 "The fit of intellectuals and intellectualism in American society (4.5*s)" | 2009-04-08 |
| - Reviewed By politicalman |
As this book thoroughly shows, Americans have been and continue to be distrustful of intellectualism and intellectuals. Yet, that position lacks coherency and is not particularly healthy for a viable society in a very complicated world. Wasn't America founded on enlightenment principles, emphasizing rationality, empowerment of the common man, and wide-ranging freedoms in terms of religion, political participation, speech, thought, and the like? That may be the theory, but the author ranges across American history to show that attitudes towards intellectuals and intellectualism by various segments of society, and in general, have often been ambivalent, dismissive, and at times overtly hostile. He examines in some detail such areas as religion, politics, education, and the business world to see the consequences of those suspicions.
The author distinguishes between intelligence and intellectualism. Intelligence involves being smart or skillful in a somewhat narrow sense - it is problem solving. An expert is in some ways a sharp problem solver, that is, being aware of most of the technical information that pertains to a topic or situation and able to utilize it. On the other hand, an intellectual's approach is broader. He endeavors to see issues in a broad context and to think of them creatively and not be overly constrained by precedents. His task may be confined to interpretation, such as a Puritan minister, but he may be inclined, more problematically, to challenge the soundness or truthfulness of conventional values, wisdom, and ways of doing things. What the author does not overly emphasize, is that intellectuals can provoke considerable reaction when they undermine long-held beliefs of average people, or, often concomitantly, the authority and power of leaders of established institutions. Experts can be resented, but as life becomes more complicated they are tolerated better than those who question fundamental social, economic, or political organization.
Contrary to most intellectuals of the modern era being found in universities, the author regards the clergy of the New England Puritans in the 17th century and the Founding Fathers of the 18th, as being the first intellectuals of America. Because of their elitism, and thereby being in positions of relative leisure, they had the time to become the best educated men of their times. But their influence waned tremendously after the Revolution. Evangelical religions, which rose with western expansion, emphasized a direct, non-interpreted, relationship with God. Educated clergy were seen as doing no more than interfering with that relationship. Likewise in politics: beginning with Andrew Jackson, the common man assumed the dominant role in the political process. Gone were the days of elites dictating the selection of successors.
The author is especially concerned with the turn that high school education took towards a curriculum of "life adjustment" in the early 20th century. In lieu of a small number of intensely taught academic subjects, school reformers took a child-centric approach to education that emphasized teaching the child to function in society using mostly commonsense and what we would call networking. The business community hardly objected to that methodology. Businessmen want reliable workers, not thinkers. Businesses do need experts to some extent, but business owners do not tolerate intellectuals who question their motives and practices, thereby undermining their authority. The launch of the Russian satellite Sputnik in late 50s did force a re-examination of the lack of rigorous academics in high school, but the attitude persists that schools should not be breeding grounds for intellectuals to be.
Intellectuals, because of their inclination to question, often become dissenters, refusing to conform. As such, they get labeled as being radicals, bohemians, troublemakers, atheists, etc. It is just a small step to paint all intellectuals with those brushes regardless of any justification. That was precisely the tactic of Sen. Joe McCarthy in the early 50s, when he used the flimsiest of excuses to label intellectuals from many areas of life as communists. The McCarthy witch-hunt was the immediate backdrop and motivation for this book.
There does seem to be some room to apply slightly different interpretations to some historical developments outlined. For example, it is not surprising, in casting aside the British aristocracy, that a new America based on democratic participation would attempt to greatly limit the influence of elites - the intellectuals of the times. The question is whether the empowerment of the common man is equivalent to the spread of ignorance and disagreeable consequences. There is also the question of in what sense elites encourage anti-intellectualism, all the while trying to limit actual empowerment of the masses, as well as suppressing intellectuals - all to maintain their social standing as society's decision makers. The author notes that it is ironic that modern intellectuals often come down on the side of the common man. Any induced anti-intellectualism in the masses is entirely likely to be a case of shooting oneself in the foot.
It's easy to see why the book received a Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for non-fiction. Anti-intellectualism gives a different perspective on historical developments that can obviously be viewed from other perspectives. It's difficult to succinctly wrap up the book; it contains elements of anti-elitism, anti-intellectualism, and anti-intellectuals. The author's perceptiveness in describing all of this is far greater than this review may suggest.
