Matthew Riemer

The anti-intelligence movement

(June 21, 2002 @ 00:34:44 EDT
YellowTimes.org Columnist. USA)
(YellowTimes.org)

– Culturally, the United States presents conflicting messages concerning intelligence/education and their relative value to society. On the one hand Americans are required, for many years of their lives, not only to attend school but to excel there as well, and then go on to college. The connections between having a nice life, "doing well," realizing the American Dream, etc., and shining achievements in the academic world are not only common but also fairly explicit.
On the other hand there exists the pervasive presence of an anti-intelligence culture: best described as that common sentiment and practice prevalent in pop culture and media, indeed almost everywhere, that, in addition to de-emphasizing the value of an individual's intelligence and pursuits to that end, seeks fairly systematically to engage in "everyday" or "normal" discussions and conversations that focus on the "popular" themes of one's culture, for fear of appearing too intelligent, bookish or serious.
In the former case the system is one based upon the idea of reward, which is now being attached to the previously unrewarding (at least materially and externally) pursuit of knowledge. The reward one receives is the sense that one has "succeeded" or is "successful," which is reinforced by money and respect and other such things. So to succeed (in terms of the American Dream) one must be intelligent (according to subjective standards) and well schooled (or just get lucky). This half presents a view that is very pro-education and intelligence; formal schooling is seen as being vital to our success as a country and as a species. This defines academia.
In the latter case, within the context of pop culture, being popular and cool (these things last far beyond our teenage years), or having the right outfit, are more important than being well educated or intelligent.
The depth of coverage along with the airtime of important information is clearly disproportionate to the deluge of media exposure afforded movie and rock stars, TV personalities, and sporting events. There is a de-emphasis of what is, in the above example, emphasized: education and intelligence.
One is usually not scolded to watch more CNN or more documentaries on the History Channel or to first go to the "what's happening in the Balkans" link on a news site. This is partially the inability of a shallow and advertisement-rich media, filled with the ubiquitous "superstar," to represent anything but the most distracting and demeaning elements of a culture.
It is this phenomenon that is the unconsciously developed underpinnings of anti-intelligence culture. A culture that mires us in the vicissitudes and banality of others' lives and gloriously decadent fictional worlds, while keeping us so occupied as to steal away most of our free time during which we could have actually achieved something for ourselves as separate, sentient beings.
One would think that under such a system as America claims to have, one, which at least superficially prizes intelligence and education (case 1), highly intelligent conversations and observations would be blossoming on every street corner; that the stranger you met at the bar would engage you in Iranian history, an analysis of some specific historical event, or the latest in robotics, pharmacology, or woodcraft. In short, that most people would be critical and able thinkers, eager to participate in in-depth discussion covering a variety of topics.
But this is far from being the truth. In fact, there is a common, unspoken fear of this. The perpetuation of such a leaning is only strengthened by the virtual vacuum that is corporate media (case 2) - filled with its infotainment and sound bytes fed to a ravenously impatient and distracted audience; it emphasizes the trivial and hampers deep inquiry.
The superficiality and distraction epitomized by case 2 has now far out balanced its opposite (academia) and overstepped its bounds. The front pages of magazines, newspapers, and of all the printed media in general, along with TV and Internet News prove this point daily.
Many times, such as on homepages of AOL and Yahoo!, international news or political events occupy the tiniest of spaces and are entirely invisible next to the splash of loud advertisements and over-the-top pop. (A great irony: AOL's "top news" is neither at the top of the page nor positioned prominently.) Print media frequently underreport important stories, while over emphasizing others so as to best fit the ideological projections of their paymasters.
Moreover, one of the constants in the above analysis, in reality, is actually that of a variable – education - which today has added to the imbalance. Our questions should be: "What purpose is the education system serving, and what are its quality and diversity truly like?" If these questions are fully analyzed we can begin to see the more subtle functions institutionalized, mass education takes on.
The further problem of the education system
If the imbalance between the two sides observed above wasn't enough the very institution that fuels the pro-intelligence camp - education system itself - is questionable at best when it comes to its prescribed duties. Over the years of increasing institutionalization the system has received many blows to its integrity and validity.
The first blow to education was its commodification. The very concept, as well as the actual institution, of formal schooling erodes the integrity and naturalness of learning about one's world by commodifying and then dispensing it. Education, now filtered through amoral capitalism, is really just a capitalistic venture and vehicle for making money by the institutions that sell it. This, ultimately, affects the quality and diversity of intercourse between student and school (buyer and seller).
