Anti-intellectualism is an evolving term that doesn’t adhere to one strict definition, but I’ll be using it to describe an attitude that undermines intellectual expertise or rational debate. Basically, it’s not just making fun of nerds or people who use big words in an annoying way.
It’s important to note that anti-intellectualism is not just an attitude held by individuals, but a strategic tool that can be used to polarize fundamentally non-partisan issues. As science is increasingly framed as a politicized field, more and more people are dismissing evidence that conflicts with the attitude of their in-group. And it’s not like anyone reads scientific papers anyway — they just look at websites of people who already agree with them (same tbh).
There are a couple motives for undermining science. One is making fat stacks (see recent essay about corporations bad). Corporate anti-intellectualism is when companies deliberately spread misinformation in order to conserve profits. A classic example of this is the tobacco industry, which was sued for paying scientists to discredit studies linking smoking to lung cancer. A 1969 document by a tobacco company reads, “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ [linking smoking with disease] that exists in the mind of the general public.”
Similarly, oil and gas companies today hire people to sow doubt in the public about climate change so they don’t have to take accountability for their actions. PragerU, a popular conservative Youtube channel, has created many videos promoting climate denialism. Unsurprisingly, PragerU is funded by petroleum industry billionaires Farris and Dan Wilks. So when you see videos titled, “Why You Should Love Fossil Fuel,” and “Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy,” well, that’s why.
There is no debate in the scientific community that climate change is 1.) happening, and 2.) due to human activities, yet less than half of Americans agree with this. I have to believe that’s in some part due to the disinformation being spread, which encourages people who are willfully ignorant and misleads people who are honestly unsure. It’s a misrepresentation of science manufactured to protect wealthy industries.
Keep in mind that a scientific consensus is only reached after rigorous peer review from many qualified people with a variety of backgrounds. A high level of acceptance among experts is not the same as 100% true, but that’s the nature of science. The scientific consensus is the most reliable source of knowledge, and a single dissenting opinion shouldn’t be lent a ton of legitimacy. Especially because there could be other motives at play (making fat stacks).
But anti-intellectualism isn’t limited to science.
The 1776 Report was a 41-page document released two days before the end of former president Trump’s term. It was created to promote a “patriotic education” as a response to the 1619 Project, which was an initiative by the New York Times that aimed to explore American history through a lens of black Americans. The 1776 report — which had no citations, no bibliography, and no input from historians — was overwhelmingly criticized by academics for its factual inaccuracies and deemed “unpublishable as a serious work of scholarship.”
But of course they know this. The report wasn’t written for academics, and it is silly to treat this like a rational debate. The 1776 report wasn’t interested in history as a source of knowledge and understanding, only as a source of patriotism to preserve a preconceived worldview. It was an inaccurate framing of history created to uphold a certain way of thinking. It also stated that universities are “hotbeds of anti-Americanism, libel, and censorship,” I guess to preemptively label its critics as merely one-sided activists instead of as, you know, experts.
So, we’ve looked at obvious cases of anti-intellectualism, like outright denial of science or history. But I think there’s a more subtle version: using bad faith arguments or intentional fallacies in order to persuade an audience. Now maybe I’m stretching the definition of anti-intellectualism a little here, but I believe any strategy used to undermine a rational, intelligent debate could be classified as anti-intellectual. And I made my own definition anyway, so actually, reality is whatever I want it to be.
In the unfortunately ongoing anti-trans movement, I think the most mainstream arguments are “sex is real, actually,” “feelings don’t determine reality, actually,” and other variations that intentionally conflate sex with gender and frame this as a scientific debate when it’s not. The notion that trans people are unaware of biological sex is absurd. It’s a bad faith argument, basically. The argument isn’t about the existence of scientific differences, it’s about whether those differences should enforce immutable social roles.
But of course they know this — these fallacies are extremely obvious. Again, rational debate isn’t the point. It’s not a rational discussion and we need to stop treating it like one. It is an argument driven, at its root, by an uncomfortable feeling because people don’t want to compromise a familiar worldview. These arguments might be intellectual-sounding, but fear and/or discomfort is the primary motivator behind this movement, not “The Truth TM.”1
So, anti-intellectualism is a tool used to intentionally misrepresent science, facts, or arguments in order to preserve certain systems or way of thinkings that are threatened by intelligent debate. I think the best way to combat anti-intellectualism is to confront your positions with a critical and open mind. Science and logic are good, actually. And don’t feel bad about changing your opinions. It is okay to not know everything as long as you’re willing to learn.
articles I read to understand this because I don’t know anything:
also these video essays:
The 1776 Report (Shaun also has several videos annihilating PragerU which I personally find very cathartic)
No source just a vibe. i’m not smart enough to prove this with facts unfortunately.