posted
Lately it seems like I've been hearing/reading the word "intellectual" in a fairly negative sense. Consider:
quote:Because, of course, the academic-intellectual-media Establishment of America has nothing but contempt, in the main, for our military.
That's from OSC's latest World Watch. I don't intend for this to become a debate over OSC or I would have posted on the other side. Indeed, World Watch is not the only place I've heard the word used thusly, it's merely a convenient example. My question is a more general one. Why is "intellectual" being used as a pejorative here, and what does it mean?
Dictionary.com defines intellectual as:
quote: 1. a. Of or relating to the intellect. b. Rational rather than emotional. 2. Appealing to or engaging the intellect: an intellectual book; an intellectual problem. 3. a. Having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree. See Synonyms at intelligent. b. Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.
Generally, when I use the word, I am using definition 3b. I find so much value in Hatrack precisely because I consider it a gathering place for intellectuals.
It disheartens me to see a word that describes something I consider very valuable used as a pejorative. I haven't been maliciously mocked for being intelligent since elementary school, and I like to think that's not what's happening on here. So what gives?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My gut reaction to the question in your thread title is: "When Republicans realized they could label all liberals as such and get away with using it that way."
Republicans are GOOD at redefining words. Liberal is a pejorative to them, and so is intellectual. It means people who have lots of book learnin' but no real common sense, no values, and no connection to real Americans.
Quite frankly I don't have any idea where OSC is coming from for slamming the media on troops. If anything, the media has slammed time and again the administration in office for the last decade and a half for its use of the troops and its failures to protect them. Especially since the start of the Iraq War, the media has been the military's largest supporter, certainly it's loudest. Is OSC trying to point out some secret plan of the media, to appear friendly on camera but behind the scenes is really hoping for their downfall? I have no idea, but it seems to me like his views of the media are rooted in the 70's, not the 21st century.
The only way to fight back against a negative use of a positive word is to A. Refuse to take offense and B. Use it all the time yourself, positively. It's the only way to help change a definition, refuse to use it or accept it in the form that the Republicans are trying to use it in.
Ever watch the Colbert Report? Whenever something upsets Colbert he goes off into his "this is just another east coast, liberal, intellectual, Ivy League smear campaign to try and blah blah blah whatever." He's mocking the Republicans. It's their excuse for everything they hate about Liberals. Defying all logic, they've managed to make a solid connection in the minds of their base that intelligent and educated equals heartless and lacking in values. And since it works, they'll continue to do it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want an honest answer, it's the Ivory Tower syndrome. Some people show a propensity for putting theory and logic ahead of what people have found in the real world.
This isn't a new conflict and goes back at least as far as Aristotle and Plato... and as far ahead as McCoy and Spock.
Also, there are fashions in academia as well, even in the hardest of sciences. It is good to remind ourselves that yesterday's latest, greatest theory is today's quaintly laughable idea.
For a good fictional send up of the idea, check Stephenson's Cryptonomicon about the breakup of Randy and Charlene. If you want to see it in action, check this thread and notice how several people start trying to find ways to tell me that a seven passenger vehicle isn't a necessity for me. These are smart people who simply have no clue what my situation is like.
If you're just venting, you now have a target.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure intellectualism has always been a bad thing to many people, because intellectuals tell them that they are wrong about stuff. The intellectuals usually have the better reasoning, but those being told they are wrong don't want to be wrong, so since they can't out-reason them, they claim intellectuals exist in their own world and don't know what they are talking about. The end results are mistakes like the Iraq War, where intellectuals say one thing and the people choose to ignore them.
This dynamic is at least as old as the execution of Socrates for essentially just this - he kept questioning things that people didn't want questioned, so they convicted and killed him. Anti-intellectualism is not a new thing.
