Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

The Age of American Unreason Susan Jacoby

Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism Susan Jacoby

Susan Jacoby - American Freethought Heritage
March 17, 2006

Susan Jacoby - The History of American Secularism
December 30, 2005

If you would like to leave a comment about this episode of Point of Inquiry please visit the related thread on the CFI discussion forums

I think the point that D.J. made about knowledge of plumbing was great. And I don’t think that Susan sufficiently answered it. I definitely agree that your plumber or mechanic should be able to find Iraq on a map. However, I also think that basic knowledge of plumbing should not be considered any less important than any other area of basic knowledge . “Elitists” do tend to prejudice some areas of knowledge as superior to others - and I think this is a problem. I don’t think it should be any less objectionable to find someone (perhaps Susan) who doesn’t possess basic knowledge about the engine of her car or her house’s plumbing than it is to find someone else who lacks basic knowledge about geography or government.

I think the point that D.J. made about knowledge of plumbing was great. And I don’t think that Susan sufficiently answered it. I definitely agree that your plumber or mechanic should be able to find Iraq on a map. However, I also think that basic knowledge of plumbing should not be considered any less important than any other area of basic knowledge . “Elitists” do tend to prejudice some areas of knowledge as superior to others - and I think this is a problem. I don’t think it should be any less objectionable to find someone (perhaps Susan) who doesn’t possess basic knowledge about the engine of her car or her house’s plumbing than it is to find someone else who lacks basic knowledge about geography or government.

I don’t know, I think Jacoby did a pretty good job on that one. There are different categories of knowledge, and one of the things that strongly distinguishes
these categories of knowledge (and maybe she jut didn’t emphasize it strongly enough) is that the fact that I don’t know how to strip down my car’s
transmission or how to fix the plumbing in my house doesn’t affect the nation at large. The only person who suffers because I lack these bits of knowledge
are me (and of course my long-suffering wife). But when someone can’t find Iraq on a map or can’t explain the difference between Sunni and Shia or can’t
explain what “The Bill of Rights” are, then we’re talking about a different category of knowledge, because when a person lacks this type of knowledge, this
person isn’t the only person to suffer. I suffer, we all do, because this person has the same right to vote that I have and that you have. And they are voting --
the most basic and important duty any citizen can have —with major gaps in what might be called, for lack of a better description, “public knowledge” (as
opposed to “private knowledge”, the only side-effect of which is that I have to spring for the $$$ to have a plumber come in). When people lack “public
knowledge,” then their decision-making at the voting booth is flawed and dangerous, not just a danger to themselves but a danger to me as well. So yeah,
I care a lot more about whether my neighbor can enumerate The Bill of Rights than I do about whether he can repair his own car.

I tend to agree with her motivation, and I realize her focus is on Americans, but “anti-intellectualism” is rampant throughout the world.  There is and always will be a section of the society, any society, that simply does not care about issues like “rights” or history, or basic civics.  It is BECAUSE we have such a “public” education system, that we are so offended that some Americans choose not to pursue knowledge extracurricular to their chosen field, or some choose not to pursue higher education.  It is common in European societies for only a certain “elite” to actually go to college and others are sorted out much earlier, for technical training and schools.  Plumbing IS important, and there probably are a few plumbers out there than make more money than Graduate degree-holding social workers or teachers. 

Also, you have numerous other cultures where education or knowledge, even the pursuit of “learning” is not valued.  I’m married to a Native Indian from South America (who happens to be a teacher) who has stressed repeatedly, that typically, most people in the society she grew up in care little for education or anything more than hand-to-mouth existence.  She is mystified by this American idea that everyone should (or even wants to) go to college, or learn about anything more than how to fix a car or basic plumbing, etc.  I did agree with Jacoby about the mortgages, but the problem is, again, we live in a culture where people are “allowed” (for lack of a better word) to engage in a free market system even if they don’t know enough about a particular field in order to make sound decisions.  BECAUSE we are so open and pro-equality (before the law at least), people who otherwise would not be considered for a mortgage (if there was a competency test for example) are allowed to sign for whatever a statistical table tells the mortgage company they are likely to be able to pay.  Should we let people vote for the President of the United States when they cannot name any Supreme Court Justice?  Or where DC is on a map?  Or first 10 Amendments? 

What are the consequences of not knowing basic civics, or history ?  There are none for the individual for the most part, and our law allows for that.

