Customer Reviews

Anti-Intellectualism in American Life

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"The age of philosophy has passed...that of utility has commenced..." said an orator at Yale in 1844. Richard Hofstadter uses this telling quote and well as a wealth of other information to show how a thread of anti-intellectualism runs through the history and culture of "practical" America. He dissects anti-intellectualism, goes into its history and origins in the US, and shows its impact in education, politics, and business. This thorough analysis won him the 1964 Pulitzer Prize in Non-Fiction.

Hofstadter is careful to define what he means by the intellect and intellectuals. The intellect is the critical, creative, contemplative side of mind that examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes, criticizes, questions, imagines. It is the province of writers, critics, skeptics, professors, scientists, editors, journalists, lawyers and clergymen. Just being a "mental technician" in these fields is not enough; one also acts as an active custodian of values like reason and justice and truth.

Unfortunately, America's practical culture has never embraced intellectuals. The intellectuals' education and expertise are viewed as a form of power or privilege. Intellectuals are seen as a small arrogant elite who are pretentious, conceited, snobbish. Geniuses' are described as eccentric, and their talents dismissed as mere cleverness. Their cultured view is seen as impractical, and their sophistication as ineffectual. Their emphasis on knowledge and education is viewed as subversive, and it threatens to produce social decadence.

Instead, the anti-intellectuals believe that the plain sense of the common man is altogether adequate and superior to formal knowledge and expertise from schools. The truths of the heart, experience, and old-fashioned principles of religion, character, instinct, and morality are more reliable guides to life than education. After all, we idolize the self-made man in America.

Hofstadter goes on to cite examples of anti-intellectualism from the nations founding to today. For example, the founding fathers were sages, scientists, and men of cultivation, yet the Federalists attacked the brilliant Thomas Jefferson by portraying the curiosity of his active mind as too trivial and ridiculous for important affairs. Today, military ability is the kind of test of character which is viewed as good for political leadership, and voters view a show of intellect with suspicion.

In business, commercial culture tends to breed acquisitiveness rather than inquisitiveness. Business often demands group cohesion instead of independent thought. Hofstadter points this out using a number of examples. A Harvard Business School Dean said, "we don't want our students to pay any attention to anything that might raise questions about management or business policy in their minds." A famous chemical company's training film spouts, "no geniuses here; just a bunch of average Americans working together." The general point is that business is indifferent to knowledge on a broad scale; only the money-making faculty needs to be cultivated to succeed.

Turning to education, Hofstadter points out that broad public education in the US was started not for developing the mind or the pride of learning for its own sake, but for its supposed political and economic benefits. Children were viewed not minds to be developed, but as citizens to be trained for a stable democracy. He goes on to outlines the debates within the community of educators about what should be taught, especially in previous eras when most people did not go to college. Hofstader also cites studies that show that even if students study "superfluous" intellectual subjects with no practical application, there ARE practical benefits; namely, learning any subject in depth teaches one how to learn something new.

Overall, this was a good analysis; the writing is very readable but not sprightly, and while some chapters are slightly slow going, others are fascinating. Overall, though, I thought Hofstadter's analysis has stood the test of time well, and it's easy to see how this book, over 40 years old, could be applied to analyze the world today. So if you're interested in a cogent analysis of anti-intellectualism, I'd recommend this book.

One reviewer below insists that this book, while excellent, is "dated." I find this an astonishing evaluation. What stunned me about this book was how familiar the anti-intellectualism from each period in American history felt. True, we are not today facing McCarthyism--our own particular moment in history feels Orwellian more than anything--but Hofstadter's overall point about anti-intellectualism being a constituent part of the national character has not been invalidated by the past forty years. Indeed, his points have been confirmed at nearly every point. And while the anti-intellectuals in the fifties may have railed against "eggheads," today the GOP directs much of their fury against the "liberal elite." Since most of "the elite" is comparatively poor compared to the Right-wing economic elite, clearly they are aiming their guns at the intellectual elite. Figures Hofstadter quotes from the 18th century sound like they could be one of today's right wing pundits.

Few books that I have ever read have helped me understand the American character as well as this one. Many of the chapters in American history that he chronicles are somewhat forgotten, but just as essential as the more familiar figures and events. I was familiar with much of what he discusses in the role of religion in fomenting anti-intellectualism in America (though he didn't mention one of the most important factors in the spread of anti-intellectual religion in America: the success of denominations that did not require a college education in their ministers--in fact, were suspicious of ministers who possessed much education--due to geographic remoteness from the colonial colleges, so that Methodists and Baptists throve in the South, which was far away from the colleges that existed in 18th century America; therefore, I believe geography played a greater role and the Great Awakening played a smaller role in building anti-intellectualism than Hofstadter credits). I was also aware of the role that Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy had played in building a prejudice against literacy and culture. The sections on "The Practical Culture" and "Education in a Democracy," however, covers subjects that were somewhat less familiar to me. I was especially fascinated on the chapters on educational theories of the 20th century, with the educational establishment itself espousing anti-intellectual theories by deemphasizing college preparation for students and instead focusing on vocational training.

