November 17, 2006

• The whole idea of "thinking Americans" is a pretty abstract concept, but I think that the problem is quality being largely absent from many aspects of life: household, education, media, and even with our interactions with businesses as consumers. That creates a sort of overarching chaos that does little to instill values and a cognitive foundation in kids, at the time when they're still malleable. I think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is relevant here. Quite frankly I think most Americans scrounging around on the bottom couple of levels... that guy in his bigass Durango tailgating you is probably on level 2 and could give a rat's ass about Kant or Solzhenitsyn. My impression is that intellectualism has always been marginalized, but maybe not as much during the late 1950s and 1960s when technology was booming and the standard of life was relatively secure. I do think there may be sort of an underground renaissance going on right now, though, as the Internet not only fosters knowledge but allows like minds to connect. Damn... I need a beer!
• American anti-intellectualism, and the way politicians have pandered to it in the last decade... it all makes me really sad and irritated. It's like there's this invisible majority of my countrymen who want to wilfully embrace the mantle of DUMB, and present that to the world as the public national face. Make it stop. =/
• If we're talking about Mr. and Ms. Everyperson, people are too busy with family and homework and trying to make enough money to buy the right stuff -- like a bigass Durango -- to care about thinking, and "the system" (schools, employers, the media, politicians) works overtime to prevent them from thinking. Thinking requires dedication and a willingness to question the status quo and your received worldview. It's easier to have a beer and watch Dancing with the Stars. If we're talking about the intelligentsia, which Grudin seems to be doing, I'd say there's lots and lots of good thinking going on, and Grudin's just got an ax to grind with whatever he thinks postmodernism is and (to mix metaphors) his argument doesn't hold water.
• I was thinking recently about differences in attitudes to maths and science between Britain and the U.S. My impression is that British popular culture is generally tolerant towards academics and researchers. The term "boffin" is familiar and chummy. U.S. popular culture seems more ambivalent. "Geek" and "nerd", although not grievous insults, are somewhat pejorative.
• I'd say that's true, roryk. But nothing new.
• I disagree that the humanities core is the best way to teach thinking. It's only one kind of thinking, one that often priviledges logic and rhetoric over reality. (Which makes sense when analysing literature, but not when talking about the world.) He says he doesn't like post-modernism, but that is the natural progression from a traditionally humanities based education. He seems to just dismiss the modern social sciences and sciences as a means to teaching critical thinking, which just seems so narrow minded. In fact, these modes teach not only logic and argument, but the skills in working out arguments and models which must fit the evidence you have for the phenomemon, which is something that some of the great thinkers he cites, like Aristotle, never did. We don't run economies or send rockets to the moon on Aristotelian logic, we do through the study of economics, history, physics, chemistry, etc.
• That said, I don't disagree with him that people should do general education - in fact, I think that the secondary school system (rather than tertiary) should aim to equipt every citizen with the critical thinking skills that the general education in universities claims to. But his example (Michael Pollan's analysis of the American grain market) relied heavily on science and social science, not classical literature. We need more scientific and social science literacy -- all of us read Skakespeare in high school, but how many understand the debate between the Keynsians and the Monetarists in economics?* And which has the greater influence on public policy? *I don't, except that it exists - my high school cancelled the economics class for lack of interest. ----------- Now is my "Aaaargggh!" moment: Because they imitate all aspects of human experience, history and literature are indisputably the classic sources of breadth in education and the most credible platforms for cross-disciplinary thinking. Umm, no, literature does not "imitate all aspects of human experience" - it imitates the aspects of human experience shared by the minority of people (for the most part male, white, wealthy) who had access to European literature (because he's not talking about world literature). Will reading Aristotle tell you about the realities of Greek slavery? Will Francis Bacon elucidate your understanding of the massive population growth in his lifetime, and a crisis of poverty which inspired one of the first national welfare systems in the world? Will either help you understand the current political, economic or cultural problems of our world? And note - one of these things is not like the other*: This core ought to include a history of the world, a national history, an interdisciplinary course in natural science, an interdisciplinary course in social science and a multi-course program in great books. So, basically, the whole of economics, sociology, psychology, human geography gets just one course, with one other course for the whole of physics, chemistry and biology. The history of the entire world gets one course, but some great books (a very selective and narrow-viewed tour of that history) gets several courses. In the end, the students will know more about Galileo's physics than Einstein's (and I won't even bring up the A-word again) - is this healthy? *Yes, this is a reference to a modern classic, Note: I loves the literature. It's an amazing art, and just about the best way to get into the mind of a culture, whether it's your own or another. But frankly, the "great books" are often not the best choices for understanding the cultures which produced them, since many of them were visionary. Locke, for instance, is a weirdo for his time, whereas Filmer's Patriarchia reflected typical attitudes. But it's the weirdo who is still taught (because he was influential on certain people in the next few centuries), and they never understand the context or culture which Locke was responding to.