Then again, "intellectuals" contribute to the problem by trying to wield the authority of reason without actually reasoning well. They are prone to forget that limits of their reasoning, which have been well-documented by the more skeptical intellectuals. And they are prone to jump to wild conclusions without reconsidering all their premises. When intellectuals become arrogant on account of their intellectualism, to the point where they trust their own intellect too much, then they begin to transform intellectualism into something negative.
On top of that you have people who think they are intellectuals because they can talk like an intellectual does, but who don't actually use their intellect all that much, or at least don't do it properly. These people also tend to give intellects a bad name, because they sound like intellectuals, but don't have the reasoning to back it up, and thus are wrong a whole lot.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intellectuals have a long history of being called "Bad". The first thing the Nazi's did when they came to power was to wipe out the Intellectuals--calling them all Jewish Elites. Mao built his power on destroying the intellectuals of China, and holding back their technological revolution by 20 years. Any hint of revolution in Iran begins with their intellectuals, who the clerics have recently moved to control.
Why?
Because intellectuals have the time and the resources to criticize the status quo. That is dangerous to those who use the status quo to maintain, or take, power. Yet they are an elite class, some of whom take themselves too seriously, so they can be an easy target to hit.
Jefferson was an intellectual. Lee was one too. Marx and Engels were intellectuals. Lenin and Stalin were not. Rumsfeld and the entire neo-Con movement are intellectuals. Carl Rove and . I believe that President Bush is an intellectual hiding behind a fake down-home accent.
Not all intellectual theories work. There is a hubris in intellectuals demanding that they do. That is where those who attack them get their ammunition.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Karl Rove never finished college. And Dick Cheney flunked out of Yale. Smart, definitely, but not the intellectual elite they so happily criticize.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is "intellectual" being used as a pejorative here, and what does it mean?
Dictionary.com defines intellectual as:
It has nothing to do with the definition of an intellectual, and everything to do with the culture which is in fashion in intellectual circles right now.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Especially since the start of the Iraq War, the media has been the military's largest supporter, certainly it's loudest.
I don't know what brand of crack you've been smoking, but it's stronger than anything available around here.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It has nothing to do with the definition of an intellectual, and everything to do with the culture which is in fashion in intellectual circles right now.
What is that culture that is in fashion, then?
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Especially since the start of the Iraq War, the media has been the military's largest supporter, certainly it's loudest.
I don't know what brand of crack you've been smoking, but it's stronger than anything available around here.
Not really....other than the prison scandals I have not heard a lot of complaints about the actual soldiers in the Armed Services, and the media is one of the largest groups of people to complain about lack of troops, lack of funding, and lack of equipment for those very troops.
I think the press have been more supportive of the troops than the administration have been.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It has nothing to do with the definition of an intellectual, and everything to do with the culture which is in fashion in intellectual circles right now.
I suspect it has a lot mroe to do with certain cultures in fashion outside intellectual circles - the conservative relativism exemplified by FOX News, in which no viewpoint is more rationally justified than any other, and thus where the most popular viewpoint wins. This is an approach that conflicts directly with intellectualism, which typically asserts that a well-justified viewpoint held by one person trumps even a super-popular view that isn't backed by any evidence.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:the media is one of the largest groups of people to complain about lack of troops, lack of funding, and lack of equipment for those very troops.
Complaining about lack of supplies and troops is not, in itself, an act of support nor criticism for the war.
We don't have enough troops and supplies over there, [so we should send more as soon as possible.]
We don't have enough troops and supplies over there, [so we whould bring them home as soon as possible.]
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
It has nothing to do with populism or evidence. It has everything to do with certain beliefs being commonly held by intellectuals which are contrary to the beliefs of the speaker.
Most pejoratives used to describe political persuasions can be boiled down to "people who disagree with me, the bastards".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I've been reading Bujold's Curse of Chalion, so the word "bastard" has taken on a slightly different flavor lately. (The Bastard is one of the five gods worshiped by the quintarions in that book.)
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It has nothing to do with populism or evidence. It has everything to do with certain beliefs being commonly held by intellectuals which are contrary to the beliefs of the speaker.