I think the point that D.J. made about knowledge of plumbing was great. And I don’t think that Susan sufficiently answered it. I definitely agree that your plumber or mechanic should be able to find Iraq on a map. However, I also think that basic knowledge of plumbing should not be considered any less important than any other area of basic knowledge . “Elitists” do tend to prejudice some areas of knowledge as superior to others - and I think this is a problem. I don’t think it should be any less objectionable to find someone (perhaps Susan) who doesn’t possess basic knowledge about the engine of her car or her house’s plumbing than it is to find someone else who lacks basic knowledge about geography or government.

I don’t know, I think Jacoby did a pretty good job on that one. There are different categories of knowledge, and one of the things that strongly distinguishes these categories of knowledge (and maybe she just didn’t emphasize it strongly enough) is that the fact that I don’t know how to strip down my car’s transmission or how to fix the plumbing in my house doesn’t affect the nation at large. The only person who suffers because I lack these bits of knowledge are me (and of course my long-suffering wife). But when someone can’t find Iraq on a map or can’t explain the difference between Sunni and Shia or can’t explain what “The Bill of Rights” are, then we’re talking about a different category of knowledge, because when a person lacks this type of knowledge, this person isn’t the only person to suffer. I suffer, we all do, because this person has the same right to vote that I have and that you have. And they are voting—the most basic and important duty any citizen can have —with major gaps in what might be called, for lack of a better description, “public knowledge” (as
opposed to “private knowledge”, the only side-effect of which is that I have to spring for the $$$ to have a plumber come in). When people lack “public knowledge,” then their decision-making at the voting booth is flawed and dangerous, not just a danger to themselves but a danger to me as well. So yeah, I care a lot more about whether my neighbor can enumerate The Bill of Rights than I do about whether he can repair his own car.

You make a good point. But I think that basic knowledge of plumbing (not the ability to repair it) also fits into that public sphere of knowledge. For instance: where does your water come from? where does your waste water go to? Do you know that storm water doesn’t go through a waste-water treatment plant? (storm-water run-off goes right back into the water table / lakes / streams ... back into your drinking supply).

Providing basic knowledge to the public about the way things work, especially those things that impact our food and water and energy and shelter, is I think very important to the community.

Memorized constitutional amendments and names of supreme court justices, on the other hand, I *would* say is trivial knowledge. I think “elitists” (those that would be condescending toward others or gasp at poll figures) too often confuse understanding the principles and the significance of such things (e.g. rights and the significance of supreme court justices) with the memorization of data.

I think the point that D.J. made about knowledge of plumbing was great. And I don’t think that Susan sufficiently answered it. I definitely agree that your plumber or mechanic should be able to find Iraq on a map. However, I also think that basic knowledge of plumbing should not be considered any less important than any other area of basic knowledge . “Elitists” do tend to prejudice some areas of knowledge as superior to others - and I think this is a problem. I don’t think it should be any less objectionable to find someone (perhaps Susan) who doesn’t possess basic knowledge about the engine of her car or her house’s plumbing than it is to find someone else who lacks basic knowledge about geography or government.

I don’t know, I think Jacoby did a pretty good job on that one. There are different categories of knowledge, and one of the things that strongly distinguishes these categories of knowledge (and maybe she just didn’t emphasize it strongly enough) is that the fact that I don’t know how to strip down my car’s transmission or how to fix the plumbing in my house doesn’t affect the nation at large. The only person who suffers because I lack these bits of knowledge are me (and of course my long-suffering wife). But when someone can’t find Iraq on a map or can’t explain the difference between Sunni and Shia or can’t explain what “The Bill of Rights” are, then we’re talking about a different category of knowledge, because when a person lacks this type of knowledge, this person isn’t the only person to suffer. I suffer, we all do, because this person has the same right to vote that I have and that you have. And they are voting—the most basic and important duty any citizen can have —with major gaps in what might be called, for lack of a better description, “public knowledge” (as
opposed to “private knowledge”, the only side-effect of which is that I have to spring for the $$$ to have a plumber come in). When people lack “public knowledge,” then their decision-making at the voting booth is flawed and dangerous, not just a danger to themselves but a danger to me as well. So yeah, I care a lot more about whether my neighbor can enumerate The Bill of Rights than I do about whether he can repair his own car.

You make a good point. But I think that basic knowledge of plumbing (not the ability to repair it) also fits into that public sphere of knowledge. For instance: where does your water come from? where does your waste water go to? Do you know that storm water doesn’t go through a waste-water treatment plant? (storm-water run-off goes right back into the water table / lakes / streams ... back into your drinking supply).

Providing basic knowledge to the public about the way things work, especially those things that impact our food and water and energy and shelter, is I think very important to the community.