• Also, the "great books" leave out the wealth of modern literature, which has done more to teach me about humanity and other cultures than any of the classics.
• Americans have always been 'dumb'. They have always been anti-intellectualism. You're not going to shrug that off anytime soon. They had that reputation during the 2nd World War. They had that reputation when my Great-Grandfather was bringing up my Grandmother in the 20's. They probably had that reputation in the 19th century. It's not that they aren't inventive or creative, it's that they're slow & resistive to change. Even more than the English, the Yanks are slow to adapt to change. Christ, the Poms are early adopters compared to the Yanks. You're never going to get rid of that because it's part of the reason their ancestors settled in the country in the first place, to stick with old ways & escape change. It's an inured cultural trait.
• I don't know about 'dumb', exactly, but it seems to me (as an outsider) that there has been a strong thread of pragmatism in the American character going right back to Franklin, who always portrayed himself as far more of a plain man, and far less of an intellectual, than he obviously was. But the claim here is that there's something new afoot. I don't know. It's interesting that he mentions a tendency for universities to do more vocational stuff: that's noticeable in the UK, too: I had attributed it to the government's attempts to expand the number of graduates (only a minority will ever be interested in pure academic study, so if you want half the population to have degrees, you have to give them something they can relate to). But if it's also happening over there I must be wrong about that: and he must be wrong about it being specially American. Could it be that the triumph of capitalism since the latter part of last century is to blame? Perhaps no-one now sees any point (or feels the need to pretend they see any point) in anything not directly related to the service of Mammon.
• Wow, great thread. The overarching mindlessness of popular culture does seem to marginalize the thoughtful, but I do take hope that "there may be sort of an underground renaissance going on right now, though, as the Internet not only fosters knowledge but allows like minds to connect." *pulls rolypolyman a tall frosty*
• Plegmund - you are right, it's money. There is pressure from governments to teach readily employable stuff (and companies are very happy to have the government pay for their training costs). But the students are very much worried about their employment prospects too, and will go towards what they see as a secure option. It's not so much that they don't want to do other things (though I imagine that's true of some) - many might want to do more intellectually oriented study, but don't want to risk spending all that time and money and not being employable when they're done. I'm lucky - I had such low expectations going into university that I don't mind if I am underemployed when I get out :)
• It's not that they aren't inventive or creative, it's that they're slow & resistive to change. Oh, I see, we only invented rock 'n roll and the Internet! Everybody who's country produced the most transformative socio-cultural phenomena in the last 50 years, raise your hand! . . . Allright then. (I neither agree or disagree that Americans are resistant to thinking change (Republicans anyone?) but I just wanted to do the Kang & Kodos voice.)
• I don't really have time to think about stuff like this - I'm too busy trying to a) crush the nations of the world under my jackbooted feet, b) weep at the symphony of the lamentation of their women and children, c) fill my wineglass with their tears, d) suckle at the teat of their misery, e) figure out a way to make money from a, b, c, and d. But, you know, be practical about it.
• Oh, and f) grinding a boot in the face of those who would oppose me. That bit's for free.
• Could it be that the triumph of capitalism since the latter part of last century is to blame? Absofreakinglutely what I was thinking. And I'm an American! There is pressure from governments to teach readily employable stuff ...and there's also the 24/7 bombardment of marketing messages, making the West's a hyperconsumer culture, and in a weird way precluding thinking except for those who really put in the effort.
• Actually, skip that "the West". It's everywhere now.
• But it brings me my TV and internets for free. Alls I gotta do is watch and ad or two. This comment was brought to you by Molson's...brewers of fine beers and ales since 1786
• "Americans have always been 'dumb'." Australians always begin their posts with ridiculously broad, slanderous, suspiciously troll-like generalizations that betray their own insecurity and lack of a national identity other than that of beer-guzzling descendants of thieves who can raise only crocodile hunters to national hero status. Now, where's the pie?