I would put this book on the shortest of short lists of books that anyone interested in understanding the American character ought to read. I have a large number of friends from other parts of the world, and to an individual they are baffled and mystified at the almost willful ignorance they have discovered on the part of Americans. Hofstadter's book will assist anyone in understanding why so many Americans are antagonistic towards intellectuals and those who possess an advanced literacy. This is also one of Hofstadter's greatest books. Unbelievably, despite the several classic volumes he penned, Hofstadter died at the early age of 54. He was in his forties when he wrote this. One wonders what classics we are now missing because of his premature death.

Before this book, I had never contemplated the differences between intelligence and intellectualism, but now, armed with Hofstadter's witty, sophisticated study, I can, with confidence, better survey our national landscape. Not only does the author reveal our anti-intellectual roots, he deconstructs the origins of our commitment to "practical knowledge." Whether it's religion or the business ethic, American culture has sanctioned and outwardly promoted a disdain for intellectual contemplation in favor of more "functional" learning that will (must), in the end, bring about conformity, commercialism, and commodification, NOT abstract thought. The book is a masterpiece and if there are any people left in this country who believe the mind is the last refuge of true freedom, it should serve as a revolutionary cry for all of us to follow.

Hofstadter's book seems even more vital today than it was when it first came out, back in 1964. As the title suggests, he explores the anti-intellectual roots of American society, particularly along three lines: the rise of evangelical, fundamentalist religion (emphasizing intensity of faith versus book larnin'); the growth of business (corporate) culture in America (with its emphasis on "practicality" and "pragmatism"); and the egalitarian impulses of what Americans consider democracy.

This book is incredibly detailed and thorough, with ample footnotes throughout. When people use the term "exhaustive" to describe a work, it comes to mind with this one. I found sections of it to be fascinating and informative, and other parts less so.

What this book seems to lack is really a sense of what to do about it; in his exploration of the anti-intellectual culture of America, he sort of paints himself into a corner -- especially when he notes that intellectuals themselves have come to incorporate themselves with mainstream society and few assume the gadfly social critic role they historically occupied.

I think American readers today can read this and realize: a) this problem has been with America a long time; b) it seems to be getting worse; Europeans can read it and get a sense of what makes Americans tick.

I am always amazed how ordinary Americans who say they believe in education find that those who are educated are members of an "elite." As if that meant something bad. Hofstadter unveils our schizophrenia over being educated and our parallel discourse of how we feel that it is undemocratic (in the old sense of the word)to be "smarter" than others because of "book learning." It is an old mistrust, yet we flock to colleges and universities anyway to do exactly that. Very strange conflicts run through American culture when we raise the old fear of being "better than others" because we have received an education. Excellent and insightful book, and still relevant today.

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.

I agree with the other reviewers as to the depth of Hofstadter's scholarship in this seminal work. However, in light of George W. Bush's disdain for government careerists, and John Ashcroft's Patriot Act-mentality threatening to reduplicate the 1950s, this book actually isn't that dated. Rather, it could be considered prophetic.

With another three-plus years of hindsight on the Bush Administration, I can absolutely say this book is not dated.

Richard Hofstadter's remarkable ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM IN AMERICAN LIFE reflects the Cold War/post-McCarthy era, yet still echoes powerfully today. Why this book has endured for four decades is not only because it still rings true, but also for Hofstadter's iron-clad reasoning. (This is not easy reading--at least for me it wasn't). Hofstadter examines the multi-fronted attacks on intellectuals throughout the centuries: attacks from religions who suspected intellectuals of atheism or worse; attacks from the left; attacks from the right; attacks from the lower class who perceived intellectuals as privileged; and attacks from the upper class who worried about the knowledge/power balance. Yes, Hofstadter does linger long about the anti-intellectual movement of the early 60s, and some of those references are lost to us, but that cannot be helped nor blamed on him. I also enjoyed the distinction between intelligence and intellectualism--very acute.

I have always been puzzled by anti-intellectualism. It never ceases to amaze me how America can be such a technological giant at the same time it is so easily duped by telephone psychics. Richard Hofstader puts the dilemma into historical perspective. He shows how intellect has come to be "resented as a form of power and privilege" and how "at an early date literature and learning were stigmatized as the prerogative of useless aristocracies." Such thinking remains a barrier to fighting racism and achieving greater quality of life for all of us. This book offers deep insights into how and why ignorance is still revered by so many people in what is supposed to be an age of enlightenment. Highly recommend.

Last year, in 2003, the translation of this work was published. I got interested with it and bought one. What I was really surprised is the publication year of 1962(1963). The reason is the work brilliantly described the present America in a deep way as well as the complexity of the nation. I can understand the publication of Morone's Hellfire Nation, which seems excellent work, but I cannot believe Hofstadter's work was published more than 40 years ago. I would not have wondered the work was published in 2003. I assumed the grass roots conservetism which has sustained the Bush Administration might mainly come from anti-liberalism, however, the fact and history has been more complicated. The work vividly clarifies one but imporant aspect of America which is difficult to understand by non-U.S. citizen. Excellent classic!!