Anti-Intellectualism
“The false notion that democracy means ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” -Isaac Asimov
Imagine: You are having a discussion with your friend — it could be about politics, sports, nature, whatever. As the talk grows more heated and transforms into something of a debate, you bring up a fact which strengthens your argument and weakens theirs. They dismiss it as though it simply does not exist. Maybe they ignore it, saying “Well, that doesn’t change the point that…” or they attack you with “What would you know about it?” appearing to make an attempt to discredit the source of an argument (a fallacy in itself) when, in fact, they are simply trying to change the subject of discussion (talking about you instead of the argument).
Maybe they explode into yelling over their own discomfort with facts that contradict their beliefs.
I cannot guarantee that everyone has experienced these specific scenarios, but I’d bet my salary that we’ve all experienced something like them. That is to say, we’ve all tried to use facts to forward an argument — in the pursuit of truth — only to have those same facts dismissed or ignored without reason.
Well, not without reason: the reason is that our interlocutor has no way of refuting the facts. In lieu of progressing in understanding through logic, wherein they may have to change or abandon their original argument, they entrench themselves. Instead of allowing any possibility that they might be wrong, they double down on what they believe is right and true and attack anything that might suggest otherwise.
When used to undermine fact in favor of one’s own fiction, this dismissal of unfavorable reality is known as anti-intellectualism. Anti-intellectualism is a social attitude that systematically denigrates science-based facts, academic and institutional authorities, and the pursuit of theory and knowledge.
While a healthy skepticism demands some interrogation of facts, it does not condone their dismissal based on preferential treatment of one conclusion to another. Anti-intellectualism is more than an unhealthy skepticism, which might still allow for some inlet of knowledge or dialogue toward that end. Anti-intellectualism is the abandonment of interest in fact all together, especially when said fact or facts could threaten one’s understanding.
“Why would someone ignore facts?” “How could someone ignore facts?” There are many questions for the rational thinker to ponder over. Firstly, these questions assume that the anti-intellectualist is rational, which presents its own dilemmas.
One who is engaging in anti-intellectualism is doing so solely to support their own beliefs. There is no reason to doubt proveable knowledge other than that it conflicts with one’s own. This personally held knowledge often takes the form of the widely accepted status quo. Its supporters have problems thinking outside of what they’ve already accepted to be true, instead assuming that the widely accepted truth is unquestionable and that all other knowledge must exist within the preceding framework of understanding. Allowing that these individuals aren’t mindless drones, they have made some decision, consciously or otherwise, to commit to the status quo’s version of knowledge.
Believing in knowledge which takes one to a desired answer but not beyond it is not so irrational, in truth, though it does dismiss the nature of personal and societal progress through science. Assuming, once again, that these individuals are capable of logical processes, we arrive, then, at our second question: what is the rationale behind such a limited logic? Behind such a hindering, willful ignorance?
The logic motivating such thinking (or “abstaining from thought,” if you like) exists in the conservative nature of anti-intellectualism — that it seeks to keep things exactly as they are. Perhaps the anti-intellectualist fears change; perhaps they fear a loss of power due to the failing of their beliefs; perhaps they fear having to reckon with their own moral transgressions, be they actions in the past or ongoing within the status quo itself. Whatever the motivator, it is not necessarily irrational, but its pursuit is not that of truth or growth.
If the problem with anti-intellectualism is not that it is irrational, then it must be that it is unreasonable. This is because, quite literally, anti-intellectual convictions exist without the support of reason (and, oftentimes, in direct opposition to reason). Furthermore, because the rationale behind an unwillingness to accept science-based fact is motivated by personal interest, the only way an anti-intellectualist can be brought around to believe in something new is if it somehow benefits them.
Therein lies the core of the problem: vanity. One who already knows everything that can help them cannot learn anything more without said knowledge harming them. A mind that has all the right answers cannot have room for wrong answers. That these answers have been disproven is irrelevant; that these answers may hinder or hurt others is of no concern; that these answers may even be holding back their own proponents isn’t a worry. All that matters is that these answers satisfy their believer who, through foolish fear or undue confidence, rates their knowledge to be infallible.
This is, then, anti-intellectualism: the woeful disregard of a scientifically-based fact in the support of one’s own narrative. This self-willed ignorance is a hindrance to any form of personal, scientific, and societal progress. Furthermore, it often reinforces a status quo that demands a distrust in fact because knowledge is, itself, a threat to the status quo.
Knowing all of this, what can we do? How do we ensure we aren’t engaging in anti-intellectualism? How do we get through to one who is?
To avoid committing this intellectual sin, one must cultivate not only a healthy skepticism for fact and its sources, but also for their own perspectives and motivations. Because anti-intellectualism is a self-inflicted occurrence, it can only be policed by one’s self. Knowing that we, as imperfect humans, can make errors in judgment, can be motivated by self-interest, or, simply, can learn new information which merits updating an older understanding, is central to one’s ability to learn and grow. This happens in direct opposition to the perceived perfection levied by anti-intellectualism, wherein all that needs to be known on a subject has already been discovered.
As for how we can save one from their own anti-intellectualist notions, we would make more progress speaking to a brick wall. The only way for such an individual to come around is for them to remove their beliefs from upon whatever pedestal they’ve placed them. In other words, what it takes for the willfully ignorant to see the light of reason is them opening their own eyes.
This isn’t easy, for many. To confront a disparity between one’s perceptions and reality’s facts is a daunting thing, especially when some of these perceptions have been held by so many for so long. Furthermore, reckoning with that difference necessitates change of some sort. Whether it is an exterior happening, like altering one’s habits, or an interior happening, like amending one’s beliefs regarding an issue or institution, these changes must occur. To take up these actions is the definition of personal growth and is contributive to a broader human progress.
Make no mistake: anti-intellectualism is a threat to society. To commit too fervently to those facts and institutions which now exist does not allow for their own improvement. The death of the pursuit of progress through knowledge is a hindrance not only to those who refuse to learn, but also to those institutions which they uphold and to society at large. While some arguments may be as innocuous as “what color is the door of that one pub we like,” the defenses employed by the difficult and obtuse will be the same as when arguing “what can we do to reduce gun violence in the U.S.” We must guard ourselves against our own potential failings through a healthy skepticism toward ourselves; we must guard ourselves against our peers’ potential failings through the cultivation of good faith in fact-based discussion.
Barnard Street Tattler 