• He strikes me as a wanker who is bent out of shape over the decline in the western canon's stock, as if there are no other sources of critical thought. "But perhaps the worst offenders are our colleges. Over the past few decades they have dismantled the only program that dependably conveyed the riches of Western learning and the autonomy of critical thinking: the humanities core. In so doing, our colleges have effectively severed the link between our society and the wisdom that made it great. "
• But it brings me my TV and internets for free. The trippiest part? The Internet has been a godsend for many in terms of connecting with the (way more than anyone expected) numbers of people who're questioning the validity of corporate capitalism. It's like the snake eating its tail! Of course, there's no guarantee that the Internet wouldn't've arisen under another system. Maybe without all the negative side effects (environmental, social, spiritual, educational, et cetera) imposed by corporate capitalism. Worth considering, rocket.
• the Internet not only fosters knowledge but allows like minds to connect. I was thinking recently about differences in attitudes to maths and science between Britain and the U.S. Could it be that the triumph of capitalism since the latter part of last century is to blame? The Internet has been a godsend for many in terms of connecting with the (way more than anyone expected) numbers of people who're questioning the validity of corporate capitalism. Great discussion. RPM primed the pump for this one with his cogent first argument. I agree the internet is a way of connecting minds that wouldn't have a chance to practice critical dialogue otherwise. It allows minds to connect, but the only good that can happen is if there are minds that are willing to engage in rigorous thought. Educational tools are out there for the access, but that presupposes that there are enough people who know how to/want to use them. I'm afraid there are more people that view porn and click on hamsterdance than critically read the news or access .edu sites. How many blogs are devoted to anything other than ego? The attitude toward the arts and philosophy are as lousy as that toward math and sciences, if not worse. There was more blather on the local news tonight about eliminating Spanish and using English as the only language. I turn to the PBS, and there's a program on about Basque kids being taught Basque, English, and Spanish in their preschool. What the HELL is wrong with with us? The European exchange student down the road speaks five languages and reads in eight--our kids can hardly read in one. U betcha it's capitalism to blame. Schools want unthinking sheep--doesn't matter if they're McSheep or cubical sheep, don't question the system. The corporations and politicos don't think critical thinking skills, they don't want thinkers to interfere with the filling of the troughs. If you're not watching Survivor tonight, you can always go down and rent Jackass. Now can we start all that goofing off we do that the MeFi's think is childish? This stuff makes me depressed.
• He strikes me as a wanker who is bent out of shape over the decline in the western canon's stock, as if there are no other sources of critical thought. That's exactly right - you caught the tone just right. It's like he's invested in the wrong field, and he's all upset that prices are falling. If he really cared about critical thinking, he would see that there are multiple ways to develop that.
• Will reading Aristotle tell you about the realities of Greek slavery? Will Francis Bacon elucidate your understanding of the massive population growth in his lifetime, and a crisis of poverty which inspired one of the first national welfare systems in the world? Will either help you understand the current political, economic or cultural problems of our world? No, but that's why he said literature and history. Because history will tell you about the realities of Greek slavery and the crisis of poverty in Bacon's time (the Enclosure issue, right?) However, it's important that they be taught in a complete system: where the history, society, and culture necessary to "place" Aristotle (and possibly more relevant to studying Plato, a much less humane thinker) is taught alongside the work. So yes, interdisciplinary courses are the way to go, but it's a little facile to suggest "only one or two" - obviously this is meant to cover the years of an education, not just a few months. People don't understand why they're learning things if they aren't put all together. I took the same design-oriented art course with two different teachers. One taught a concept each week, but never made a point of connecting the concepts with the assignments, except that she would critique the assignments with the concepts as a guide. The other taught a concept each week and made almost every assignment one in which we were required to create examples of the concept in question. The teacher of the first course was generally frustrated with her students, wondering why they weren't "getting it," and they were unhappy with her and bewildered by her lessons. The teacher of the second course was pleased with her students, who understood why they were doing what they were doing, improved over time in most cases, and gave her high marks. Chy: If my ancestors settled in this country to resist change in England, I'd be from a Catholic family... and I'm not. So it depends on someone's ethnic background. What we are usually told in American History courses is that people immigrated because they wanted change. Is that just propaganda? I don't know. (If you're saying, To resist change in agricultural systems in England circa 1600? Maybe. The ancestor of mine who came to America on the third voyage of the Mayflower was the son or grandson of a well-off cleric, though. The Irish girl, my nearest Catholic forebear, came over in the late 19th century