The second blow was the homogenization of curriculum and methodology, which was then tailored to provide the current economy and status quo with the necessary workers to perpetuate such a system. If the true purpose of education was to educate and empower sovereign thinkers then perhaps the somewhat idealistic, highly talkative individuals described above would be met on every street corner, but the purpose of education seems more like a method by which to integrate one's citizens with the self-perpetuating machinations of the globalizing capitalist/corporate system.
The third blow was a popularity and attendance growth that lead to a watering down of the student pool by the inclusion of passive individuals who were in attendance solely to acquire a degree and not to broaden their horizons through the fulfillment of the true potential of a well used education.
Now college has become obligatory - stressing and strengthening this homogenized thought. Westerners go to institutions of higher learning because it's culturally demanded, because all respectable people do it nowadays. Because it's an institutionalized institution. Basically, you either have to (most people now) or you can't (the poor). Of course, one could become a professional athlete or a rock star but the success rate is far too low for those paths to be taken seriously by the masses.
Often the most dangerous effect here is that we take our education only so far as our chosen paths' prerequisites so dictate. Since we're there only because we have to be or because we want to have a "good job" someday are primary concern is not how much we've grown or how much we've learned.
What has education given us and where are we going?
It seems that with the rising rates of college admissions and enrollment over the past fifty years that a truly enlightened society would be on the rise, emerging from the intellectual mediocrity and exclusivity of the past. But is this really happening and is the past, a time when most individuals didn't attend institutions of higher learning, or places where most people don't receive formal, extended educations really mediocre, less informed or less civilized? Does education necessarily make us smarter, more insightful, or "well read," or is that yielded by certain ways of thinking - not of content but of motion?
This should be looked at closely through the classic and categorical lenses of art and science. Surely, in the objective world of pure science, Western institutions and tradition have advanced the various disciplines staggeringly to the apparent and immediate benefit of the planet, spurring critical debate and inquiry that are essential to an integrated and informed participant; thorough analysis, rigorous examination, and the occasional controversy round off an engaging intellectual process that virtually guarantees insight.
Unfortunately though, this is not the case with the arts, or more broadly, non-science. In these fields there is often very little of the above-mentioned zeal for thoroughness and rigor when examining one's subject. Many times one encounters extreme one-sidedness of interpretation and thought. This is especially true of history and politics. It would seem that certain taboos with regard to critical inquiry suddenly arise when we tread such waters.
Consider that U.S. president George W. Bush was once unable to identify the leaders of Pakistan and Indonesia when asked by a reporter from a major network. No one made a big deal about it. Many Americans in polls frequently cannot identify significant historical and modern figures, yet can readily expand on the personal lives of celebrities when simply shown their photograph.
But why is this the case? It may stem from the simple phenomenon of exposure time. It would seem that very few individuals immerse themselves in as intensive a study of history or economics as the average person does of their favorite sitcom. While this may be a sad comment on the current state of affairs, it may also be less so if the situation was more the result of access and exposure as opposed to that of genuine disinterest.
Eqbal Ahmad, the brilliant Pakistani writer, teacher, and activist observed that
intellect as a whole is under attack in America, and social intellect in particular. The scientist can do whatever he wants to. But the social intellect is under assault in very insidious ways. The publishers are not really publishing radical works. The media are extraordinarily full of vacuous talk. People sit around on television and radio talk shows and pontificate on Islam, China, Japan, India, the Arabs. None of them that I can recall knows a single language of these places on which they are pontificating, can identify five central dates of our history, can look at the roots of any struggle.
Knowledge, intelligence, and education have become a ghostly commodity like everything else in Western culture. They're quantified and sold, purchased and then forgotten, or used like a tool and put away when they're not needed. They're presented like some foodstuff. What you see is what you get. Here you go – here's the history of Islam, here's some other country or culture or religion simulated, packaged, and glorified as the real thing.
So we see an anti-intelligence movement manifested in a highly bureaucratic, inefficient, impersonal education system with reluctance to conduct truly critical thought regarding certain political and historical issues, and a sex and violence crazed pop culture purveyed by a monopolistic, ratings-obsessed, dishonest media. This alliance far overshadows the valuable and important efforts of the multitude of sincere and genuine educators throughout America and the world.
How is this trend to be abated? While as of now it would appear that this question remains unanswered, alternative media, combined with the speed and breadth of the Internet, is beginning to seem more and more like a viable solution, especially with regard to organization of affinity groups and information dispersal. However, we must never forget the value of knowing our neighbor. We must not lose touch with our own flesh and blood.
[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In addition to his work with YellowTimes.org, he's also maintaining http://www.rottenindenmark.org, as well as being in the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work. Matthew lives in the United States.]
Matthew Riemer encourages your comments: mriemer@YellowTimes.org