John Savage has an interesting couple of connected posts over at Brave New World Watch that deal with this question. In the original entry entitled Have We Always Had Lindsay Lohans? John cites a marxist author, Dwight Macdonald, whose writings he used to read and have an affinity for. I can't make heads or tails out of what Mr. Macdonald is saying, to be candid, but that's beside the point.
John's post, having been inspired by VA's post on the same subject, which is from an opposing view which I find myself more in agreement with, seems to equate VA's position (and my position via my agreement with hers) with that of Mr. Macdonald's on some level. If I'm misinterpreting him, I trust he'll set me straight...
John goes on to explain in his sentence following the excerpted quote that writings like Mr. Macdonald's, which stimulated some of his youthful exuberance about the superiority of 'intellectualism' caused him to speak in similarly elitist styles of 'proper' marxist prose during his more formidable years, but that now having lost much of that passion, he regards with a great deal of skepticism the charge often leveled from traditionalist circles that today's America is uniquely 'dumbed down.' John's position seems to be that the accusation itself emanates more from a liberal perspective on the subject than from a traditionalist one. But is this true?
John seems to believe that the founding generation was simply an exception to the rule that Americans have otherwise lived and conducted themselves by regarding their approach to 'education,' which to him is one of a tradition of anti-intellectualism, which he dates back to the election of the non-intellectual President, Andrew Jackson, following what some of us would term 'Western Expansion and Deterioration.' John and I would agree that the founding generation was an exceptional one educationally speaking, but in what way?
On the point that the founding generation was an exception to the rule as per its emphasis on education, I would disagree simply on the basis that the generations preceding the founding generation seem to have placed a great deal of emphasis on providing their youth with a quality education, “...dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches.” I quote here from “New England's First Fruits,” c. 1643, so it would appear, in light of the whole document, that unless John believes the founding generation to have extended to the establishment of the first colonies in America, his thought that that generation was an exception, at least to that point, is misplaced. I would further disagree on the basis that it simply seems logical to me that the deterioration in the quality of education in America thereafter, given that John acknowledges at least a peak in education level during the founding generation, must have occurred at a slow and something of a steady rate; probably at a rate that was not that noticeable, or that was not that alarmingly noticeable to most except academics of the time(s). This would imply to me that Americans, rather than having always had a 'contempt for learning' as John asserts, rather developed a contempt for it over time.
John seems to think that Americans have always rejected intellectualism; that this is one of the essences of American 'traditionalism,' and that today's traditionalists, to be true to their 'traditionalism,' would also tend to reject the idea of 'intellectualism.' This is where I might agree with John, though perhaps for different reasons than he. I've been critical of 'intellectualism' on numerous occasions here and elsewhere. And here again I think we might need to properly define our terms.
My view of modern intellectualism (and to be fair to John, he doesn't use the term with the suffix attached) is consistent with John's view, I think, that it is an 'elitist' idea at its core. In this sense I reject intellectualism, and I've always considered that to be consistent with my 'traditionalism.' 'Intellectuals,' particularly the self-proclaimed types, tend to see themselves as possessing a higher order of knowledge that puts them in the unique position of always knowing the better way. In a very real sense these folks tend to think of themselves as being almost 'all-knowing.' I once read it expressed by one of these self proclaimed types as “knowledge is power; anything else isn't.” And though the author of that quote feigned a belief that the 'lower classes' had big enough brains to become intellectuals themselves, this was really not consistent with his true view of the subject, which he simply could not help but make known in his other writings. His way was the better way because his intellect was superior, and until everyone else's intellect had been raised to his level, he and his type were in a unique position to rule over the lower classes.
But to get back to this idea that American traditionalism and intellect just don't, and never have mixed well, I often lament that the level of education of the average person is far inferior today than it was many years ago. Personally I think that children have a higher capacity for learning than our educational institutions lend themselves to. I believe that the main reason for this is a 'non-traditionalist' philosophy and methodology of education in this country, and that can be reduced to the undue influence of government on education in America. So, while I would agree with John that the quality of education in America has been low for a long time by a certain standard, I would disagree that genuine traditionalism endorses and encourages this on the grounds that a different standard was once applied as regards education, and the kind of 'literacy' it was once supposed to produce.
My position on the subject is consistent with that of “America's Schoolmaster,” Noah Webster, who defined in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, the term “education” this way:
EDUCATION: Education comprehends all that series of instruction and discipline which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations...
Mr. Webster goes on to explain that:
To give children a good education in manners, arts and sciences, is important; to give them a religious education is indispensable; and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties.
To me this is the true 'traditionalist' view of education, as well as the measure of 'literacy' and of intellect, and one that developed over the years from 1620 to 1776. But I think it very interesting that 'traditionalists' disagree as to what constitutes 'traditionalism,' on this question as well as others. I should like to hear some of your thoughts on what you consider to be 'traditionalism,' and why. It is interesting that the term "intellectualism" was not an entry in Webster's 1828, but the term "intellectualist" is, and the definition Webster offers us is itself intriguing in light of this conversation. You may go to the online version of this dictionary at the link provided for it in the right sidebar of this blog.