One has to wonder how the author would view the intellectual development of society over the fifty years since he started this book. It goes without saying, that technological advances have enhanced the need for and the status of experts. But have we become wiser? Do we respect the fresh and hopefully helpful ideas of intellectuals? As was suggested earlier, intellectualism is played out in the context of power. If we remain substantially anti-intellectual, is that due to inherent, widespread ignorance or is it engendered by those with the resources to do so, namely those with control of media, education, and places of production? That is not a question that the author takes on. He does address in his wrap up the question of intellectuals being co-opted by joining centers of power, be they businesses, universities, or political parties. Can an intellectual work from within these institutions or must he remain outside as a critic to play his role, if he can? There is a lot to think about with this book, regardless of whether one is an intellectual.
|
| |
 "The Heart vs The Head" | 2009-03-01 |
| - Reviewed By smeyers2 |
Mr. Hofstadter wrote this masterpiece right after the cloud of McCarthyism, but it is still very applicable to the anti-intellectualism furor so prevalent during President George W. Bush's rein. The author breaks this topic into four areas; religion (primarily evangelicalism), business, politics and education. It clarifies the long history of our uneducated or poorly educated citizenry's being deeply distrustful and insecure when it comes to intellectuals. President Obama's victory is a reascension of science and reason. But if history is any indication, another contraction into imbecility will be elected at some (hopefully) very future date. If I'm lucky, when that time comes again I'll be taking a dirt nap.
For decades, I have always been perplexed and shocked by the deep hatred and paranoia many people have vented when it comes intellectuals or the pursuit of higher learning. The author's writing is somewhat academic in style, but not dry. Mr. Hofstadter's book clears up so much. I wish I had read this twenty years ago. |
| |
 "Flawed But Informative" | 2008-12-04 |
| - Reviewed By User: AXRSKNDTK0WXP |
The basic argument of Richard Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" is that the blessings of American popular democracy have been mixed. On the one hand, the United States has evolved into a nation of hard-working, practical-minded people suspicious of anything in politics, religion, or society that strikes them as "aristocratic." The average American relies on and appreciates "inborn, intuitive, folkish wisdom" as opposed to "European" standards that recall the "cultivated, oversophisticated, and self-interested knowledge of the literati and well-to-do." This populist outlook manifests itself in religion, politics, and business, where hostility towards formal learning has essentially, until very recently (by 1964, that is), marginalized the intellectual and viewed his critical, creative, and artistic accomplishments with undisguised suspicion. By the time of his writing, however, Hofstadter feels that this anti-intellectual attitude has waned somewhat; yet, given America's history on this matter, the current atmosphere of rapprochement is unlikely to be permanent (as some of the rhetoric of the recent presidential election proved abundantly). It is therefore vital to understand the origins of and reasoning behind America's apparent disdain for the artist, writer, and scholar, and it is to this end that Hofstadter sought to trace the social movements that have contributed to it. The result a real narrative tour-de-force covering major developments in American thought from the Puritan era to the mid-twentieth century that remains relevant today.
Hofstadter believed that the antagonism of his time towards intellectuals was a reaction towards their new prominence and rise to positions of power. At the same time, however, he felt that this was most likely a mere phase in a cyclical pattern in which the American intellectual passes from high esteem to social and political alienation and back again, depending upon the historical factors (populist feeling, religious sentiment, economic climate, and so on) in play at the moment. Perhaps in keeping with the general disregard held for the intellectual, the historicism of anti-intellectualism in America is appropriately limited and usually deals with how America is seen by intellectuals and not vice versa. The very vagueness of the term "intellectual" may be useful to those politicians and evangelists who wish to classify, characterize, and stigmatize a particular group, but such definitions do not lend themselves well to the historian who needs to clarify what he intends to research and discuss. Hofstadt prefers to see the historical subject of the "intellectual" not as a single concrete entity, but as "a force fluctuating in strength from time to time and drawing its most potent power from varying sources." A pure, unrelenting aversion to the intellect is unusual - America has, after all, traditionally valued education - yet at the core of Hofstadter's book is the proposal that anti-intellectualism is the common thread that binds together myriad ideas from differing cultural spheres. "In these pages," Hofstadter declares, "I am centrally concerned with widespread social attitudes, with political behavior, and with middle-brow and low-brow responses, only incidentally with articulate theories."