I think part of the problem here is the definition of "intellectual" that's being used.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's as simple as schoolyard jealousy. Most people weren't the smartest kid in the class and consequently don't like those who were.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Especially since the start of the Iraq War, the media has been the military's largest supporter, certainly it's loudest.
I don't know what brand of crack you've been smoking, but it's stronger than anything available around here.
What is your position then? Where is this upswelling of negativity from the media? I'm sorry but I just don't see it. Other than the single soldier seen in all those photos, the Abu Gharib scandal was blamed on administration officials and top level generals. I haven't seen any animosity towards the average troops. Reporters are embedded by the dozens with the troops, and they aren't saying bad things, they are talking about bravery and courage under fire, and are questioning why things from the government aren't going better, and how this effects the troops.
Point me in the direction of this anti-troop movement from the media, because I just don't see it.
Also, saying things like "the troops need more armor, the we need more troops" so on and so forth IS support of the troops. The majority of the media, when they say that, do not follow it with "but we don't have it, so let's just pull out now." Some individual newspeople, like Lou Dobbs say that, but actual reporters do not, at least now from what I've seen.
Just because you can imagine what they might be thinking the next sentence would be: [so let's bring them home], doesn't mean that is what they are actually thinking, and it certainly isn't what the majority are saying on air or in print.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there really much doubt in anyone's mind here that branding intellectualism as somehow "bad" is just another in a long, long tradition of using labels to redefine the "opposition" in (especially political) debate?
I thought this "anti-intellectual thing" was something fresh and new -- some sort of conservative GOP perfidy -- until I was reminded of what passed for political discussion earlier in our history. A tour of the political posters/cartoons/essays exhibit in the Lincoln Presidential library & museum convinced me that, if anything, Americans today are at the most polite we've ever been.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Is there really much doubt in anyone's mind here that branding intellectualism as somehow "bad" is just another in a long, long tradition of using labels to redefine the "opposition" in (especially political) debate?
I do. That is, I don't doubt that it's used that way but I absolutely doubt that's all there is to it or that everyone who has a distrust for intelligence which lacks common sense is merely labeling their political opponent.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Can you explain why having more of attribute X would automatically cause jealousy/envy/dislike in others who don't have as much of X?
Or in other words:
Did you automatically dislike people who were better than you at a particular activity?
No. But we're not talking about some vague activity. School isn't badminton. If I'm a world champion foosball player, you could know me for years and never know that. If you're smarter than most people around you, it's hard to conceal.
School is the most formative experience in a child's life, and teachers, administrators, and parents all hold up the students who are best at school (ie, the smartest kids, or in some cases the hardest working ones) as the shining ideal of what everyone should work to be. If that's not you, chances are you resented that kid. If that is you, then you know what I'm talking about.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:posted by erosomniac: *bedroom voice* You bad, naughty intellectual.
C'mere, baby. You should see the size of my....hypothalamus.
quote:posted by Jim-Me: That is, I don't doubt that it's used that way but I absolutely doubt that's all there is to it or that everyone who has a distrust for intelligence which lacks common sense is merely labeling their political opponent.
The problem with common sense is that it's rarely common and never agreed upon*.
quote:posted by Scott R:
quote:posted by El JT de Spang: I think it's as simple as schoolyard jealousy. Most people weren't the smartest kid in the class and consequently don't like those who were.
This is a very dim view of people.
Can you explain why having more of attribute X would automatically cause jealousy/envy/dislike in others who don't have as much of X?
Or in other words:
Did you automatically dislike people who were better than you at a particular activity?
Perhaps Mr. Spang went a bit too far in implying that such lack necessarily causes jealousy. That's certainly not the case, and I doubt it's, "as simple as," a grade school mentality. But I think he's more right than wrong. Jealousy towards those who have more or are better at something is a pretty common human experience. I don't think there's anyone anywhere who can't sympathize with that to some degree.
