sickness of the intellect, [...] not a consequence of its abuse, because the intellect cannot be used too much. [...] [I]t derives from the false belief that one can segregate oneself from life.
— Giovanni Gentile, addressing a Congress of Fascist Culture, Bologna, 30 March 1925
To counter the "passive intellectual" who used their intellect abstractly, and was therefore "decadent", he proposed the "concrete thinking" of the active intellectual who applied intellect aspraxis—a "man of action", like the FascistBenito Mussolini, versus the decadentCommunistintellectualAntonio Gramsci. The passive intellectual stagnates intellect by objectifying ideas, thus establishing them as objects. Hence theFascist rejection of materialistlogic, because it relies upona priori principles improperly counter-changed witha posteriori ones that are irrelevant to the matter-in-hand in deciding whether or not to act.
In the praxis of Gentile's concrete thinking criteria, such consideration of thea priori toward the properlya posteriori constitutesimpractical, decadent intellectualism. Moreover, this fascist philosophy occurred parallel toActual Idealism, his philosophic system; he opposedintellectualism for its being disconnected from the active intelligence that gets things done, i.e. thought is killed when its constituent parts are labelled, and thus rendered as discrete entities.[67][68]
Related to this is the confrontation between the SpanishFrancoist GeneralJosé Millán-Astray and the writerMiguel de Unamuno during theDia de la Raza celebration at theUniversity of Salamanca in 1936, during theSpanish Civil War. The General exclaimed:¡Muera la inteligencia! ¡Viva la Muerte! ("Death to the intelligentsia! Long live death!"); the Falangists applauded.[69]
Qin Shi Huang (246–210 BC), the first Emperor of unified China, consolidated political thought, and power, by suppressingfreedom of speech at the suggestion of ChancellorLi Si, who justified such anti-intellectualism by accusing theintelligentsia of falsely praising the emperor, and dissenting throughlibel. From 213 to 206 BC, it was generally thought that the works of theHundred Schools of Thought were incinerated, especially theShi Jing (Classic of Poetry, c. 1000 BC) and theShujing (Classic of History, c. 6th century BC). The exceptions were books by Qin historians, and books ofLegalism, an early type oftotalitarianism—and the Chancellor's philosophic school (see theBurning of books and burying of scholars). However, upon further inspection of Chinese historical annals such as the Shi Ji and the Han Shu, this was found not to be the case. The Qin Empire privately kept one copy of each of these books in the Imperial Library but it publicly ordered that the books should be banned. Those who owned copies were ordered to surrender the books to be burned; those who refused were executed. This eventually led to the loss of most ancient works of literature and philosophy whenXiang Yu burned down the Qin palace in 208 BC.
TheCultural Revolution (1966–1976) was a politically violent decade which saw wide-rangingsocial engineering throughout thePeople's Republic of China by its leader ChairmanMao Zedong. After several national policy crises during which he was motivated by his desire to regain public prestige and control of theChinese government, Mao announced on 16 May 1966 that theChinese Communist Party (CCP) and Chinese society were permeated with liberal bourgeois elements who meant to restorecapitalism to China and he also announced that people could only be removed after apost–revolutionary class struggle was waged against them. To that effect, China's youth nationally organized themselves intoRed Guards and hunted the "liberal bourgeois" elements who were supposedly subverting the CCP and Chinese society. The Red Guards acted nationally, purging the country, the military, urban workers and the leaders of the CCP. The Red Guards were particularly aggressive when they attacked their teachers and professors, causing most schools and universities to be shut down once the Cultural Revolution began. Three years later in 1969, Mao declared that the Cultural Revolution was ended, yet the political intrigues continued until 1976, concluding with the arrest of theGang of Four, thede facto end of the Cultural Revolution.
When theCommunist Party of Kampuchea and theKhmer Rouge (1951–1981) established their regime asDemocratic Kampuchea (1975–1979) inCambodia, their anti-intellectualism which idealised the country and demonised the cities was immediately imposed on the country in order to establishagrarian socialism, thus, they emptied cities in order to purge theKhmer nation of everytraitor,enemy of the state andintellectual, often symbolised by eyeglasses.
In the early stages of theArmenian genocide of 1915, around 2,300 Armenian intellectuals weredeported fromConstantinople (Istanbul) and most of them were subsequently murdered by the Ottoman government.[70] The event has been described by historians as adecapitation strike,[71][72] the purpose of which was intended to deprive the Armenian population of an intellectual leadership and a chance to resist.[73]
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)In what scholars commonly refer to as the decapitation strike on April 24, 1915...
...the decapitation of the Armenian nation with the series of mass arrests that began on 24 April...
Դրանով թուրքական կառավարությունը ձգտում էր արևմտահայությանը գլխատել, նրան զրկել ղեկավար ուժից, բողոքի հնարավորությունից:
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)There is a growing and disturbing trend of anti-intellectual elitism in American culture. It's the dismissal of science, the arts, and humanities and their replacement by entertainment, self-righteousness, ignorance, and deliberate gullibility.
Media related toAnti-intellectualism at Wikimedia Commons