Hofstadter admits that anti-intellectualism is a pervasive but not dominant force in American culture, since most Americans are merely non-intellectual. Yet the feelings and ideologies of those who do espouse forms of intellectualism have their basis in the American evangelical tradition. "Puritanism," says Hofstadter, "as a religion of the Book, [had] placed a strong emphasis upon interpretation and rational discourse and eschewed ranting emotionalism." Despite its intellectual origins, however, Protestant Christianity in the United States has been driven largely by antinomian and anti-authoritarian impulses that were only reinforced during the Second Great Awakening by political Jeffersonianism (DO read Nathan O. Hatch's "The Democratization of American Christianity" for a full treatment of this). If the people were to rule with as little guidance as possible from the educated and propertied classes, that guidance must necessarily come from another source - specifically, from within the individual citizen. "State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor," Jefferson wrote to his nephew in 1787. "The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been lead astray by artificial rules." Jefferson himself can hardly be described as anti-intellectual, Hofstadter admits, but his influence was keenly felt behind the post-Revolutionary attacks on "aristocracy," as well as the new spiritual movement that sought to do away with paid clergy and formal religious learning in favor of spontaneous conversion and evangelism that appealed to the "simple people." Revivalists successfully carried "the light of the gospel to a people who were not only unchurched but often uncivilized."
It is here, however, that a central problem with "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" makes itself felt. An immediate issue is that Richard Hofstadter, of course, is an intellectual himself and it subsequently comes as no surprise that his book seems to portray a society of simpletons with a knee-jerk distaste for anything that smacks of culture or refinement. Even his own admission that anti-intellectualism is not a prevailing force in American society is soon lost. For all his scholarly aloofness, the overall impression one receives from the book is that of both persecution complex and a kind of overconfidence in his own status. It is apparently the "historic glory of the intellectual class of the [modern] West, that, of all classes which could be called in any sense privileged, it has shown the largest and most consistent concern for the well-being of the classes which lie below it in the social scale" he proudly proclaims. Completely ignored is America's tradition of middle-class reform movements, as documented, for instance, in Daniel Feller's buoyantly cheerful "The Jacksonian Promise" and Michael McGerr's study of the Progressive movement in "A Fierce Discontent." Not that contemporary (1964) America has improved much since, according to Hofstadter, it appears to be full of nativist, isolationist fundamentalists who are nevertheless deserving of the reader's compassion: "One cannot, even if one does not like their responses, altogether withhold one's sympathies from the plight of a people, hitherto so preoccupied with internal material development and in many ways so simple, who have been dragged away from their `normal' concerns, . . . and forced to try to learn so much in so short a time."
At times Hofstadter's choice of words is telling, as is his choice of sources. Early America's aristocrats, we learn, were apparently the "soberer classes" whose withdrawal from politics sent the American government spiraling into a cacophony of slander, vitriol, and fanaticism. To prove this point, Hofstadter relies exclusively on elite testimony that frequently characterizes Jacksonian Congress as a veritable "bear-garden." He then seems to lament the passing of the gentlemanly patronage system, in which men from less advantaged backgrounds would be appointed by their social superiors to places of high position. (Never mind the dependency and "sucking up" inherent to such an arrangement.) Now, alas, "the qualities that put an aspiring politician into rapport with the public became more important than those that impressed his peers or superiors." The situation only got worse from there, Hofstadter goes on to say, as the ambitious business mindset seeped into the American character, heralding the ascension of the innovative and dynamic, but also "coarse and ruthless," industrial types who supplanted the old merchant elite whose cosmopolitan outlook had encouraged a lifestyle of refinement and gentility. Again, Hofstadter simply points to statements made by elites such as Henry Adams as proof of this without allowing their political opponents to defend themselves against these charges against their character.
