Anti-intellectualism definitely holds us back. Whenever there is a notion that intellectual discourse is haughty or elitist then there is, almost by definition, a holding back of society. Society cannot advance without proper communication and understanding; it cannot advance if reason is tossed to the side in favor of emotions; it cannot advance if the popular notion of individual truths erodes the concepts of facts, knowledge, and authority.
It is easy to see anti-intellectualism through mediums like the internet. Grammar is a lost art in online posting; some people go as far as derision towards those who know that “they’re,” “there,” and “their” are different words; that “noone” doesn’t exist; that “close proximity” is redundant. It is readily apparent that people prefer to live in willful ignorance that to spend a little time educating themselves. Arguments online are rarely based on logic, and when logic is used it is usually dismissed as boring, irrelevant, too wordy, or pompous. Even the media has become lax with the proliferation of online articles, often times favoring opinion and commentary over news (many times even presenting it as news instead of editorial). Overall, but especially online, there is a trend toward a democratic notion of facts; if enough people believe it then a sheer majority can overrule scientific research, hard data, and the theories of experts.
Anti-intellectualism is a beast, not only because of its common form, but also because of the many guises it wears. If you read published articles referring to anti-intellectualism they most often have a bias and label all other opinions as anti-intellectual. Typically they state their case without sound logic, often citing “facts” that are misrepresented or not applicable. They declare themselves correct thus discourse is not allowed and those not “open” to their point of view are closed-minded and anti-intellectual. This behavior goes against free thought and rational argument; it seeks to close intellectual debate and thus is a form of anti-intellectualism.
Anti-intellectualism hides itself in politics where ideology is often substituted for intellect. It hides itself in academia where agendas are often a replacement for critical thinking. The problem with these two areas of society is that the same politicians, the same scholars, exhibit characteristics of both intellectualism and anti-intellectualism. They are typically intelligent people who believe in their reasoning and have, over the course of a career, defended their logic to such a degree that they are no longer open to new ideas or new points of view, however valid. This form of anti-intellectualism actually feeds into the common form because it can often lead to a perception that educators and politicians are pompous, agenda driven, and out-of-touch with the real world.
I think that too many people define themselves by an ideology, be it political, religious, or anything else. They tie who they are to this notion of truth, and thus take criticism of ideas as a personal attack instead of intellectual discourse. They are typically entrenched in their thinking and are unwilling to change. They don’t want to follow through on reason to determine the underlying assumptions of their position, opting instead to use pseudo-logic and generalizations to defend their point of view. In these instances contradictions need to be overlooked or rationalized which leads to a lot of our society’s current anti-intellectual behavior.
