Ever the fan of “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity,” I must nevertheless veer off into a zone that isn’t about stupidity. Anti-intellectualism is a strategy, implicit or otherwise, of conservatives. I don’t mean this in the narrow political sense. I mean this in the broadest possible sense of disliking change. Appeal to history is a powerful anti-intellectual weapon. I don’t mean in the sense of book-learnin’ history, I mean this in the sense of “good enough for mom and dad.” Every possible trend of intellectual activity is to usurp just this notion of what was good enough for mom and dad really is good enough. As mhendo mentions, with far more authority than I could muster, it also runs counter to “what’s been good enough couldn’t be better.”
To admit an intellectual pursuit (in the context of this thread) is worth pursuing is to admit one might be wrong. If you’ve struggled to meet payroll for employees you actually do lose sleep over now and again, this is tantamount to admitting you’ve made an error. If you’ve kept the house in order like mom taught and raised your kids like dad showed you then to entertain a different kind of home ec is to entertain that your mom and dad were wrong, and that you were even more wrong for believing them.
Appeal to history, in this broad sense, is really a sensible strategy when you consider all the crap that the average person must form opinions about (with little or no evidence) just to get along in everyday life. To keep these opinions relevant, some have suggested an underlying psychological predisposition to denying one is, or could be, wrong. If this is so, it is quite easy to see why only intellectuals could suggest change (they have no vested interest in the alternative), and why the average individual would resist them.
He wrote two books and had them both published before he ever got famous–and we’re not talking ghost written, either, unlike the books “written” by another current candidate.
Obama also taught Constitutional law for twelve years–they don’t exactly hire dunderheads to handle those classes at the University of Chicago, y’know.
So, what exactly are you basing your contention that Obama doesn’t “qualify as an intellectual” on? Your opinion?
These men may have been philosophers, but they weren’t called by that title (maybe Emerson and Buckley). Ben Franklin is known as one of the founding fathers and an inventor–his “philosophy” is not touted (at least not in the history I learned). Ditto Jefferson. Einstein is known as a scientist. Hemingway, a writer. Friedman, an economist. I’ve never heard of Jared Diamond or Edward Wilson, but that’s my ignorance.
America may well have plenty of philosophers on hand, but they don’t tend to be solely philosophers. You may have missed my point, which was that when an American tells the story of his or her country, a philosophy may come to mind and be shared, but it is not identified as such, nor are individuals given that title. We have and need philosophers, but we don’t call them that.
And you left off Steve Martin.
General remark: what does GPA have to do with being an intellectual or intellectualism? I also don’t understand the idea that a GPA higher than 3.3 automatically confers a “laude” status? That makes no sense to me.
But this all strikes me as something akin to a “No true Scotsman” argument. The fact that most Americans don’t describe the people listed above as philosophers doesn’t mean they were not, in some sense. These people were thinkers who, in many cases, expounded on crucial issues of human interaction, metaphysics, political development, and a whole host of other philosophical questions.
In some cases, we might have to attach an adjective to their philosophy, but there’s no doubt in my mind, for example, that Jefferson and Madison were political philosophers. Jefferson’s writings on republicanism, and Madison’s on the questions of Federalism and the formation of the constitution, are intellectual treatises that have influenced the ways in which Americans think about themselves and their relationship to each other and to the world.
You say that “when an American tells the story of his or her country, a philosophy may come to mind and be shared, but it is not identified as such.” Well, i’ve spent considerable time living in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the United States, and in my experience the people from those other three countries also do not identify their national ideals and philosophy as a philosophy. They appear to be no more conscious of philosophy, as a discipline, than Americans are. I’d also be very surprised if the average French person on the street would closely tie his or her identity to Rousseau or Voltaire or Diderot or Sartre.
You say that Americans “have and need philosophers, but we don’t call them that.” But if the only argument you’re making here is that Americans tend not to use the word “philosophers” to describe their deep thinkers, then is that actually relevant? I mean, the thread here is about anti-intellectualism, and one can be an intellectual, whether or not one calls oneself, or is widely known as, a philosopher.
I’m not arguing that America is just like everywhere else. There is something different about American thought, about American intellectualism, and about American culture more generally. And even in the narrow realm of academic philosophy, America has some peculiar attributes. If you want to name some actual American philosophers, people who would fit your own definition of philosopher, what about folks like William James, John Dewey, Richard Rorty?
The interesting thing about these three guys is that they’re all key names in the one school of academic philosophy that is generally considered to be truly American in its origin and development. And lots of philosophers argue (especially European philosophers) that it’s no coincidence that the one truly native philosophical movement to emerge in the United States is called Pragmatism. James and Dewey were the founders of Pragmatism, and Rorty is considered its most interesting and complex and vocal modern exponent, although he has moved considerably beyond James’ and Dewey’s ideas.
