When and why did Americans embrace anti-intellectualism?

Probably for the same reason we did in the UK, the quality of intellectuals declined.

When they started defunding public education in the 1960s...got to keep them stupid so you can control the masses

Exactly, r2.

Let's be real. Once those in power saw who was getting educated public school began to her defunded. And also, r2

I remember in the 50s people aspired to be middle-class and educated. Lots of quiz shows on TV where people showed off their brains. It all changed in the 60s. First the 60s counterculture rejected all authority. Then republicans built on that demonizing all educated people as "elites."

It was when the "everybody gets a trophy" generation was born. When parents won't let educators give their perfect children less than a B, there's no incentive for the students to learn. Uneducated people don't appreciate what it takes to get an education -- I mean, a real education, not just a piece of paper. And I can tell you, currently, that piece of paper means almost nothing.

If I had a nickel for every deplorable who told me my (political science) education doesn't mean anything...

r2 hit the nail on the head........the defunding got worse under Regan in about 1982

There’s always been an anti-intellectual segment in American society. There was a political party happy to call themselves the “Know Nothing” party in the 1850s.

Paraphrasing HL Mencken “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public”(1926). In recent decades the right has capitalized on this tendency towards willful ignorance by trying to starve funding for education.

When Ronald Reagan and the Republicans invited the fringe fundamentalists and evangelicals into the Republican mainstream, where theybspread like a cancer. When the corporate oligarchy made a concerted effort to demean education and science and medicine and deride expertise. When they promoted the idea that "common sense" made up for specialized knowledge. When fear and hatred became the only two tools in the Republican arsenal.

Today, a Republican intellect like William F. Buckley would be called a RINO or worse.

In the late 50s or early 60s Barry Goldwater (Republican senator) foresaw the problem when he said “when these preachers control of the party it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me”. Well, here we are.

The Puritans left THE NETHERLANDS, after they left England, because they were intolerant of other Christian sects. Religious fanatics are intolerant of all other things, including intellectualism.

Great, another thread steeped in historical myopia. It’s especially ironic considering OP is carping about intellectualism but clearly isn’t an intellectual themselves.

Intelligence and class structure haven’t changed all that much over the short history of the US unless you’re referring to a smart individuals ability to improve their position based on intellectual gifts alone.

The Americans OP seems to be referring to are the 20-30% who instinctively reject a nameless and menacing cognitive elite who tell others how to live. There was most likely a larger proportion of the population who rejected elitism in early America, whether of intelligence or class.

R12 so true. It’s the anonymity principle and a fear of “other”. But if you asked a dim, uneducated who her smartest child is, or neighbor or friend, they can tell you with some certainty and there is usually the expected reverence. When you put a name to the person…

^ “…dim, uneducated person…”

R10 R11 you’re introducing a discussion of religion into a thread expressly discussing intellectualism. That is an unrelated and deeper discussion than OP proposed.

And by your statements alone I can gather a hint of information about your biases and personal animosities which should be addressed [italic]before[/italic] you wade into an objective exchange with others.

R15, religion is the very antithesis of intellect, at least as practiced today, so you can't have a discussion about one without the other.

Ouch. Spanked. I’ll slink off and look for a Taylor Swift thread or something.

R16 that statement alone is ignorant. Religion as [italic]you alone[/italic] definite it is unthinkable to you. Point made. But don’t pretend that tacking on ‘as practiced today’ grants your opinions broad veracity.

^ *define it

I see where this is going. I’m out.

As early as Stonewall Jackson.

OP:

[quote] John Milton was among them

John Milton was a Puritan in England; he never came to New England

R11:

[quote] The Puritans left THE NETHERLANDS …

No - the Pilgrims left the Netherlands

All Pilgrims were Puritans; not all Puritans were Pilgrims

This is basic American history, people.

It’s not new, OP, but it might never have been worse. Scary times.

1969.

It ended the intelligentsia among multiple demographics.

For the gays, Stonewall became the be all, end all of gay politics. . .

and one saw similarities among the groups to transition out of the civil rights movement

this iconoclastic disdain for those that became before them, or perhaps burnout for the systems of order as people transitioned from the summer of love into the disco era and the crushing defeat of idealism by the mid 70s.