Memorized constitutional amendments and names of supreme court justices, on the other hand, I *would* say is trivial knowledge. I think “elitists” (those that would be condescending toward others or gasp at poll figures) too often confuse understanding the principles and the significance of such things (e.g. rights and the significance of supreme court justices) with the memorization of data.

I think the intellectual elitists are right. What’s usually missing from the general fund of knowledge is an understanding of Constitutional principles and the reasons for them. This is essential to a functioning democracy, as we now see with the American people willing to give away many of their freedoms because they don’t understand them - meaning, they don’t understand legal systems. By contrast, I don’t have to understand plumbing, which is not the same thing as where your water comes from or goes after you’ve used it. I can call a plumber. The analog in government is to turn power over to a ruling elite. That’s a different kind of elitism.

By contrast, I don’t have to understand plumbing, which is not the same thing as where your water comes from or goes after you’ve used it.

I would say that understanding the system of how our drinking water and waste water moves through pipes (i.e. a basic understanding of plumbing) is pretty analogous to understanding the system of how a bill moves through a legal system --- the issues related to plumbing however get too often discredited as unimportant in schools. Memorizing the names of your supreme court justices or memorizing which constitutional amendment protects which rights is pretty trivial by comparison ... not unlike memorizing the name of your plumber and his/her phone number. It’s quite a tight analogy I think. Both types of knowledge are fairly trivial, both in the public and the private sphere.

If I need someone to fix the pipes in my house I’ll call a plumber, likewise, If I need someone to fight for my rights in court, I’ll hire a lawyer. Placing the skills of a lawyer above the skills of a plumber is the “elitism” that I think is worthy of our disdain. Respect for the elite skill of a lawyer or a plumber on the other hand is perfectly reasonable “elitism”—but that’s not usually what people mean when they use the term

I’m not particularly concerned when I hear that people don’t have data memorized or that they don’t know how to perform some task specific to politics, or law (or plumbing ) ... but I am concerned however when I hear that people don’t understand the mechanics and basic principles of things that effect the community.

“I also think that basic knowledge of plumbing should not be considered any less important than any other area of basic knowledge.”

That’s where I disagree. There is a hierarchy of importance. We can afford to let plumbers specialize in their trades without getting involved. We can’t afford to do that with our government.

“I also think that basic knowledge of plumbing should not be considered any less important than any other area of basic knowledge.”

That’s where I disagree. There is a hierarchy of importance. We can afford to let plumbers specialize in their trades without getting involved. We can’t afford to do that with our government.

Exactly. There are categories of knowledge the lack of which do not jeopardize the republic.And there are other categories the lack of which
do jeopardize the republic.

It’s interesting that this debate between and intellectual elite and working class still goes on today.  I’ve done some reading about the Founding Fathers of the US and some were very much opposed to having working individuals be part of this process, and others wanted a more democratic nation.  The compromise was the establishment of a bicameral legislative branch and an electoral college.  Many also believed that debate should only take place in gentlemanly circles and not in public.  Yet most of the Founding Fathers would not have been part of the English elite.  Franklin himself did not join the revolution until he was dishonored by the English court and his son remained a loyalist.

Old Squid,

I hate my compulsion for quibbling, but I have to point this out.  Franklin always advocated the principals underlying the American Revolution.  Like many, he sought to make the changes within the English system at first.  He was dressed down and insulted by members of Parliament regarding his expose of Thomas Hutchinson in the 1760s.  That event was the final straw for Franklin, but even before the Hutchinson incident, Franklin was calling for unity amongst the colonies.  This wood carving appeared in Franklin’s paper next to an editorial advocating greater colonial unity in 1754 and may have been created by Franklin himself.  It also may be the first political cartoon in American history. 

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/us.capitol/one.jpg

JRM.  Franklin is a high complex man to understand.  As late as 1763 he wrote about Britain, “that little Island” enjoyed, “in almost every neighbourhood, more sensible virtous elegant minds, than we can collect in ranging 100 leagues of our vast forests.” He claimed that it was America and not England that was corrupt and luxury loving, and the great danger was that the English nation, if it did not draw off some of, “would, like ours, have a plethora in its veins, productive of the same sloth, and the same feverish extravagnace.” (Papers of Franklin)

Like other colonial agents, he naturally opposed the Stamp Act in 1764, but when Franklin saw that passage of the tax was inevitable, he accepted it.  After all, he said, empires cost money.  In making the best of the situation, he procured for this friend John Hughes the stamp agency in Philadelphia.  In doing so, Franklin almost ruined his position in American public life and almost cost Hughes his life.