-DW
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -Daniel Webster
First, my quote of Macdonald is not intended to mean that you and VA share the same position. It's just intended to show that I have reacted strongly against my former position. It's just meant as an anecdote.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I admit that the high value placed on education in colonial times is somewhat of an exception to my theory. However, I think they put a high priority on moral education, without a lot of concern for acquiring a lot of book-learning. That's the kind of moral education that we could impart through families and churches, which I have no problem with. Moral education is a whole different species from book-learning, since it doesn't encourage a lot of sophistic questioning of the way the society has always done things. Moral education is always necessary, and favoring it does not mean favoring intellectualism. Our contemporary intellectuals, in fact, usually denigrate it, thinking that it unfairly interferes with individual autonomy.
My inclination would be to say that we've long had competing traditions of pro- and anti-intellectualism, but the election of Jackson reflected that those carrying the anti-intellectual tradition had gained the demographic upper hand. In many ways we're lucky that the pro-intellectual tradition still had considerable strength at the time of the Founding. But the anti-intellectual tradition had long been firmly rooted in America, and it's served us well. Meanwhile, the dominant current in the pro-intellectual tradition since the mid-19th century has been statist, technocratic, and leftist. I prefer not to try to reform that tradition, only to hold tight to the anti-intellectual one. If you want to use the other one, you have to recover the past essence of a tradition that's acquired almost 200 years of anti-traditionalist accretions. To me, that's not a promising direction. Hope that clarifies things!
So, just to add, the Macdonald quote is just intended to show that I'm being a consistent contrarian on this issue. While on the Left, I reacted negatively to postmodernist anti-intellectualism, which found it politically incorrect to study high culture. Now I react negatively to the snobbish intellectualism of much of the traditionalist Right. I think you and VA are imbibing the general sentiment of our corner of the political terrain, which I dissent from.
ReplyDeleteJohn, thanks very much for making those clarifications, they are much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteAs I said to end the post, and as I'd like to emphasize here, I think it very interesting that there is so much variance within traditional circles and thinking on this subject as well as some others. I don't mean to imply here that I'm surprised by this, or that I think traditionalists should agree in all things all the time. What I do mean to say, however, is that most every form of orthodoxy has its 'essentials,' and its 'non-essentials,' and that I consider traditionalism no different in this regard.
If I were to try to sit down and make a list of 'essential' traditionalist doctrines as I see it, not only would the exercise consume more time than I have available to me for such pursuits, but I wouldn't be able to accomplish the task anyhow, even given an unlimited amount of time for doing so, because I simply don't have the capacity for it, intellectually or otherwise. Or, I'm thoroughly unqualified, to put it more plainly. I think others much more capable and qualified in that regard, and I would play something of a lesser role.
On the other hand I think it might be a worthwhile pursuit for many traditionalists to engage, and I suppose it can be said at some level that this is what is happening across the blogosphere and elsewhere, yet informally. It seems like there's plenty of disagreement among traditionalists as to what constitutes and what does not constitute traditionalism. I usually have an opinion one way or the other. But I should like to see more discussion focused on this aspect, not as a sidenote, but as a purposeful and a direct engagement of the important question.
As far as what you said about our colonial ancestors stressing a religious education over book learning, I agree and I disagree. A religious education was widely priority number one for them, yes, I agree with that. Where I disagree is that they seem to have considered book learning to be an essential and an integral part of a proper religious education from what I've studied of them. The requirement laid down for being proficient in Latin is an example I'd point to. Even though this was after the advent of the 1611 King James Bible, it was not widely circulated at that point, nor do I reckon it was widely accepted among the colonials given that they were in many cases fleeing the arbitrary rule over religious matters of the man himself. Some of them were puritans and these generally occupied the southern colonies, whereas others were separationists who tended to congregate in the northern parts.
But the main point I'm trying to stress here is that book learning among the colonials was not just brushed aside as unimportant in an effort to negate the influence of 'intellectual elitism.' They had a contempt, I'm sure, for extreme manifestations of elitist forms of intellectualism, but I think they rather approached it more from an educational standpoint that emphasized the importance of possessing and the diffusion of 'useful' knowledge. And to them knowledge was considered less than useful that did not serve to aid them in their understanding of God and His divine Providence.
VA is right, I think, about the KJV being written at a higher level. If memory serves it is written at a 12th grade literacy level, whereas many of today's 'dumbed down' versions are written at the third and the fourth grade level. That many today complain that it's 'too hard' to understand is, I think, indication that literacy is on the decline in the United States. For my part I should like to see the literacy level begin to take a turn in the other direction, absent the influence of elitist liberal intellectualism.
Thanks for your comments, and do please consider what I said regarding a wide discussion on what constitutes, and what not, traditionalism.
-Terry