But they were kids, too far from the experience of wwii which paved the way forward for the civil rights movement and took for granted the opportunities afforded them. Boomers, young millennials, older Z are close to one another in this way. decadent whiners easily triggered by notions of responsibility, whether to themselves or others, with the attention span of a goldfish.

R24 oh. boy.

Anti-intellectualism was a popular sentiment in American plays and novels of the first third of the 19th century.

In many areas during the first third of the 19th century, particularly the southern states, illiteracy requiring the hiring of people to read and write for one was considered a sign of being part of the aristocratic class.

R23 so benighted one scarcely knows where to start

OP, the book you want is by Richard Hofstadter and it's called Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. It won a Pulitzer Prize in 1963. He starts with the Puritans and takes it all the way forward. The big evangelical movements in the mid-1800s played a big part.

Reading and learning is important but higher education institutions are now completely absent of critical thinking. People sense that it is now more about regurgitation hence the extreme backlash towards anything perceived as "intellectualism".

Well, R27, Please feel free to enlighten us all with your vast insights, Cuntress Mensa.

I grew up in a home and community where education and ambition were highly valued. My middle class neighborhood produced a surprising number of university graduates, many went to UC Berkeley.

In my observation, as a person who grew up in an intellectual family of readers and strivers, is that people who have willfully refused to expand their knowledge did not develop critical thinking skills or the ability to understand nuanced thought. So in their lack of understanding, when hearing a scientist for example, explain why getting a Covid vaccine might save your life, they scurry back to the simplistic thinking promoted by propagandists or others who refuse to look outside their bubbles for expanded information.

They feel inferior because they don't understand the ideas of intellectuals and seek the comfort simple of explanations from dubious sources. The fear becomes scorn, then derision, and ultimately, their desire to gain power over those they scorn so they can humiliate them, pass outrageous laws, and strut around like the arrogant ignoramuses we see in politics today. Marjory Taylor Greene, I'm looking at you.

Of course there are other reasons for anti-intellectualism, but this is one I've observed.

Feel better now, dear?

Famous essay

Because most people aren't intellectuals. The right has vilified intellectuals and have told its minions that they are evil

Isn't it at base just more ebb-and-flow in the timeless and never-ending disrespect which sweeps back and forth between the urban-intellectual-sophisticated bloc and the rural-physical labor-practical knowledge bloc?

[quote] They feel inferior because they don't understand the ideas of intellectuals and seek the comfort simple of explanations from dubious sources. The fear becomes scorn, then derision, and ultimately, their desire to gain power over those they scorn so they can humiliate them, pass outrageous laws, and strut around like the arrogant ignoramuses we see in politics today. Marjory Taylor Greene, I'm looking at you.

I've never understood stupidity as some sort of rebellion, but this explains it very well.

R36 I wouldn't be surprised if these MAGAts started wearing "Stupidity Rules!" T-shirts at the next Trump rally.

r16 nails the cunt.

It was when the fetish for competitive sport took off. Education doesn't value the intelligent in their midst, it values the athletic. The entire culture is built around competition, winners and losers.

I love you, R31.

Very good topic! My hunch (not based on knowledge): 1. Intellectuals failed to make a connection with the majority of the people. When you get a disconnect, you are losing your audience. Maybe intellectuals never connected with the common people to begin with. If you stay aloof, you're not invited to spend time with the uneducated folks.

2. Other factors I can see: School / theoretical education needs to show tangible results. In US history, people managed to get by with learning-by-doing. And they had success with this approach. In Europe school/grad school was a requirement for climbing up. Certain jobs were inaccessible if you didn't have the needed grades. Religion may be another factor: Many congregations see science as their enemy. In rural America, the church was just so much more present and able to suppress any scientific seed that contradicted them.

Internet. No one grasps anything, they let Google do it for them.

Higher education and the ability to become "Intellectual" was very restricted for much of our history. It belonged as a natural right to the elites. i.e., those with money and legacy.

So it's not surprising to me that there has always been a portion of the country that is wary of putting too much trust in the hands of the elites.