At this time, not only was Franklin totally out of touch with colonial feelings, but comments he made to Hughes reveal how much of a devoted royalist he was.  He told Hughes to remain cool in the face of the mobs that prevented enforcement of the Stamp Act, “a firm loyalty to the Crown and faithful adherence to the government of this nation will always be the wisest course for you and I to take, whatever may be the madenss of the populace or thier blind leaders.”

Only his four-hour testimony before Parliament denouncig the act in 1766 save his reputation in America.  It also made him question the wisdom of British officials.  He now bristled at the “insolence, centempt, and abuse” that English officals heaped upon the colonists.

The following four or five years had Franklin caught in between an England that thought of him too American and an America that thought of him too English.

Then in the summer of 1768 a possibility of a subministerial position in the Grafton government was dangled before him.  Grafton’s close collegue Lord North, told Franklin thati f he could be persuaded to stay in England, the government hoped to “find some way of making it worth your while.” Franklin replied that he would “stay with pleasure if I could any ways be useful to the government.” He told his son that he would be “either promoted or discarded.”

Lord Hillsborogugh, who was the new head of the American Department, blocked any appointment.  In January 1771 Hillsborough coldly refused to accept Franklin’s credentials as the agent for the Massachusetts Assembly, Franklin was stunned.  Shortly after his, he went on a series of journeys around the British Isles.

Later, Hillsborogough was ousted from the ministry, and Lord Dartmouth was appointed in his place.  Dartmouth was a friend of Franklin’s and was sympathetic to America and western expansion.  Franklin once again became optimistic that he might place a role in imperial politics.  With imperial possibilities opening up once more, he became involved in the affair of the Hutchinson letters, which ultimately destroyed his position in England.

Thomas Hutchinson, the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts in the late 1760’s, had written some letters to a friend in England urging that stern measure, including the abridging the English liberties in Americ, were needed to maintain the colonies’ dependency on Great Britian.  Somehow Frainklin got his hands on these letters and in late 1772 sent them to Massachusetts in order, as he said, to convince the American people that blame for the imperial cirisi lay solely with a few michievous colonial officials like Hutchinson.  Thus the ministry in London would be cleared of responsibility for the crisi, and the way would be opened for rational settlement of the differences between the mother country and the colonies.

This was a gross miscalculation, for the letters he sent to Massachusetts only further inflamed the imperial crisis.  Contrary to much conventional wisdom, Franklin was not at all a shrewd politician or a discerning judge of popular passions, certainly not prerevolutionary passions of these years.  As late as 1775 he was persuaded that the issue separating Britain and the colonies were “ a mere matter of Punctilio, which two or three reasonalbe people might settle in half an hour.” He had little or no comprehension of the structural forces and the popular pasions that limited individual actoin.  In the end he ws convinced that the glorious empire to which he had devoted so much of his life was broken by “the mangling hands of a few blundering ministers.”

The British ministry now held Franklin responsible for the crisis.  On January 29, 1774 he was viciously and publicly attacked before the Privy Council and other observers by Alexander Wedderburn, the solicitor general, for being a thief and something less than a gentleman.  That was the last straw.  He was supposed to have whispered to Wedderburn upon leaving the cockpit, “I will make your master a LITTLE KING for this.” Two days later Franklin was fired as deputy postmaster.  Although for a few more months he continued vainly to try and save the empire, advising even Lord Chatham in a last ditch peace proposal, he finally came to realize that eh empire and his role in it were over.

In March 1775 he sailed for America and became a passionate patriot, more passionate than most.  The revolution in fact became a very personal matter for Franklin, more personal perhaps than for any of the other revolutionary learders.  Even John Adams, who was no slouch when it came to hating, was startled by the degree of Franklin’s revolutionary fervor and this loathing of the king.

If up to seventy percent of intelligence is inherited, I suspect education will have a little impact on how much people will care about history. This topic should be discussed either objectively, or if we are afraid to find answers that we might not like, perhaps we should keep quiet.

Jacoby used to watch TV with a book in her hand? Well, I guess it was the wrong book.

Yet another guest who is associated with CFI....sigh....

(Sorry for necromancing an old thread, but I just joined the forum today.)

I would add an overarching cause behind the phenomena Jacoby describes: the US has enjoyed too much unearned wealth for too long, driven by cheap oil and credit. The imperatives of education, science and innovation that were so strong during the Cold War have faded since 1980 because of what I would deem a “prosperity bubble.” The bubble is deflating now, and one finds only the most educated and accomplished professionals are globally competitive.

I don’t agree the wealth the american enjoy is unearned.

