Neural Gourmet Archives | Feed Your Brain
Neural Gourmet Archives | Feed Your BrainI want to share something with you I just read a few evenings back. Go on, give it a read -- it's not long -- and let's see what you think on the other side...
Through the years, we've built a sort of halo around reading, writing, and arithmetic. We've saif they were for everybody . . . rich and poor, brilliant and not-so-mentally-endowed, ones who like them and those who failed to go for them. Teacher has said that these were something "everyone should learn." The principal has remarked, "All educated people know how to write, spell and read." When some child declared a dislike for a sacred subject, he was warned that, if he failed to master it, he would grow up to be a so-and-so.
The Three R's for All Children, and All Children for the Three R's! That was it.
We've made some progress in getting rid of that slogan. But every now and then some mother with a Phi Beta Kappa award or some employer who has hired a girl who can't spell stirs up a fuss about the schools . . . and ground is lost. . . .
When we come to the realization that not every child has to read, figure and spell . . . that many of them either can not or will not master these chores . . . then we shall be on the road to improving the junior high curriculum.
Between this day and that a lot of selling must take place. But it's coming. We shall some day accept the thought that it is just as illogical to assume that every boy must be able to read as it is that each one must be able to perform on a violin, that it is no more reasonable to require that each girl shall spell well than it is that each one shall bake a good cherry pie.
We cannot all do the same things. We do not like to do the same things. And we won't. When adults finally realize that fact, everyone will be happier . . . and schools will be nicer places in which to live. . . .
If and when we are able to convince a few folks that mastery of reading, writing and arithmetic is not the one road leading to happy, successful living, the next step is to cut down the amount of time and attention devoted to these areas in general junior high-school courses. . . .
One junior high in the East has, after long and careful study, accepted the fact that some twenty percent of their students will not be up to standard in reading. . . . and they are doing other things for these boys and girls. That's straight thinking. Contrast that with the junior high which says, "Every student must know the multiplication tables before graduation."
Have you managed to pick up your jaw off the floor yet? Go ahead. I'll give you a minute to retrieve it. It certainly took a while for me to digest that little nugget of wisdom.
So who said that? Was it some right wing, fundamentalist Christian? Nope. Wasn't even a Republican. Well, to be honest, I don't know the political affiliation of the person who made that statement. What I do know is that this was a speech delivered to the National Association of Secondary-School Principals by a Mr. A.H. Lauchner entitled "How Can the Junior High School Curriculum Be Improved?" Mr. Lauchner was a junior high school principal in Illinois at the time he made this address and then after he left that position (one can hope as a result of fallout from his peculiar views on what makes for a solid education) he went on to a similar position in Great Neck, Long Island.
Anyone reading this have kids in junior high in Great Neck? Well, you might want to hold off on breaking out the torches and pitchforks because Mr. Lauchner is probably dead. He gave that speech in 1951, and it's one of many examples the historian Richard Hofstadter gives early on in his book Anti-Intellectualism In American Life.
I've been reading quite a bit of Hofstadter lately since he seemed to have this same drive I've come to experience to try to understand some of the more unflattering impulses that have driven American history. In particular I'm trying to explain, at least to myself, what can be best summed up by the question, "Why do people believe extraordinary things?" I find this to be a particularly important question at this point in history since it seems as if the majority of my fellow citizens -- of both political persuasions -- have gone nuts. ID/Creationism, the supernatural, quackery, and conspiracy theories by the score are some of what I classify as 'extraordinary beliefs'. And through it all I find anti-intellectualism, both subtle and profound.
Of course, what I'm finding, and not wholly unexpected, is that conspiracism and anti-intellectualism have played a large, perhaps even a central role, in our nation's history. Still, I admit to being quite astounded at the sheer volume of conspiracy theories fueled by racial or ethnic scapegoating and always, everywhere, the anti-intellectual impulse.
It seems to me as if the conspiracism and anti-intellectualism have reached a fever pitch in our times that is by many degrees much worse than it has been at any other point in history since perhaps the witch hunts. After reading something as absurd as Mr. Lauchner's address above though I don't know. I would not have thought that views such as Mr. Lauchner's would have existed in 1951. However, that was pre-Sputnik concerns for declining educational standards and thoughts such as Mr. Lauchner's must not have been uncommon else I doubt he would have gaged it judicious to make those remarks in front of such reputable organization.
But Hofstadter, a professional historian well comfortable at putting present day affairs in historical context felt, I believe, similarly to me when he wrote Anti-Intellectualism In American Life in 1964. These were the days of Barry Goldwater's New Conservatives which arose out of such fanatically looney groups as the John Birch Society. The JBS being notorious for it's wacky conspiracy theories about fluoridation and for circulating a letter declaring Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower to be "a conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy." A central tenet of the JBS at the time was that the Republican Party (all of American government really) had been infiltrated and overtaken by Communists.
