Anti-Intellectualism exposes false differences in society

While it pains me to say this, Sarah Palin is a symbol for a major social movement.
Palin’s claims that she was a simple, average person battling against Washington insiders made her a symbol of anti-Intellectualism.

But there’s more to anti-intellectualism than the difference between Wasilla, Alaska and the Ivory Tower. Anti-intellectualism is one the longest standing social movement that, even today, stands in the way of progress.

When Sarah Palin burst onto the political scene in 2008, many people were enamored by her personality and “folksy” charm.

Popular opinion on Palin was often split, with some thinking she was a back woods moron and others viewing her as a symbol of the everyday American that worked a wage job, raised kids and brought a perspective based on “common sense” to the political game.

My favorite thing about Palin’s run was the subtle hint of anti-intellectualism that flowed through her own speeches and the speeches of her supporters.

For many, last year’s election was reduced to the everyday working mother versus the intellectual and his Washington insider buddy.

The truth of those conceptualizations will always be up for debate but those characterizations tapped into the feelings of many Americans feel distant from the highly educated.

Historically there has been somewhat of a social distance between intellectuals, the highly educated who pursue academic or intellectual pursuits professionally, and the blue collar world.

In the past, that bias was fostered more by the government and other leadership than it was by actual interactions between intellectuals and other people.

Totalitarian governments often feared intellectuals due to their tendency to analyze their circumstances and social situation and publicly elaborate on their often negative findings.
Religious leaders often diminished the contributions of intellectuals because they felt it devalued the role of religion in people’s lives. Early scientists often took issue with religious explanations of the world, thus creating the historical religion versus science debate.

Those examples come from times when the amount of information shared by individuals was limited to their ability to read and their exposure to books and to other people.

In our society the availability of information is nearly ubiquitous, but some of the same issues remain.

While we certainly do not live in a totalitarian state, the distance between intellectuals and our government leaders has often, but not always, been significant. Leaders with military and legal experience have been favored over those trained in social research and other applicable academic areas.

In regard to religion, I’d like to say things have calmed down a bit since the old days, but the debate between religion and science is still very intense. The battle is now fought through late night anti-evolution infomercials and mean-spirited books written by snarky scientists rather than the hard-fought court cases such as the Scopes Monkey Trial or the political maneuvers of the Catholic Church — but it’s still present.

While those elements of the bias still remain in some form, the biggest changes lay in the ubiquity of information and the isolation of the academy.

The advent of 24-hour news, the Internet and news sources dedicated as much to analysis as they are to reporting, has created a new line of information sharing.

No longer must individuals wait for public thinkers to engage in big debates and examine their findings — the TV news is now often as much about focused analysis and punditry as it is about reporting.

As a result the contributions of intellectuals and academics now frequently lie in the background of blogs and talking heads.

Some of the blame for this bias also lies with the intellectual community itself.
Most intellectual thought is incubated in top universities, and academics and intellectuals employed in those universities often live in somewhat of a bubble.

Whether or not it is intentional is up for debate, but many universities tend to be insulated from the outside world.

That’s not to say intellectuals lack access to newspaper, television and radio — the events of the outside world are their bread and butter. But often there seems to be a social separation between the people who spend their time in academia and the 9-to-5 crowd.

The causation for this bubble is most likely a complicated and tangled mix of social factors, personality issues and the sheer fact that universities themselves are often the equivalent of small cities.

For years intellectuals have remained cloistered in their Ivory Tower under the assumption that the average person wouldn’t appreciate or understand their precious work.

These distinctions are exacerbated by cultural occurrences such as Sarah Palin’s speeches which attempt to separate the blue collar world from intellectuals and academics.

That division creates a false dichotomy.

We are all cut from the same cloth and when petty distinctions are exaggerated we often become disenfranchised from our peers and fellow humans.

The secret to human survival has always been the mixture of talents and skills.

We must be careful of situations that try to separate people into distinct and opposing groups. While one group may seem better than another, we all suffer when things go wrong. As always, balance is the key to maintaining a consistent and nurturing world.

In the end it’s just as foolish to ignore the contributions of the highly educated as it is to act without consideration for all members of society.