I understand the concern the americans show about the knowledge and the education in the population, but I tend to think that you are being too hard with your fellows citizen. Maybe you americans don’t have the best president of your history, but despite his efforts, the amazing knowledge industry you have seems to be healthy: americans universities are still in the top and a big percentage of the knowledge is still produced inside them.  Also I agree that egardless of one’s profession some kind of knowledge is a must in order to make good decisions (vote, personal finances, business deals)

I can understand that a growing gap between the educated elite and the working class is a risk because, as SJ says, your vote counts as the plumber’s vote counts. Maybe, and only maybe, we are not living the best time for science and reason in these last years, but I don’t think that 30 years ago the society were more open about science and reason. I am still moderately optimistic, I think we live in a better society now than 30 years ago.

I agree that in a material sense life was better in 2002 than it had been at any point in the past; as is well known, middle- and lower-class standard of living has regressed since 2002.

I would offer a few more evidences to indicate wariness:

* US student performance in science and math has been steadily declining.  This is not due to greater minority access to education, but because performance of white students is declining.  (source)

* US absolute gov’t expenditures on basic science has been steadily declining.  (source PDF; commentary)

* Xenophobia results in counterproductive visa rules and licensing procedures which hurt US competitiveness.  (one example, an analysis of the visa situation)

All these, plus the general negative tenor towards rational thought, bode ill for US leadership in science and technology and future economic prosperity.  The techno-optimism that was present during the Cold War both among leadership and consumers seems to have faded, such that people forget where their wealth came from.

I am wondering why that is.

I agree that there are evidences to indicate wariness (xenophobia, paranoia because national security and others).  This last years wasn’t the best in the american history and the current president is not the best they had had, but, anyway, do you think that there was/is a drop in the rational thought?. Altough not sure, I don’t believe that the american society is less rational now than, lets say, 30 years ago.

Regarding the decline in the white students performance, I’d say I don’t see any trouble as long another groups take their place.

Just a point: in the figures you share about the R+D expenditures, I’d say that what is clear is trend toward the privatization of the acJust tivity, not a trend toward a absolute decrease in R+D expenditures. This trend is consistent with the global tendency to transfer things from the public ownership to the private.

Barto,

* Is American culture less rational now?  On the whole, probably not.  People are better educated than ever, use more technology.  But the decision makers seem to be, probably because the less rational voting bloc is better mobilized and everyone else is afraid to call them on their BS.  For example, Obama is dancing the fine line of being as openly religious a Democratic presidential candidate as I can recall, but still being the white-collar liberal policy-wise.

* If minority students ever surpass white students performance-wise, that would be a pleasant surprise.  At this time, high-performing groups like Asians are not numerous enough to overcome the poor performance of the white majority.

* By itself, the drop in gov’t funding for basic science would not be as alarming (I do not believe the private sector is capable of funding science that has no profit horizon).  However, combined with poor student performance and the general anti-science attitude in the media, I see it as a grave concern.  It’s just a matter of time before EU and Japan overtake US leadership, and attract the best minds from around the world instead of the US.

Hypnos,

Just to clarify, I don’t try to argue about how the american culture is now. I am just trying to reconcile two facts. The first: the papers I used to read in the college and the papers I use to read now are produced mostly by american universities. The second and contradictory: reading the americans (or the people living in america) complaining about the rising irrational movement in their society. In my college years I built a deep respect for the society producing so much valuable knowledge.

Regarding the rationality of the american culture, I’d say that those things depends on chance. The people usually vote thinking on how the economy is performing, or, in situations where they feel threatened, thinking in the elusive concept of security. If were are lucky, the person who convince the people he or she is able to improve the economy or make them feel safer has a good attitude toward science.

Regarding the antiscience atittudes, maybe in america is the media, but in europe there is a lot of posmodernism (the high class superstition). Here we are more influenced by european trends than north-american ( ey… after all we are americans too ) ones, and I’d say that Derrida, Irigaray, Latour are not exactly goods for the advance of science.

Barto,

I agree with what you say in the second and third paragraphs. 

In the first paragraph, one must recognize that the US has 300 million people and economic power comparable to all of the EU.  So, does the US really publish more papers in basic science than all the EU?  If so, will EU (and Japan) soon catch up and pass, and how about India and China?

Well, I certainly don’t have a statistic about the papers in basic science published by country and I take your point about the kownledge production relate to the size of the economies.

Also, take into account that I am not a scientist, so I studied just the basis of basic science. Maybe I am biased because, although I studied in the 90, what I study about physics was produced in the 50, 60 and maybe the 70, but not beyond. Nowdays I just read papers regarding my primary fields (software development) and I have access to pharma industry because, among other things, I work for it.