Anti-Intellectualism In American High School Movies

“The cult of ignorance in the United States: Anti-intellectualism and the "dumbing down" of America” is a editorial about the decrease importance in intellectuals. Anti-intellectualism is defined as a person who believes that intellect and reason are less important. This editorial was written by Ray Williams.

Fridman addresses values pathos through “nerd and geeks must stop being ashamed of who they are” (P.6). This states that geeks should feel regret for every academical stride they accomplished in life since to American society, their acts are considered unworthy for applause. There influenced to change their perspective of their achievements to the point where they degrade it despite their all their effort. Friedman utilizes that for the readers of the New York Times to feel pity for the geeks that degrade their successes due to it being considered undeserving in order for them to appreciate the intellectual rather than reduce their value. Then he integrates sociological pathos from “How can a country where typical parents are ashamed of their daughter studying mathematics instead of going dancing… be expected to compete in the technology race with Japan or remain a leading political and cultural force in Europe” (P.9). Fridman identifies that the culture of America has parents portraying their children’s academic achievements as an embarrassment since American society deduct the value of such act, while in other countries of the world, they view intellectual as a sign of future leaders governing the country. Fridman persuades the readers to empathize towards his frustration since America are the only ones that has anti-intellectualism promoting inefficient leaders unlike other

With each philosopher comes a different theory and approach to life, but a common thread amongst a great many of them is this tone, this speaking with certainness and authority. For instance, in the famous quote by Rene Descartes, “I think, therefore I am,” comes with it a type of assertiveness. Montaigne’s approach, however, comes in contrary to Descartes. Rather than coming across as definite and without doubt, Montaigne speaks very modestly and even query. In his “Of the Inconstancy of Our Actions,” Montaigne states, “I have nothing to say of myself entirely, simply, and solidly without mixture and confusion” (4-5). So, rather than saying, “I think, therefore I am,” Montaigne seems to first ask, “What is it that I think, why do I think that, and how does this get back to me?” all while trying to put the “pieces” of his character together. Also, the simple fact remains that one cannot heighten their image or affirm their stature without first fully knowing what their image or stature is. And Montaigne seems rather uneasy to make such announcements. Rather than having explanation marks, Montaigne would hang questions for nearly every statement he would make; he did not feel he was capable of developing a grand plan or theory behind things, and this modesty can be found in the initial purpose of his

In many places throughout the world there are rigid top-down cultures and theories on education. These cultures have been seen in World War II Germany, in literature, and in education. It has been shown throughout history that these cultures can and will cause many problems to fester as a result. These issues include the manufacturing of sheep-like masses that simply follow what they are told and taught, the culture losing its ability to distinguish between what is morally right and wrong, and the forced masking of emotions and true feelings. The only way to prevent a culture from simply manufacturing sheep-like masses is by encouraging people to not be afraid to stand out in a crowd and allowing, and even embracing, free thinking.

In his article, Penrod first starts out talking about how a football team won an Arizona state championship the previous year. Penrod then goes on to talk about how no one paid any attention to the Science bowl team since everyone was focused on the athletes. Furthermore, Penrod points out how there is “disdain for the educated harbored in much of society,” and also speaks about stereotypes associated with intelligent kids and how uneducated celebrities are not setting a good example for future kids to get an education.

What is the first thing people think of when they hear the “smart” kid talks about his accomplishments? Those smart kids get called a nerd and automatically have to deal negative things all because society itself thinks it is okay to do so. In “Anti-Intellectualism: Why We Hate Smart Kids”, Grant Penrod explains why anti-intellectualism exist. People will remember what the anti-intellectuals do but not so much the intellectuals. Society envy those who are smarter than them and only look at any other accomplishment besides education accomplishments. Anti- Intellectuals tend to bash others around them for their success academically. That is how society works in every generation. Penrod informs everyone of an example of how nerds can be treated differently especially in the school system. More recognition goes to sports teams instead of debates teams, which is factual. Penrod’s lack of credible information and the tone that has been presented has brought a lot of thoughts that need to be analyzed more closely on why he presented this article this way.

