|
Okay, I'm very confused here. I posted a rant to my blog last night about the horrifying level of anti-intellectualism in this country. Here's an excerpt (lest you think I'm trolling for hits): My Kind Isn't Welcome Here Anymore
I came to that stark realization this morning. No, I'm not black, I'm not gay, I'm not obese or handicapped -- I'm not really part of any marginalized minority (we could argue about me being a Jewish female, but women aren't a minority and the neocons actually like the Jews). I'm not even talking about being a Democrat, liberal, progressive, loony lefty, whatever.
What I am, and what I have determined isn't welcome around here, is an intellectual.
There. I said it. My name is Stacie (hi, Stacie) and I'm an intellectual.
Those of you who know me offline surely find this revelation to be a big, fat duh. I spend more time complaining about the dumbing down of America than I do about just about anything else (OK, election-year politics excepted, but that goes hand in hand). You're probably sick of it, even if you share my belief (in that case, feel free to click on something else).
I wonder when, exactly, anti-intellectualism started taking root in the United States. I know that during the Cold War, intellectuals were often lumped in with the Communists (well, many intellectuals, especially academics, were Communists). But it seems to have hit a new high (low?) in recent years.
Take, yes, politics. I'm not going to say our current president is dumb (I have studied Gardner -- who knows, maybe Dubya's an excellent dancer) -- there probably is quite a bit of intelligence there, somewhere -- but he's most certainly not an intellectual. He doesn't project any book-style intelligence whatsoever, nor does he want to; he wants everyone to think he's just a regular guy, likes to clear brush on his ranch, likes to jog.
There's nothing wrong with regular guys. Some of my best friends are regular guys (or so the saying goes). We need regular guys of all genders. The problems is when it can be taken too far, when they don't read and need to have dire warnings that Al Qaeda wants to strike in the United States, with planes, possibly in Lower Manhattan, pared down to one page.
John Kerry, by most accounts, is an intellectual -- or, at least, he projects an image of such. He's a thinker. He reads (not that he has any time to do so right now). He uses big words.
And because Kerry projects an air of intelligence, he gets hammered in the media, and even by some on the left. He's told he needs to dumb down his language -- people won't vote for someone who says "obfuscate" when they mean "hid," or someone who says 100 words when waving a flag will do (and no, I don't have links -- I'm generalizing, not researching). He's told he needs to hang glide and kiss babies and shoot things, in order to seem less intellectual and more regular guy.
What I want to know is -- When did intellectualism become an election liability? Since when do we not want our president to project intelligence?
A commenter made the following remarks (again, excerpted): I don't think you're really an intellectual... definitely a geek and an intellectualist, but not an intellectual. Krugman is an intellectual - he is a world-class expert on currency exchanges, he's written tons of books, and he regularly writes scholarly articles. Even Chomsky is an intellectual. The intellectualist will try to find the truth, and opposes its abuse, as in the cowboy culture that almost got Bush elected, or as in the pseudoscientific crap that comes from the mouths of, say, creationists. The difference between being an intellectual and being an intellectualist is similar to the difference between being a Christian theologist and being a Christian.
I, of course, freely admit I'm a geek (though I prefer nerd), but I'm not exactly sure what the hell this poster was talking about otherwise. My working definition of intellectual is someone who values pursuits of the mind. John Kerry at least projects that point of view (who knows how he is in real life, though?); Dubya does not. (The dictionary is even more vague -- intellectual is that which pertains to the intellect). "Intellectualist" shows up as "someone who overestimates the importance of understanding" or "someone who buys in to the doctrine of intellectualism," which just brings us back. I have to admit -- I don't get it. (I should add -- this poster has never met me, I've never met him, but he's been following my blog since the Candidate's Wife days.) What is the difference between being an intellectual and being an intellectualist, and why am I (according to one random Internet stranger) the latter, but not the former? Can anyone help me here? (And thanks.)
|