Furthermore, Hofstadter's claim that Americans have never valued art and music for their own sake is simply erroneous and seems to reflect his bias against mainstream culture as inherently boorish and brainless. As Ralph P. Locke's article "Music Lovers, Patrons, and the `Sacralization' of Culture in America" makes quite clear, Americans of all backgrounds did, in fact, at one time enjoy "high-brow" entertainment such as opera and theater. Early nineteenth-century audiences could best be described as raucous motley crews composed of Americans from all socioeconomic backgrounds. The Victorian emphasis on artistic uplift, however, soon demanded that European symphonies and the plays of Shakespeare be presented only in their "pure" original forms (American performers were fond of improvising and adding extras, such as bawdy opening acts) in a hushed, reverent atmosphere. The result, Locke argues, was to essentially snatch culture out of the hands of the lower sort whom, it was felt, could not properly appreciate it. This also directly contradicts Hofstadter's entire chapter on "The Fate of the Reformer," which argues that culture and refinement were seen universally as sappy, effeminate, and far removed from the burly male spheres of business and politics. (Although it is admittedly unfair to judge Hofstadter by scholarship from decades in the future, this point still deserves to be made.)
It is towards the current state of American education, however, that Hofstadter seems to go off the proverbial deep end. "There is an element of moral overstrain and a curious lack of humor among American educationalists which will perhaps always remain a mystery to those more worldly minds that are locked out of their mental universe," Hofstadter claims. ". . . When they feel they are about to establish the janitor's right to be treated with respect, they grow starry-eyed and increased their tempo." The professionalization of education has also spurred educators to "indulge in solemn and pathetic parodies of the pedantry of academic scholarship." (Nor does he provide evidence to support his very loud condemnations.) It is nevertheless Hofstadter who is overindulging here, as his distaste for the American school system spills into hyperbole. His lack of respect for teachers is also disquieting: the typical teacher in the United States, it seems, hails from "culturally constricted lower- or middle-class homes, where the Saturday Evening Post or the Reader's Digest is likely to be the characteristic reading matter." That is not the impression one receives from Jerald E. Podair's "The Strike That Changed New York," which goes into great detail about New York's rigorous standards and exams for teachers in the '50s and '60s, as well as their strong drive to move ahead in their profession. Granted, Hofstadter's strong criticism of the Dewey-inspired "life adjustment" education is quite justified, but that should not extend to the entire schooling system in the United States.
"Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" may have come across here as basically a long rant against American cultural impulses. Although there is an element of that, there is still far more to the book in terms of breadth and comprehensiveness. It is far from perfect, yet Hofstadter does effectively outline the growth of one (emphasis on "one") strand of popular American thought. Despite some difficulties with sources, Hofstadter, a historian by profession, is at his strongest in the chapters dealing with history, which do provide a valuable overview of a segment of American society. He is nevertheless bogged down by the section on the current affairs in education. Given the immediacy of those issues, especially to the intellectual, Hofstadter is unsurprisingly vehement at times and rambles on for too long (the section really could have been shorter). "Anti-Intellectualism in American Society" is a decent book with value as a history text, albeit one that could be supplemented with other material, given the author's disdain for those outside his cerebral circle. But he did get one thing right: 1964's apparently kinder treatment of intellectuals was definitely not permanent. |
| |
| "Helpful in making sense of the U.S.A." | 2008-12-02 |
| - Reviewed By User: A24AVZVY7MW579 |
| Most other reviewers have pointed out how relevant this book still is, more than forty years after it was published. Hofstadter's most important contribution is that he identifies and gives a name to a major feature of the American character. Parts of the book are dry and long-winded and can be slow going. Other than the discussion of evangelical Christian sects, Hofstadter focuses on the intellectual in society, with less attention to popular or mass attitudes and behavior. He makes some very perceptive remarks about Americans' tendency to indulge in group hatreds and about the motivations behind McCarthy's hunt for Communists, which turned up few real Communists. I would have liked him to explore the issue of mass attitudes and behavior further. Also, he doesn't speculate much on the reasons or causes of anti-intellectualism, other than referring to the rough conditions of frontier life as the U.S. was expanding westward--can this be the only reason? This is very worthwhile reading for those who want to understand American attitudes in politics, education, and religion. |
| |
| "The Contemplative Life" | 2008-10-03 |
| - Reviewed By moscocious |
Largeness of mind (my definition of intellect) is very rare. Hofstadter deplored the narrowing of the American mind that resulted not just from the democritization of the university (and knowledge) but from the reformulation of its mission to suit American interests. The life of the mind suffers when the only nonpartisan value existent is market value. Knowledges that produce wealth are the ones that are held in highest esteem. Knowledges that produce no measurable material gain are considered irrelevant. By making market value the only standard in American life, the economic becomes the only horizon for Americans.
