Read this, please.
I don't often think of myself as an 'educator' - it has unpleasant connotations for me, careerist out of touch administrators being the least of it. But, I suppose, I am one. And as such, along with the rest of my persona, I was encouraged to read this analysis by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times this morning. The first step to solving a problem is being aware that you have a problem. Kristof is aware.
After pointing out that as many Americans believe in flying saucers as believe in evolution, that 36% of the population thinks the government was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy, and a number of equally depressing facts about our ignorance and gullibility, he writes:
“America is now ill with a powerful mutant strain of intertwined ignorance, anti-rationalism, and anti-intellectualism,” Susan Jacoby argues in a new book, “The Age of American Unreason.” She blames a culture of “infotainment,” sound bites, fundamentalist religion and ideological rigidity for impairing thoughtful debate about national policies.
Even insults have degenerated along with other discourse, Ms. Jacoby laments. She contrasts Dick Cheney’s obscene instruction to Senator Patrick Leahy with a more elegant evisceration by House Speaker Thomas Reed in the 1890s: “With a few more brains he could be a half-wit.”
I especially like his conclusion, harking back to an era when being 'conservative' almost implied being an intellectual:
The dumbing-down of discourse has been particularly striking since the 1970s. Think of the devolution of the emblematic conservative voice from William Buckley to Bill O’Reilly. It’s enough to make one doubt Darwin.
There’s no simple solution, but the complex and incomplete solution is a greater emphasis on education at every level. And maybe, just maybe, this cycle has run its course, for the last seven years perhaps have discredited the anti-intellectualism movement. President Bush, after all, is the movement’s epitome — and its fruit.
Labels: American public, education, intellect
4 Comments:
I don't think those are good examples. As I recall, the 1800s were that civilized time when senators would cane-whip each other, and the 1970s were a time when Gore Vidal could provoke Buckley into obscenity by repeatedly calling him a crypto-fascist.
There are good examples, I think, but it takes more work to build a convincing case of this than most of today's attention spans are willing to handle.
;-)
Oh, I don't know about that, Jack. Gore Vidal was in a class by himself and you can't be seriously suggesting that an isolated outburst by Buckley puts him in the same league as Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc. I think the main point is a good one, and that it was a good column. [btw, both the cane-whipper and Vidal were southerners]
As for my dwindling attention span ...
what were we talking about?
Although an NPR commentary tried to draw the very connection you suggest I am making, I was in fact putting Vidal into the same league as O'Reilly et al. "Feminazi", "crypto-nazi"... geez how plainly do I have to spell it out?
If Vidal could provoke Buckley that way then discourse in those days could not have been so great as we like to think now. With only 3 major networks, it merely enjoyed less wide dissemination.
Of course maybe you were joshing & provoking me in which case you succeed. Dang blast it!
What! Me?
Of course not.
But Vidal all by himself does not equal an entire culture of media stupidity. Nor does one outburst from Buckley. Your memory of the 60s may not be as clear as mine. Then again, you may watch more TV than I do.
Post a Comment
<< Home