I think the larger problem with this tactic is that intelligence isn't exactly the most respected trait in America. I hear/read news reports all the time about how our schools are going downhill. I read an article in Time a little while ago that indicated as many as a third of our students won't finish highschool. When the intellect is viewed with this kind of disdain is it surprising?
And when you have pundits and respected - though not always respectable - figures railing against intellectuals should we expect it to get any better?
posted
Here's what's wrong with government run by a bunch of intellectuals. Ahh the political wisdom of Matt Groening.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I'm saying it's just as much labeling to say that someone who distrusts fads in education merely "hates intellectuals", even if the label is self-applied.
Look, I have a healthy respect for education, but PhD's will often be the first to tell you that their doctrate is more a reflection of their stubborness than of their intelligence. There are people who seem to value education, specifically their own education, above everything else. I think they are just as misguided as religious fundamentalists and for much the same reason. The same charge could probably be brought against me because I tend to value my personal experience above everything else.
*shrug*
There is no question that some people are out of touch, is there?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope you're right. And you may well be, but school certainly had a big hand in shaping me, my brother, and my friends.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been my experience that the only people who have a bigger persecution complex than religious believers are people who think they're smarter than other people.
posted
As an engineer heavily involved in the manufacturing process, I picture 'intellectuals' as remote/removed design engineers. They can sit at their desk, do computer simulations, follow every design best practice, and research every little aspect of the product that they can think of. Then comes the part where people actually have to make it. And 99 times out of 100 it doesn't work the first (or 2nd or 3rd) time. Heck, sometimes it's not even manufacturable.
So I picture intellectuals as feeling they always know the right thing to do and how to do it. The only problem is that it's often BS that doesn't work when the rubber meets the road. The thing is, especially in a political and social arena, these are real people's lives that are being impacted by these experiments. That bothers me.
Marx was an intellectual that came up with the perfect form of gov't/society. Stalin's Russia & Mao's China are what happened when people actually tried this genius system.
I'm not saying intellectuals are always bad. I'm just saying that there really is something to be said for common sense & real world experience.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Look, I have a healthy respect for education, but PhD's will often be the first to tell you that their doctrate is more a reflection of their stubborness than of their intelligence.
Four years into a phd program, I wonder if I will ever use my brain again. But, if I say this aloud, I offend a whole lot of people. So, while I agree, I would not go so far as to say most phds agree (one almost had her head explode when someone said that- very amusing). A phd program is in many cases 4-8 years of torture. If you make it through, there is a sense of arrogance. "I suffered X years to be able to say this, my opinion is better than yours." Makes perfect sense when you are part of it. Pretty offensive if you aren't. As far as smart people being persecuted, I think it is a copout to claim I am so smart no one loves me. In elementary school, I claimed that. Then I realized, I never took a moment to think about anyone else's interests. The fact that I understood math without help wasn't why they didn't like me. The fact that I had no common interests and then rubbed it in their face that math wasn't a problem for me was why they hated me. In high school, things were different. When someone finally found out my GPA and test scores, it was the big news of the day because no one could believe that I had the scores I did, including my bf. I got over the fact that I was smart. Of course, considering my handle, I am sure that claim can be argued. (I picked it on a different board as a fantasy version of my career choice and I am awful about picking handles so have kept it for other boards).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
My issue with so-called "intellectuals" is an issue with those people who are intelligent, but who for some reason feel the need to constantly reaffirm their intelligence to themselves in the way that they converse with the outside world. It's like, "I AM SO SMART WHY DON'T YOU THINK I'M SMART MY MOMMY SAYS I'M SMART I'M GOING TO DISCUSS THIS OBSCURE THEORY NOW AND IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT IT'S BECAUSE I'M SMARTER THAN YOU."
And of course, if you disagree with the obscure theory, it also means that the "intellectual" is smarter than you. To me, if you have to put THAT much effort into it, if you feel the need to PROVE that you're smart, then you're pretty insecure about it.
