I was recently asked about my thoughts on the anti-intellectual sentiment that plagues the United States at present. Specifically, I was asked for my thoughts on how it developed, is maintained, and what can be done about it. These are really important questions, especially the last, which is also, unfortunately, the hardest.
Take the first two questions together. How did our society become anti-intellectual? What about our society sustains anti-intellectualism? In short, why is it so prevalent? I recall wondering, when I was in college, why the world seemed so anti-intellectual. Over time, though, I realized that philosophers have criticized society for being anti-intellectual (or at least non-intellectual) since Plato.
At some point, when you realize that people have been wondering about the same thing for centuries, you realize that the thing they are wondering about is normal and natural. So, why do I think our society is anti-intellectual? In short, I think it’s the natural human condition. In this case, I suspect it is a byproduct of the facts that (a) our brains, like all living things in nature, do not work hard unless necessary and (b) we are social beings.
Regarding our brains, remember that before market liberalism freed us from drudgery, finding enough calories to sustain us was often difficult. Our bodies—including our brains—thus naturally work in a way that uses as few calories as possible. The harder they work, the more calories we must find and consume. Regarding our sociality, simply recognize that we grow within a social group and become accustomed to and comfortable with the beliefs of that group. We are unaccustomed and uncomfortable with facing intellectual challenges.
I think, then, that we’ve been looking at this the wrong way and should flip the question: the real question is not “Why are Americans (or any other group) anti-intellectual?” but “How have some people managed to be intellectual at all?” Perhaps we ought to concentrate on the societal correlate: “Why and how do some societies find themselves with more intellectuals”?
The answer to the societal question is clear. Societies that endorse enlightenment liberalism, including its requirements of free speech, free press, freedom of religion, and free markets, tend to produce more intellectuals. In totalitarian regimes, intellectuals live under constant threat to their survival—which means it takes significantly more from them to stick to their intellectual ways. Such regimes never, I think, succeed in ridding themselves of all intellectuals, but it’s no wonder free societies have more.
Why, then, is anti-intellectualism prevalent? Because it’s the natural way humans evolve, both because of the need to conserve calories and because we are social animals. (If we didn’t live in society with others, we would have to work—and think—harder to survive.)
Now the hard question: What can we do about it?
The first things:
We can and should continue to make the world wealthy so that everyone has more than enough calories to use their brains as intensely as they like.
We should reinvigorate the rights to freedom of thought, speech, and press.
Unfortunately, both of these must be fought for. Currently, for example, we in the USA have a government that seems eager to reduce both the level of wealth (with constant interference in the market) and the freedoms of thought, speech, and press (attacking reporters, educators, lawyers, etc.).
I suspect those two things would go a long way to aiding the intellectual environment but would not be enough—if they were, we would have had a much more intellectual society than we’ve had, especially since the 1970s. So, what else can we do?
Given that children are naturally curious and society squashes that curiosity, the real question may be “How do some people manage to maintain their curiosity into adulthood?” We could also ask how some parents manage to help their children maintain their curiosity.
Here I think a large part of the problem is our school system. To be clear, I do not think they are the cause of the problem; they are simply not (currently) the solution. Our school system—with what might be called “factory schools” working to take students in and produce degreed adults who follow directions—is relatively new. The problem, as I’ve said, is not. The problem is that being the social creatures we are and having evolved to conserve energy, we do not expend energy on things that are not encouraged, including intellectual activity. Before we were forced to sit still in school, many of us worked on farms or in factories and had little time for curiosity. School does the same thing, though it uses different means.
Schools can and should, though, do better. We need schools–kindergarten and up—to work on not squashing, but actively encouraging, curiosity. This can’t be mere lip service; we need honest attempts to spur curiosity using research about what works. I strongly suspect that genuine Montessori and Waldorf schooling helps. I suspect that Unschooling helps (kids study what they want to study!). What can’t work is treating all students the same—simply because they are not the same. They are curious about different things. Forcing a student curious about mechanics to study history–or a student curious about history to study mechanics–is a way to squash their curiosity. We must encourage each child to follow his own curiosity—that alone is how we encourage rather than squash curiosity.
Curiosity squashed is potential intellect destroyed. Intellectuals–genuine intellectuals and not those who merely learned to talk the talk–are curious. They’re not preachers; they are learners. And they aren’t learners because they were forced to learn. They are learners because they’re curious. Their curiosity hasn’t been squashed.
Schools can do this. I note that my child, in high school, is taking a class on “Monsters, Manga, & Movies.” That provides the chance for teenagers interested in (curious about) a particular form of literature to engage with it rather than trying to get them interested in, say, Moby Dick (perhaps the most overrated book of all time imho). It allows them to develop their intellectual abilities, not by force, but by inclination. It encourages their curiosity. Bravo! More of this.
The way to reduce the natural anti-intellectualism of social beings? More curiosity endorsing education as well as a reinvigoration of enlightenment/market liberalism with its emphasis on free thought and free speech.
Andrew Jason Cohen is Professor of Philosophy and Founding Director of the PPE Program at Georgia State University.
This article originally appeared on ProSocial Libertarians.