because her wealthy seafaring father had died and his estate had, for some reason, been forfeit to the Crown.) I think Plegmund may have a point: to get almost any kind of passable job in the US, you need a college degree. Therefore, most middle-class high school students expect to go to college as a matter of course. I've seen many job listings for positions that, in the past, would have required only a certificate of office abilities that anyone could pick up in a short course: they now require four-year college degrees. I think the end result is that students want colleges to be degree mills (not necessarily places to learn or work), and that there are certain right-wing types who think that college professors have no "right" to hold progressive views (since all students now have to go to college, etc etc). The fact remains that there are still high school students who won't get the chance to go to college even if they want to, even if they're really strong students, etc - lots of cracks to fall through. I remember looking up scholarships for gifted students when I was in high school, and being really angry that they were all geared towards students with high scores in math and science, nothing for those gifted in other academic disciplines. And most other scholarships are niche scholarships for people from a specific church in a specific geographic area, etc. (continued)
• I didn't notice anywhere in the article that he specifically stated valuing only the Western canon, but I read it last night. There's nothing wrong with the majority of the Western canon, except that it can't stand alone; there's plenty worth reading and knowing about from the rest of the world, too. I think the "humanities core" that he's talking about is roughly similar to the Great Books curriculum at St John's College, which needs to have more non-DWEM (Dead White European Male) authors added to it (but how are you going to cover more in 4 years, esp considering that the SJC program is an intensive one and its students are geeky?). lots of other good stuff here too, my post is just too long to continue. and, I agree w/ BlueHorse.
• Reading the link, he comes across as a man who is rather unhappy that postmodernism shifted the playing field in the humanities, something for which I have a hard time mustering up sympathy. I have been in science my whole adult life, but the courses that knocked me upside the head and changed the way I thought (most of them in the humanties) in college were the ones that stepped outside of the "great Western tradition" in one way or another.
• I get the feeling he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about when he uses the term "postmodern."
• I applaud mandyman's use of the term wanker. I don't think the article does anything to show there is an attack on thinking in the US, instead the strategy appears to be to assume there is and lament it. I also don't think Americans are anti-intellectual, I think they're anti-elitist. Of course, elitism is to some degree a feature of intellectualism. Anyway, the so-called humanities core has never been widespread outside of an intellectual elite. Nowadays it's just that more people who 50 or 100 years ago wouldn't have considered going to college are going to college. But they are not any more interested in Aristotle or Kant than before. There are still plenty of people out there who are, and their needs are also being served by colleges.
• It's not that they aren't inventive or creative, it's that they're slow & resistive to change [...] You're never going to get rid of that because it's part of the reason their ancestors settled in the country in the first place, to stick with old ways & escape change. *furrows brow* But weren't the original settlers seeking religious freedom? And subsequent immigrants could hardly expect to continue their old way of life in a largely uncivilized land. Chy's statement just doesn't ring true. Early Americans were always thought of as pioneers, they could hardly be considered otherwise in such an initially hostile environment. I would agree that Americans have become complacent, but in no way is that an inherited trait. Nowadays, the average American (and indeed, the average Canadian) equates intellectualism with elitism. People form their opinions based on emotion, not on reasonable thought. Just try to argue an emotional viewpoint with logic, and you'll end up hurting someone's feelings. Try to express an appreciation for higher aesthetics, and you'll be called a snob. It's not just a matter of not having enough time in this workaday world to devote to deep thought, it's just not a worthwhile pursuit if you want to make friends. Sucks but it's true!
• I disagree with those of you arguing that this represents nothing new. I've been watching this anti-intellectualism spread and increasingly affect American society for some time now, and I think it is something clearly different from what was seen in the past. Also, I think that those arguing that this guy just hates post-modernism are missing the point. Koko's 2nd paragraph is dead on. The corollary is that thought is more important than wallowing in the sort of shallow socialization represented by most of what now passes for "friendships," and so the latter should, if necessary, be abandoned. Seriously. If you're lucky, you'll find a few good people who haven't bought into the anti-intellectualism rot, but if not, stay true to yourself and continue to THINK.
• He is arguing for the "rehabilitation" of the humanities program.
• Does thinking still make a difference to Americans? I trust by American ye include South America as well. Because Cassia Aparecida de Souza of Brazil looks like a winner to me.
• I now realize I made a mistake in saying that "Why Thinking Matters" is an excerpt from American Vulgar. It's material Grudin wrote to advertise the book. This may be a small point, but I thought it should be clarified.