I've told this story before: When I was in high school, they announced the National Merit Scholars in a school-wide assembly. I was one of them. My teachers weren't all that surprised, but for the rest of the day, my classmates came up to me and said things along the lines of, "Wow, I never knew you were smart!"
posted
From a right/left political viewpoint, I need to make two notes.
One, however laughably, the "intellectual" division gives conservatives an angle by which they can claim populism, working off the resentment of those college-educated people who seem to have it easy, working off the sweat and blood of the real, salt-of-the-earth by God Americans. That Bush was a mediocre Ivy League student from a wealthy family whose friends bailed him out of numerous bad business dealings was an irony that didn't get a lot of play. Bush spent a lot more time showing off his cowboy duds than his diploma.
More cynically, my suspicion is this: you quite deservedly get a lot of criticism when you let oil businesspeople do your environmental damage surveys for drilling, coal people come up with the numbers for air quality standards, energy companies come up with the rules regarding energy regulation, and so on. So you say, "Well, they're the people who know the business. Where else would you expect us to draw experts in the field?..."
Hmm. Where else would you draw experts in fields like economics, environmental science, and business, if not directly from businesses that obviously have something to gain from fudging the numbers?
What's that dirty 'A' word? Academia...
Now to be certain, there are professors and the like who never emerge from the ivory tower, and spend their lives doing little more than commenting and writing about one anothers' work. But there's also a lot of people putting their own time and money into doing hard research in the field. And they all get tarred with the same brush.
Becuase if you want to keep your cronies in high places, you have to make those academic, "intellectual" experts into such inherently dishonest, disreputable, and worthless people that you never have to give an answer to why you wouldn't choose them, beyond sniping their "intellectualism".
So the next time someone derides someone as an intellectual, do the world a favor and tell their lazy butt to define their terms and actually engage their mind, rather than engaging in vague, second-hand punditry.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So the next time someone derides someone as an intellectual, do the world a favor and tell their lazy butt to define their terms and actually engage their mind, rather than engaging in vague, second-hand punditry.
Yeah, 'cause making sweeping arguments about a group of people is just silly, isn't it?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, an intelligent person sounds different than an intellectual. When I hear "intellectual" used as a pejorative name I think of the kind of people who all gather togethor and repeat commentaries that they read in the newspaper to each other, nod their heads in agreement, and congratulate each other on being so smart . I think these (the people described in the first few paragraphs) are the people he's talking about. Not the people who really are intelligent.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What would your response be to Sterling's post if he removed the word "lazy" from his last sentence, Dag?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What would your response be to Sterling's post if he removed the word "lazy" from his last sentence, Dag?
That the idea that the only place unbiased experts exist is academia is false, and that his motive-reading is another error.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
He's saying that experts, regardless of their actual position as an academic or not, are still labeled as such, and thus discredited. He's saying they do in fact exist outside of academia.
And as far as motive reading goes, I think you have to go a bit further than to just say he is in error in this case. I agree with some of what he's saying. I think you have to actually counterpoint him in this case. It's either that or we just have to take your word over his, without any specifics.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's saying that experts, regardless of their actual position as an academic or not, are still labeled as such, and thus discredited.
I didn't say Sterling said there were no experts outside academia. I specifically used the word "unbiased" in describing his (implied) claim. Here's what he said:
quote:Where else would you draw experts in fields like economics, environmental science, and business, if not directly from businesses that obviously have something to gain from fudging the numbers?
What's that dirty 'A' word? Academia...
quote:And as far as motive reading goes, I think you have to go a bit further than to just say he is in error in this case.
He's said they have this motive to discredit academia. He hasn't come close to proving that they have that motive.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu13, yes, Lenin was an intellectual and one of the few dictators who did not mistrust intellectuals. Stalin, a semi-eduacated man from the provinces, distrusted intelectuals like Lenin and Trotsky.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