His preference to read about sports was the epitome of anti-intellectual behavior, or so he believed. Graff also tells the reader that having grown up in a neighborhood with a mixture of middle-class people and “hoods”, he was “torn… between the need to prove [he] was smart and the fear of a beating if [he] proved it too well.” (246). This uncertainty came from his desire to both impress his own middle-class portion of society with intelligence and the “working class hoods”, whom he saw on a daily basis, with toughness. As a result, Graff hid his intelligence behind less than perfect grammar and pronunciation. But as Graff reflects on the days of his youth, he says “It was in these discussions with my friends about toughness and sports… and in my reading of sports books and magazines, that I began to learn the rudiments of the intellectual life: how to make an argument, weigh different kinds of evidence, move between particulars and generalizations, summarize the views of others, and enter a conversation about ideas.” (247). Even though Graff tried to hide his academic intelligence, he was already practicing intellectualism. Once again, Graff emphasizes that it is not the subject, but the analysis of it that really

In Grant Penrod’s essay called Anti-Intellectualism: Why We Hate Smart Kids he starts by talking about his high school football team and that they won the championship again this year. He says the speech and debate team also won the championship this year. The football team continues to receive mass amounts of praise and attention even after their win, while on the other hand the academic teams that won receive miniscule amounts of recognition. The academic teams might get a shout out at the end of an assembly, but never the amount of praise that the football team receives. The educated kids have the label of nerd and with this label; social norms become more difficult for them. Penrod says that even celebrities make it look like dropping out

In Gerald Graff’s story Hidden Intellectualism Graff, attests that intellect does not only exist in the scholarly form of thinking. Graff insists that knowledge can also take the form of "street smarts”. Graff uses personal experiences in his childhood to form his argumentative purpose. Graff tells about his disinterest in traditional academic subjects, and further elaborates on his love of sports. Being that he grew up in Chicago, Graff believes that academic knowledge is a delay in social world. Graff describes saddening story of growing up torn "between the need to prove I was smart and the fear of consequences if I prove too well." The conversation Graff brings to his audience attention with his friends helped develop the analysis, arguments,

Jacoby seeks to answer how and why these barriers negatively affect this “Age of American Unreason”. In Jacoby’s book she explain how American’s have become less and less intellectual over the year due to our culture our distraction. In order to understand what constitutes such anti-intellectualism in our culture, we must first understand what it means to be an intellectual. By doing this, it will help us understand why many American’s today lack such intellectualism.

Throughout his essays, Montaigne expresses strong opinions against ethnocentrism, such as in On Cannibals, where he writes that, “there is nothing savage of barbarous about those peoples, but that every man calls barbarous anything he is not accustomed to,” (82) and, “We should be similarly wary of accepting common

Jaded from seeing humanities uprisings first hand, he knows that they are nothing more than symptoms of an underlying disease. Because of his experience, he is able to see more deeply into the truth of American ideology, but he is unable to do much about it. As he says, “Once you figure out what a joke everything is, being the Comedian's the only thing that makes sense” (Moore and Gibson, Part 2, Pg. 13).

Universities often encourage students to apply their knowledge and judgment with real world situations and experiences. However, Montaigne mentions in his essay that school during his time were more focused on knowing the information

What is Anti-Intellectualism? According to Dictionary.com, Anti-Intellectualism is defined as being hostile toward intellectuals and the modern academic, artistic, social, religious worlds as well as other theories that are associated with them. Although Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life won the 1964 Pulitzer Prize, it is now almost fifty-fives out of date. Not to mention the ideas within the book are seen as suggesting a type of self-defensive justification rather than an actual deep investigation. Hoftstader used the aftermath of McCarthyism and how there were wide range witch hunts among the academics and progressives and how that is influenced by the reform, socialists and communist movements between the World Wars. Applying McCarthyism, Hoftstader looks at the tension from four different perspectives: religion, politics, business, self-help culture, and education. Taking into consideration the year the book was written, each angle is explored from the colonial period up until the 1950s. Throughout the introduction, Hofstadter makes it clear that the purpose of the book is to shed a little light on our cultural problems. Focusing on the social and political phenomenon of “anti-intellectualism” Hofstadter applies broad abstractions to social issues. He explains how applications of the abstracts presented by intellectuals can ultimately pose a threat to the social and political ambitions of certain and specific individuals. Because of this,

These examples illustrate Montaigne’s belief that while there is some justification to base a judgment based on daily activities, it is nearly impossible to create a proper judgment of humankind, and when a historian cannot, they become hypocrites.