The fact that some in the intellectual class use it as a weapon against portions of the country is another reason it is not trusted.

And. let's face it, much of those who think they are "intellectual" today are anythiing but.

"Idiocracy" was originally entertainment, not a documentary :) In many ways I think we've careened way past that . . .

Also, America didn't have to embrace education. For a long time it was manufacturing country... you could get a good paying job with good benefits and a pension without higher education. Now those jobs have gone overseas, they're not only fucked for capacity but disdainful of having to try.

It’s not an embrace when it’s always been apparent

When nerd became a slur

The comfort of simple explanations from dubious sources... is also a simple explanation from a dubious source.

Is this a tautology?

It's been a long and steady process..

[quote]When and why did Americans embrace anti-intellectualism?

When America allowed in too many ugly, stupid, unschooled, unlettered, superstitious, god-fearing, anti-science, anti-feminist, homophobic, gun-crazy, shithole micropeen Latinos! That was when!

Right after 9/11.

During the political campaign ads, listen out for the term "school choice". Republicans want taxpayers to pay the tuition of kids who go to private religious schools. Where instead of science, they will learn about creationism. Even worse, any one can call their own living room a school and collect taxpayer money for "homeschooling" their kids. This takes even more funding away from public schools.

Apparently, there are lots of dangers in public school. Kids might learn that slavery happened in this country, and some of our heroes weren't perfect men. A fellow student might have two moms, and the teacher might tell the class that it's fine because there are different types of families. Students might learn about physics laws that disprove the fairy tales in the Bible. And if the kid gets to college (liberal indoctrination center), he or she might be around people who are different (i.e. people from California) and will be encouraged to challenge his or her beliefs. Don't want any independent thinkers messing things up. Just want a few folks who are smart enough to keep improving on smartphones; the rest can stay dumb.

I blame those high handed ABC After School Specials. The backlash was inevitable.

Actually it's a good thing all those kids aren't in public schools. I think the vouchers are cheaper than imploding the schools with every eligible child attending.

I believe that private school students and home schooled should get certain things paid for like all students do - books, certain school facilities like use of pools, standardized testing, guidance counselors, maybe some other services. Maybe even certain classes like science labs or foreign language.

So while my mother always was adamantly opposed to Catholic schools (which I attended) accepting government money, I think a hybrid is a good compromise if it's about the student getting what all students get.

Part of it is also that Intellectualism isn't necessary for survival. People forget that when John Smith said, "Those who don't work, don't eat.", he meant the aristocrats and intellectuals who thought they were above work. Being an intellectual was not going to get you very far homesteading in the new territories.

The people who hate “intellectuals” are people who have been left behind, who haven’t benefitted from higher education or the whole “knowledge-based” economy. That is why anti-intellectualism is invariably involves hatred of the nebulous “elites” who practice the dark arts of rational thought and analysis. I think that one of the reasons some people want an apocalyptic revolution or war is that they think brute force, rather than brain power, will prevail.

[quote]who haven’t benefitted from higher education or the whole “knowledge-based” economy.

This applies to the 1830s how? Anti-intellectualism was around way before any "knowledge based" economy (unless you mean the knowledge of planting and harvesting) .

r54...Betsy DeVos

I thought Auntie Intellectualism was the hot new drag queen on Drag Race?

It's always been there, but popular culture was controlled by an educated elite until relatively recently, so no-one really had any choice what they consume. Now everything has been democratised, it's down to the lowest common denominator as quickly as possible.

Back in the Stone Age when there were only three television channels the networks would show things like Playhouse 90 and What’s My Line had guests from the worlds of the arts and culture that you’d never see the likes of on network TV today and popular magazines like Life and Look had a wide range of interesting articles about the world. Today it’s wall to wall Real Housewives, sports and Marvel movies. And Tik Tok, Twitter and Instagram. If you want something more intelligent you really have to seek it out, and most people aren’t inclined to do so. People aren’t casually exposed to challenging subject matter anymore.

R60 that is one of the more asinine statements on this thread. Are you trying to sound silly?

It's called "liberalism".

