Anti-intellectualism, referring to a general hostility and mistrust of fields of science and art, has been appearing more and more prevalently in internet and offline spaces. A recent PhD thesis titled “Olfactory Ethics: The Politics of Smell in Modern and Contemporary Prose,” which dissected the role of scent in literature to convey social prejudices, went viral as it was slammed across the internet. The nature of the discourse between those criticizing the unnecessary nature of these academic pursuits and those defending the value of intellectually examining literature in depth highlights the recent steady rise in cultural anti-intellectualism.
It’s no coincidence that the criticism was primarily rooted in misogyny; the recent Trump presidency more than ever is exemplifying the demonization of intellectualism as a right-wing tool. The list of banned books that have come with the Republican candidacy coincides with a rising awareness of declining literacy rates in the United States, pointing worryingly to the age-old tool of fascist governments to deliberately strip the critical thinking of the populace. The largest demographic of Trump voters when studied was reported to be largely lower-class, rural areas; with the largest portion of Democratic young voters being college-educated. Barthes writes that “anti-intellectualism is a historical myth, linked no doubt to the rise of the petite-bourgeoisie… yet its political danger must be overlooked: it is quite simply fascism;” recognizing the control of literature as a historically fascist tool, and the deliberate removal of education to ensure a continually right-wing populism.
A major argument against intellectualism is the creation of echo chambers that come from isolating social groups to certain kinds of information, but right-wing politics thrive on the isolation of social groups from one another as much as they do informational and literary suppression. Social elitism will always be a problem and it’s important to recognize the historical valuing of intellectualism as being something only afforded to the upper class, and the racial and gender privileges that are linked to class structures. In his book, Pretentiousness: Why It Matters, Dan Fox recognizes the validity of questioning elitism as a fundamental critique for intellectualism because of its reinforcement of class divide. He argues, however, that it should be separated from elitism. He argues that the act of reading, media consumption and critical pursuit of academia should instead be associated with a kind of general cultural yearning. He refers to “pretentiousness,” a concept associated with intellectualism because of the mindset of superiority and snobbishness that come as a critique for it, as instead a kind of self-liberation.
Fox’s argument points to a key problem with anti-intellectualism in the past several years. The stripping of critical thinking from the public has always been a technique used by right-wing governments but is worsening with a deliberate cultural refusal to view intellectual pursuits as valuable. The cultural zeitgeist has shaped anti-intellectualism as an act of individual self-care to stop engaging with art and literature. It has spread beyond a valid criticism, for example, the kind of literature that is viewed as part of the “canon” which does indeed stem from classist and white supremacist roots. It comes in forms such as rising criticisms that movies are too long, to internet micro-trends infantilizing the self. There is a valid reason that people don’t want to engage with the political state of the world, but when art and literature are political, the act of engaging with it is a crucial act.
The concept of anti-intellectualism as it stands has, regardless of its ties to elitism, has been weaponized by right-wing theologies and therefore carving out space for intellectual pursuits has become a form of critical thinking, which as recognized by Toni Morrison, is inherently political. She writes that “the equating of knowledge with sin and error and danger floats about in contemporary society… that encourages anti-intellectualism.” The problem isn’t necessarily with intellectualism but with the idea of what counts as being a part of intellectualism as being reframed. Instead of viewing intellectualism through a narrow view that stems from a history of elitism and classism, it is instead more important than ever to view anti-intellectualism, and the pursuit of intellectual fields in whatever capacity as a radical and political act; something we owe to ourselves and those around us.
Photo by Héctor J. Rivas on Unsplash