The heart of Timothy's argument in the previous post, that "Bush is popular with some voters precisely because of his malapropisms, his anti-intellectual stance, because they see a resemblance to themselves and because that resemblance aligns them with him against educated elites" is echoed in this opinion piece by Frank Furedi in of all places The Scientist.

The lack of cultural affirmation for the promotion of science has little to do with science as such. Among young people, the reaction against science and experimentation has not led to the establishment of alternative outlets for the development of intellectual curiosity. Previously, when young people became estranged from science, they turned to the humanities and liberal arts. Today's generation of students has adopted a distinctly pragmatic approach and is turned off by history, social theory, and philosophy as it is by science. The status of science is not merely at stake but also that of intellectual life in general. Ideas such as 'knowledge for its own sake' or the passionate pursuit of scholarship increasingly risk labels such as irrelevant and elitist. Einstein's conviction that "the search for the truth" is "more precious than its possession" makes little sense in an age of rival rationalities.

Furedi makes the same mistake as Timothy, voicing a narrative that has become dominant however false. People are not anti-intellectual, opposed to or disinterested in knowledge and a life devoted to its acquisition, they are opposed to the power structures of the educational establishment with its arcane quasi-religious forms and practices, and the types of individuals who inhabit these monasteries.

Knowledge is being democratized, priests are no longer relevant or admirable. Scholars in funny hats and medieval trappings living lives of petty disputes and unearned privilege seem increasingly vulgar. The nearly unbroken string of crushingly stupid prescriptions for society which demonstrate the narrowness of their knowledge as well as their emotional and general intellectual immaturity, coupled with exposure to greater numbers of people in this age of hugely increased attendance at educational institutions, has demystified their cult, shown the little men and women behind the big voices for what they truly are.

This is a great good thing. As ever more people have access through information and communication technologies to written materials and live commentary by both professional and amateur scholars the increase of the general level of knowledge in the social mind is explosive. It is uneven, and includes as much dross as gold, as we should expect. Every idea is exposed to critique by commenters ranging from the intelligent and informed to delusional ignoramuses. They not only critique the ideas of the anointed, they have the temerity to propose their own theories.

It's like the aftermath of cheap printing when the Christian religious world fragmented, birthing arguably superior faiths as well as insane short lived cults, and everything in between. It's like the industrial revolution when every man might tinker up a major invention in his home shop, even develop the first powered flight vehicle in a bicycle shop. The era of big science is ending for this cycle. Small is once again beautiful and creative amateur geniuses may once again make major contributions to society.

There may well be future cycles when consolidation, major resources and entrenched institutions once again gain significance, but it is useful to understand that there are cycles and that progress does not solely depend on those who choose the monkish life of the tower. They do not have a monopoly on intellect, wisdom, creativity or knowledge. Just as it wasn't truly useful to be able to conduct an informed debate about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin when Christianity democratized, great swaths of what currently passes for useful knowledge among modern day monks is rubbish. How many people wasted their lives spinning in tiny little Freudian spirals thinking that they were about to finally understand the human mind? How many similarly wasted their lives on Marxist political theory or its successors in post-modernism and the whole MLA fever swamp?

Arguing that science is different, falsifiable and so self correcting, doesn't alter the fact that many lived the majority of their lives in fear of nuclear bombs and other products of science, or suffered under political systems that claimed to be scientific. It doesn't change the huge dislocations caused by scientific and industrial advance or ease the consequences of environmental degradation and exhaustion left in the wake of such "progress". It isn't science that is in doubt, it is scientists. When we hear politicized scientists banding together to seek political power, making absurd arguments devoid of insight into history, economics or any of the other interests and disciplines that are crucially necessary components of policy it is painfully obvious to all but the dimmest and most delusional that scientists haven't the wit to cross the street reliably.

As ever, there are individual exceptions. The point isn't that being a scholar of any sort makes you stupid and inept, it is that being a scholar does not cure these problems and seems to attract those who are prone to these sorts of gaffes. A secure and monkish life of obedience to doctrine duly memorized and regurgitated to demonstrate mastery is attractive to those who are anti-intellectual in the deepest sense. They don't think, they simply study the thoughts of others.

Western society is a technological civilization. Scientific principles that baffled early natural scientists are absorbed in the cradle. The rate of discovery is so fast that those who work as scientists can't stay current. It is utter folly for large numbers of people to hang on every interim announcement as if it was the wisdom of the ages when they know full well that next week or next year it will be shown to be naive, partial or wholly mistaken. Call us when you have something important, but don't bother us with your fussy dissertations on angel dancing. Once scientists have a useful understanding of their subjects they are not that difficult for others to master in an operational sense.