Partly it's the fault of the intellectuals and academics themselves. The disciplines became overspecialized, detached from mainstream concerns. The uninitiated looked on with a kind of bemused contempt while the mandarins in the universities spun theories that seemed more and more remote from daily life.

R64 huh? First, intellectualism has nothing to do w/ political affiliation. Separately, academia, scholarship, advanced institutions were never meant to educate people about “daily life” however you define that term.

Reality TV and social media trash culture destroyed any thing left

When education became a foundation for non-white people to achieve socio-economic advancement at the same time that other people could no longer count on nepotism and other forms of non-merit based favoritism to advance their careers and incomes.

Couple this with the wholesale relocation of factories and other manufacturing that previously allowed for a very comfortable middle class and you create a class of people who believe something has been taken from them that they are not only entitled to have, but erroneously think they actually deserve.

The final nail was the rise of the internet and "nerds" and computer science geeks became billionaires overnight. Additionally, you get MBAs and other folks with advanced degrees seemingly doing nothing and making fabulous fortunes on Wall Street from all the tech IPOs and M&A activity, but when fools attempted to get rich quick by buying stocks, the 2001 internet collapse made the average Joe think the system is rigged when they tried to buy "hot" stocks in sectors they didn't understand and got crushed, blaming "Wall Street" and the elite educated people who seemed to populate it.

Social media and reality tv which focused on other who seemingly lived the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous didn't help.

I'd argue these began to converge in the 80s, but really hit hard in the late 90s.

R64 or to have anything to do with daily, pedestrian issues. They aren’t trade schools or home economists who got esoteric all of a sudden. You are familiar with post secondary academics aren’t you?

R67 that is so meandering and nonsensical that it is unarguable. I have no doubt you have a point, but it’s important that other people can reasonably follow you along until you make it. (It’s important not to leave your audience wondering if they’re lost in a strange land)

Scotch-Irish who settled much of the South had a strong anti-intellectual streak, felt they'd been looked down on by the "coastal elite" in London all those years.

Most all MAGA traits can be traced back to them-- refusal to compromise, love for a lost cause, constant feeling that other look down on them, prone to violence rather than reason and distrust of authority and intellectualism.

Sort of as if abused children became a tribe.

[quote][R67] that is so meandering and nonsensical that it is unarguable. I have no doubt you have a point, but it’s important that other people can reasonably follow you along until you make it. (It’s important not to leave your audience wondering if they’re lost in a strange land)

I can't follow The Riemann Hypothesis - I can't even follow why it's so difficult to solve, let alone any relevant discussions about solutions. I've accepted my limitations. Perhaps you should accept yours.

R70 if you and a few other of the fools posting on here constitute the dem party, no wonder we’re doomed. You ppl sound worse than some of the rep zealots and equally as uninformed and lacking in cogent thought.

Sorry but I’d be alarmed if a HS government student (tried) to make your arguments, as it were.

R71 lol you’re cute

Don't know, OP. But it's mainstream now with anti-intellectuals denying that biological sex is real.

R65 Do you know what intellectualism is? Can you define it? And who mentioned political affiliation, and how would intellectualism have nothing to do with political affiliation? Would Noam Chomsky fit your definition of an intellectual, and would you say he's unaffiliated politically? Was Jean-Paul Sartre an intellectual? Was he politically unaffiliated? In short, WTF are you talking about?

Regan

Ordinary Americans saw in the 20th century that elites have been very detrimental to America and remain a threat to our society today, regardless of how “intellectual” the elites are. Intellectuals are now part of the elites and so it’s very understandable why there is antipathy toward them.