Since we have very few homegrown philosophies other than utilitarianism and pragmatism, most Americans see "thought" as a European import and a threat to our national sovereignty and security.
Actually there is one other standard in American life besides market value: egalitarianism. Most Americans have to work for a living and it is the perceived connection between the life of the mind and a life of leisure that invites scorn from the hard working sectors. But anti-intellectualism does not really serve the working class because its the intellectuals who are engaged in the serious social thought that might actually improve the lives of the under represented and under privileged. Most people cannot even imagine an alternative to current social and economic arrangements (that are held in place by the real elites of this nation, the corporate elites, who also have government on their side) because they have not been educated but indoctrinated into a certain way of life that they are told is "unpatriotic" to criticize. This is not freedom.
Most (thankfully, not all) "thinking" that we see on television, cable, and the internet is simply partisan bickering. Media is an ideologue-o-sphere.
The university is not much better. It is under pressure to corporatize and to mainstream and to treat students like clients. Problems within the university are not all to be blamed on the market, some of the problems are internal, but a university credential (especially in the humanities) has ceased to really mean much. I met very few large minded thinkers at the university. Largeness of mind is not really something that is valued at the university. Its certainly not what is taught there. Knowledge has become politicized and (many, not all) research projects so specialized that teaching and learning are no longer seen as edifying but as narrow and trivial pursuits. Professionalization, ie initiation into fraternities of shared interests (and the crafting of partisan knowledges and partisan knowledge communities), and not learning itself, is what goes on behind once-hallowed walls. The mission of the university used to be to provide a setting for the cultivation of the contemplative life, now its just another institution with its eye on self-preservation and the bottom line.
One of the leading thinkers on matters of educaion in our time, Gerald Graff, suggests that we "teach the conflicts" in American life. But I think this simply reifies the notion that there are not really large shared interests only self-interest and special interest groups with arguments to make and causes to promote and this is what the profession has become. But this approach does not promote broad-mindedness. A moment ago I mentioned one type of intellectual who works to promote true economic egalitarianism, and there are others who work to promote other forms of egalitarianism (ie gender, racial, ethnic, queer). In this country intellectuals do social work, so anti-intellectualism does not make much sense in many respects and it is this misunderstanding of intellectual work that leads to mistrust of it. This is important work and this is noble work but it is political work and political work that much of the nation, the culturally conservative, does not believe should be education's end. As a social progressive, I think this work needs to be done but leveling the playing field and promoting fair play and tolerance for all members of society--the realization of democratic principles--should not be seen as the singular end of education.
The body politic, focused as it is on the economic, must be liberated from the self-interest that has stood in the way of true democracy.
But the political project, as important as it is, is not the only project. There is also the life project of the individual, and the cultivation of a broad-mindedness that fosters not just the collective but the individual good as well.
It is very difficult to say exactly what it is that intellectuals do because they are engaged in many different kinds of projects (in the arts and sciences), but what the best ones do is open up new public and personal horizons. Cultivating the contemplative life does not mean indulging in useless vanity projects (although there is plenty of that in academia) but in enlarging the reach of the mind and our definiton of the possible.
|
| |
| "Old Friend" | 2008-08-06 |
| - Reviewed By marcbquick |
| Last time I read this book I was travelling by plane from Charleston W. Va to Knoxville TN, in fall of 1968. The book was so fascinating that I read most of it non stop during the ride and waiting to change plans at a small mountain airport. The book suited my mood and my contemplations of society at that time. Unfortunately, I left the book on the plane when I arrived at my destination. I made mental note to buy it back, but never did, until reding another recent book on a kindred theme. On re-reading, I noticed that very little has changed, both in my mindset and in the surrounding society. The book did not lose its taste nor actuality. Highly recommended |
| |
International Available