No doubt you can understand that I find it distressing to hear so many of my compatriots on the left parroting Phyllis Schlafly's nonsensical conspiracy theories about the Bilderberger banking conference. And it is this rise of anti-intellectualism and conspiracism on the left that leads me to believe that rationality is in very short supply in our times, more than even when Hofstadter was writing. And I think there's a reason for it. While previously politicians have readily embraced conspiracism and anti-intellectualism to garner votes, it is the Goldwater/JBS New Conservatives and the Trotskyite reject Neo-Conservatives that have spent the last 40 years perfecting the politics of paranoia and anti-intellectualism.
But I am not a historian, and I may be wrong about that, just as I well could be wrong about the degree of anti-intellectualism and conspiracist thinking out there today. Indeed, I welcome your corrections and dissenting viewpoints on that observation. In any case, my purpose into diving into history is to gain perspective on what I stated as my primary goal above. It's a question that I think needs answering, even though it's scope is vast and likely a task I will fail at.
We need to have a better understanding of how and why people adopt these worldviews because I think that as we live in a time of great and rapid technological and scientific change, to fall prey to anti-intellectual, conspiracist or even just garden variety supernaturalist modes of thought greatly hinders our ability as a society to effectively cope and obstructs any real social progress. For our own sake as liberals and progressives we need to understand the appeal to our own.
Of course, the real question though is what is to be done about it, and in my estimation linguist George Lakoff is right. I think we need to change how people think -- and I don't just mean Republicans.
So, what do you think? Are anti-intellectualism and conspriacism more rampant now than 40 years ago? Do you see the same danger that I do to the left from these styles of thinking? Can we fight this? How?
In any case, as I continue my pursuit of these questions, I'll write about it here.
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Anyone else get a mental sound image of Lauchner saying "Those poor Colored children..." when they were reading about how some kids just aren't cut out for reading?
Hey, that may have been just fine and dandy back in the 12th century, when all your average Giles had to remember was that the Manor Lord got every 10th shovel of grain and your Bride on your wedding night, but not now, no, not in the "Information Age".
But the Neo-Cons LOVE an ignorant populace, because they have no skills in critical thinking. How can someone who's never read understand that "Occam's Razor" is NOT a self-cleaning Gillette disposable?
With no access to the body of philosophical knowledge, you have no reason to dispute anything you see on the 700 Klub, or any of the mouthings from that pink-haired harpy on TBN. "Because GAWD said so" becomes plenty good enough for you.
And then your vote belongs to whoever you think might be "fun to sit down and drink a beer with" or has the glitziest looking TV spots.
"Why did you vote for that guy?"
"Uh, cuz he said he wuz agin' homos gittin' hitched..."
"And WHY is that a bad thing?"
"Uh, I dunno....The Bible says it is?
What was that cartoon line? Oh, yeah...
"If 'Elitist' just means 'Not the DUMBEST motherfucker in the room', then I'll BE an 'elitist'!!"
Round and Round it Goes...
are like comfort food for the human mind. I would lump prejudice in that category, as well. As you say, tng, most Americans simply aren't wired for critical thinking. Is this an inherent condition to our species, or does American culture, for whatever reason, devalue this vital skill.
Considering our long history of turning to myth, religion, and conspiracy theories in times of great upheaval or tragedy, I would contend we instinctively turn to what makes us feel good...comfortable. For a tiny fraction of people, analysis and contemplation fit the bill. Most people, however, return to the Old Guard remedies.
My point (yes, I do have a point) is that it will take eons for humans to forgo superstitious or paranoid explanations in favor of analytical reasoning. I always try to remember what a 'young' species we are. Astronomically speaking, we have come a long way in a very short time. Look how recently powerful theories, like The Big Bang, were introduced. Despite that recent introduction, a significant percentage of the world's population now find no need for supernatural comforts or explanations.
We turn to what we know, and right now, most people know hocus pocus and far-flung conjecture. What we have seen in the last 40 years is a backlash against the progression of analytical thought. Bush and Company have really emboldened this movement. I am confident, however, if those who embrace science and humanism can keep pushing our species forward, a day will come when these old comforts fall aside.
"Will we make it that long?" is another matter.
The neocortex, the part of the brain where actual conscious thought occurs, doesn't know logic or reason or the scientific method. It just knows patterns. And whether any one pattern will match another pattern is a statistical pheonomeon since rarely does a pattern of sensory input match a stored pattern in the brain. So sometimes, quite often actually, patterns unrelated to anything in particular will match (at least partially) a pattern in memory. If you get enough of these false positives, then you're internal represenation of the world will akilter. A good example of this is superstitous behavior.
I think if one looks at how the brain processes information, then you can see conspiracism, anti-intellectualism and extraordinary beliefs not as faulty reasoning, but rather as perfectly normal operation of the brain. It's really only in the last few thousand years that humans have been around that they've devloped special patterns that help them discern and discriminate among different patterns of input so as to gage how closely those new patterns model the real world, or at least their utility in that they don't get you dead or they get you more sex, or money or whatever.
That's what I see logic, and reason, and the scientific method as -- special patterns that help us gage the validity or usefulness of other patterns. Similarly, conspiracism and anti-intellectualism are patterns of thought that reinforce other unuseful patterns.
At least that's the grand theory. How closely it models the real world, or how useful it is I don't know -- and that's what I'm trying to find out.