So-called "intellectuals" have a rather long history of murdering innocent people in cold blood. Would you like some examples? OK: People's Republic of China Body Count: 73,237,000 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Body Count: 58,627,000 Democratic People's Republic of Korea Body Count: 3,163,000 Cambodia Body Count: 2,627,000 Vietnam Body Count: 1,670,000 People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Body Count: 1,343,610 Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Body Count: 1,072,000 Chinese Soviet Republic Body Count: 700,000 Socialist Republic of Romania Body Count: 435,000 People's Republic of Bulgaria Body Count: 222,000 People's Republic of Angola Body Count: 125,000 Mongolian People's Republic Body Count: 100,000 People's Socialist Republic of Albania Body Count: 100,000 Republic of Cuba Body Count: 73,000 German Democratic Republic Body Count: 70,000 Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia Body Count: 65,000 Lao People's Democratic Republic Body Count: 56,000 Hungarian People's Republic Body Count: 27,000 People's Republic of Poland Body Count: 22,000 People's Democratic Republic of Yemen Body Count: 1,000

R78 The People's Republic of the United States of Americ.a in Southeast Asia Body count: roughly three million killed, a mixture of civilians and military

[quote]The people who hate “intellectuals” are people who have been left behind, who haven’t benefitted from higher education or the whole “knowledge-based” economy. That is why anti-intellectualism is invariably involves hatred of the nebulous “elites” who practice the dark arts of rational thought and analysis

Ironic then that the knowledge economy produces its own 'anti-intellectuals' who will propagate any conspiracy theory and support anti-intellectual politicians.

See Elon Musk and Peter Thiel (there are others).

Being from the South, I often heard “They’ve got COMMON sense” Meaning, generally,, that the person was illiterate-and proud of it-but spouted generalizations and misconceptions held dear to the region.

R72

^ … forgot to add, “is a cunt”

Everyone says we’re dumb and fat, but I think we’re doing ok!

This topic brings to mind President Nixon's delightful Vice President Spiro T. Agnew. Agnew was notorious, among other things, for saying, "A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as "intellectuals"."

Agnew was himself an university educated lawyer and former governor who advocated for law and order while running with Nixon.

Agnew resigned from office before Nixon did. From Wiki, "In 1973, Agnew was investigated by the United States Attorney for the District of Maryland on suspicion of criminal conspiracy, bribery, extortion and tax fraud. Agnew took kickbacks from contractors during his time as Baltimore County Executive and Governor of Maryland. The payments had continued into his time as vice president; they had nothing to do with the Watergate scandal, in which he was not implicated. After months of maintaining his innocence, Agnew pleaded no contest to a single felony charge of tax evasion and resigned from office."

So here we have an early example of hypocritical Republican gaslighting. Throwing slurs at intellectuals to distract from one's own misdeeds. And who are the "effete corps of impudent snobs" anyway? People who advocate for equality and democracy instead of oligarchy and corruption? We have Agnew to thank for planting a seed against intellectual thought. Better to lie and steal to enrich oneself than act in good faith to make life better for the many.

I think anti-intellectualism just tends to wax and wane depending on those in power and the zeitgeist of the time.

And I'm fairly certain Puritans and other Protestants had a hand in the rise of "common sense" arguments because they promoted religion based on faith and scripture, departing from the orthodoxy of the Catholics. And say what you want about the Catholics, you had to be pretty damn educated to understand the Sacred Tradition back then just because of how much precedent and canon law supported it.

Faith alone is cute and all when it comes to making religion palatable to the masses, but it really opened up the Bible to a thousand different interpretations from people who didn't really know what they're talking about.

I feel like it partially parallels how modern science is often questioned by anti-intellectuals and conspiracy theorists nowadays. They don't really know what they're talking about, and what's worse is they don't know enough to realize they don't know what they're talking about.

Two factors destroyed the American brain: TV and social media. The absolute power to bend the will of the consumer to whatever horseshit is being shoveled, creating "I saw it on TV so it must be true" mindlessness. The incessant message, both subliminal and explicit, that the consumer absorbed without analysis. Seguing into the this is what you should think and heaven help you if you dissent mob mentality of social media. The outcome is a society that is incapable of discussing, discerning or analyzing information, other than to shriek outraged incomprehension at those who attempt to vary from the mindlessness of the masses.

It's bound to happen when a country gets to the top, there is nowhere to go but down the other side. It is a surprise how fast the decline comes. Anti-intellectualism is just a symptom of the decline. The real disease is hubris thinking this country and its system are the best and can't be improved upon. Then, you get stuck doing the same stupid thing over and over, while another country with the right drive to succeed comes up quickly and passes you by.