This is an entirely rational attitude, a wise use of intellect, building on the work of others to pursue personal enthusiasms without needing to derive the whole edifice from first principles. It is the sensible way to employ the products of the education and research establishment which is so politicized and antagonistic to the society it exists to serve. This is what the "intellectuals" should be worrying about. They have a sick culture that is rude and dismissive to society and is in turn repellent to them. This is destructive to society as a whole since it makes access to knowledge more difficult. It is no wonder that alternatives are welcomed, that ICT is seen by so many as liberating, allowing increasing access to knowledge without having to cope with the priggish dullards that inhabit the monasteries or listen to their childish political views and social raving. Their attempts to retreat behind jargon and inscrutably convoluted methods of expression to preserve their monopolies are failing since translations are disseminated widely and quickly by intermediaries.

At every level educational institutions are failing society. This may be a temporary problem, the death throes of an obsolete behavior soon to be replaced by better technologies, but it seems worth improving to make the transition less disruptive.

UPDATE: One of many, many anecdotes that have made it to print lately.

Getting the typical who-cares-the-guy-died-2,000-years-ago look, I said: "You think this doesn't matter? This is, after all, what the humanities are about. We're reading profound thoughts by a profound poet, and they help instruct us how best to live as humans in a human world. Being a human and thinking humanly and living in a world of contingencies is complex. And Virgil can help us think about what's going on now. Take Iraq, for example. How might we use Virgil's view of the world to comment on what's happening in Iraq? Who's Aeneas in Iraq? Is there a Juno? A Turnus? Where's piety? Who's in the right?"

I had finally pushed the right button to get a reaction, but not the right button to encourage discussion. The students objected en masse to the political nature of the question. So I gave a cursory sketch of two opposite ways one might relate the Aeneid to Iraq, and moved on.

After class, I asked one of the students for his read on what had happened. How could the response be so heated but the question left unengaged? He replied: "You know how it is. Students don't want to disagree with their professors. Most of the students around here are pretty conservative, but they get the strong sense that their professors are liberal. And on issues like these, they're afraid to disagree." They had made assumptions about how I would think and were reluctant to contradict me.

The problem is very much worse of course when conservatives are in the minority, but in every case there is no thought, no honest probing.

I could no longer blame the students for shying away from hot-button issues like Iraq: For them, the academy does not foster thoughtful discussion of thorny issues, but harbors the potential at any time to unleash the visceral reactions of their superiors to what students think are their own reasoned political positions. For students, the risk of speaking up is much the same as it is for me: They risk losing the respect of professors and perhaps endangering their long-term aspirations.

I've come to see that, as passionate about traditions as it is, my new college leans with equal rigor to the left. That was never more apparent than in the days after the election when people like myself came under heavy attack from my colleagues for our "stupidity" in failing to vote for the enlightened candidate. "That just tells you how stupid they are; now they have no one to blame but themselves," said one. Another insisted that the result of the election was "criminal."

The stupidity charge was flung about with abandon by many who had until that time been passing as thoughtful academics capable of reason and comprehension. I sometimes wonder if they even realize what they've done by revealing their true feelings?

UPDATE: Dean Lawrence R. Velvel, Harvard

while I have always been in favor of diversity of viewpoints on a faculty, and our own faculty ranges from very liberal to quite conservative -- although we see no need to hire the right wing kooks who seem to be taking over the world -- I have lately begun to wonder about the intellectual diversity argument. The right wing has taken over the government, radio, part of television, a significant part of the newspaper world, and certain religiously based universities. Having taken over much of the world, is it really necessary that they be given a major voice in universities too? They’ve done pretty well without a major foothold at lots of universities. Why give these nuts still more power?

Sean Carroll thinks the problem with this is "the gentle glide from 'conservative' to 'right wing' to 'nuts'", but it's far more. The problem is that a law school dean doesn't see a problem with making such a statement because he expects a sympathetic audience which feels the same way though perhaps were too polite to say so. The problem is intellectual bankruptcy, widely shared.

» Academia, Intelligence and Power Structures revisited from Synthstuff - music, photography and more...
On Monday the 8th, I ran into a very interesting article over at Muck and Mystery and I wrote about it under the entry: Intelligence and Power Structures Back40 continues on this same thread today with a scathing essay from......[read more]
Tracked: November 11, 2004 08:39 PM