The current spate of anti-intellectualism is only a very specific form of a much broader and more pernicious syndrome, anti-high mindedness, the fallacious idea that applying humanitarian ideals and morality is a mistake.
The problem is not new! Think of all the old westerns you ever saw. The most clownish and inept character is often the preacher man who usually ends up humiliated and laying face down in the mud.
In cultural anthropology this tendency is well known and has been designated as a leveling mechanism, a practice that acts to ensure social equality by shaming or humbling members of a group that attempt to put themselves above other members.
The Danes refer to the Law of Jante which characterizes as unworthy and inappropriate any behavior that is not conforming, does things out of the ordinary, or is personally ambitious.
Another common use of the trait of anti-high mindedness is known as the tall poppy syndrome whereby members of a different race or religion who attain celebrity or success are criticized and sometimes even sabotaged, cutting down the tall poppy to insure mediocrity and conformity.
Taking the high road and being high minded is not always rewarded, and as we can infer from the examples above, is often punished.
National Public Radio today aired a program about high mindedness during the second world war. The show, in part, talked about German prisoner of war camps here in America. There were many. We Americans, for the most part, ran those camps according to the principles of the Geneva Convention which mandated that prisoners of war should be treated humanely. In other words, we took the high road. But, of course, as the war drew on and rationing set in, that high minded stance was called into question by Walter Winchell, the Rush Limbaugh of his day, and others. Furthermore, when inhumane German prisoner of war camps were liberated, we found out our moralistic approach had not been reciprocated over there.
In that instance, our moralistic approach was not rewarded, but that does not mean that it was a mistake. We did the right thing, and we should continue to do so.
Why do the right thing when it so often goes unrewarded, you may ask? For one reason! As a partial hedge on the future, and in the hope that others will remember and also do the right thing. Or we could just continue slashing and bashing our way through life and leave that for our children.
Beware of those who think they are cognitively superior and deserve to rule over us and engineer society according to their liking.
According to the philosopher Eric Hoffer in his 1950 book The True Believer, throughout history the instigators of revolution and mass movements were the scribes, the literati of their times. Most revolutions are revolting.
Paul Johnson published an excellent 1988 book, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky. I highly recommend it. Real intellectualism is the clarification of objective reality and a morality that is simply Commandments 5 through 10. Sophistry is the mode of pseudointellectualism. One’s high-mindedness is too often others’ gulag.
NPR is subsidized pseudointellectualism of self-misnamed “progressives,” really political class expansionists, and they have cause to natter about anti-pseudointellectualism.
In 1972 Ian Anderson sang, “…and your wise men don’t know how it feels to be thick as a brick.”
Richard, Thanks for bringing up Eric Hoffer and his book. You said, “According to the philosopher Eric Hoffer in his 1950 book The True Believer, throughout history the instigators of revolution and mass movements were the scribes, the literati of their times.”
The sense I have made of history is that a simple, high-minded philosophy expressed solely in the hopes of provoking thought for the betterment of us all is almost always subverted and perverted by rabble rousers in future generations. As an example, Nietzche original sentiment was that mankind could better itself and become more than it currently is. Hitler and his followers turned that simple hope of betterment into a hugely destructive Nazi creed. Hegel spoke about a fairly obvious social and political dialectic which led to Communist absurdity. The ancient Greeks proposed the idea that societies could be run on democratic principles and we are still fighting about it. There are other examples!!
You also said, “Most revolutions are revolting.”
True enough, but, as I tried to say in my original post, the hide-bound notion that all progress must be avoided is also revolting.
Consider my point! As accurate as Eric Hoffer may have been in 1950, there is a flip side to his wisdom. If we choose to live by the Danish Laws of Jante, we are choosing to maintain the flawed status quo forever. No thank you!
You said, “Beware of those who think they are cognitively superior and deserve to rule over us and engineer society according to their liking.”
I will agree to your statement as stated. You have described some pompous idealogues, but I will add: Beware those who refuse to acknowledge the Winds of Change.