Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Hofstadter, Richard. 1962. Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York,: Vintage Books.

Rating:
8

Summary:
detailed history of anti-intellectualism, mostly history

The author begins the book by illustrating some of the anti-intellectual trends and events taking place while he was writing it (1950s and 1960s). Some of the trends are particularly shocking, some are rooted in McCarthy’s intellectual witchhunts (disguised as ‘rooting out communism’; see p. 3), and some are relatively commonplace. The author then proceeds to explore the roots of American anti-intellectualism, situating it in several things: (1) religious revivals and the move toward religious evangelicalism and fundamentalism in the U.S. beginning in the 18th century; (2) changes in the leadership of the country favoring businessmen and western colonizers who were non-intellectuals (p. 48; p. 233); and (3) the self-ostracization of intellectuals due to the above pressures and their desire not to be associated with such types. This is, of necessity, a very rough summary of the primary points made in this 400+ page, dense book.

After explaining the origins of anti-intellectualism, the author then analyzes some specific components of society (business and education) and examines the anti-intellectual trends that run through them.

The author concludes by illustrating that, despite a continued pervasive anti-intellectualism in American life, intellectuals have made something of a resurgence due to their professionalization (they control the universities and some other professions) and due to the ever increasing complexity of society. Because society is so complex, intellectuals are now necessary to both understand it and do what they can to control and contribute to it. Of course, the fact that intellectuals are now necessary has also worked against them inasmuch as the non-intellectual sees them as a threat to their livelihood (p. 34), but societal complexity has nevertheless functioned to reinvigorate the roles of intellectuals.

Review:
First, let me just say that I have only very minor criticisms of this book. It is well-written, well-researched, and very informative. Many of the criticisms I have stem from the fact that I am a sociologist and not a historian.

The first criticism is rooted in this distinction – as a sociologist, I kept wanting survey data illustrating the anti-intellectualism of U.S. society or some other social-scientific data. Unfortunately, that data never surfaced, even though the author quite regularly quoted sociologists. Perhaps some sociological research has followed up on the conclusions and assertions of this book and examined some of these issues, but I am not familiar with it.

Also as a sociologist, at times I felt the book went into too much historical detail. This also occasionally resulted in a sense that the history was presented just because the author had researched it and not because it strengthened the author’s arguments. This seemed particularly true in the chapters examining anti-intellectualism in specific areas (business and education) as well as the histories of specific denominations.

My final criticism is that the author is an intellectual (he’s a history PhD employed primarily at academic institutions) writing about anti-intellectualism; undoubtedly he is going to have a bias. Admittedly, the author does a pretty good job being objective, but as an intellectual myself (a rather elitist assertion, I know), I probably overlooked any subtle pro-intellectual bias.

Other than these minor critiques, I have only praise for this book. The author points out part of the reason why our public school system is as poor as it is – lots of anti-intellectualism that has resulted in the lowering of academic standards. The author phrases it thus, “Formerly, it had been held that a liberal academic education was good for all pupils. Now it was argued that all pupils should in large measure get the kind of training originally conceived for the slow learner” (pp. 352-353). What makes assertions like this one particular disturbing is the fact that it still holds true 40+ years after this book was written.

The book also makes an interesting assertion about the importance of military service (or athletic participation) for political candidates, “It was assumed that a major part of civic character resides in military virtue; even today an intellectual in politics can sometimes counteract the handicap of intellect by pointing to a record of military service” (p. 148). For those wondering why John Kerry’s military service is being played up as much as it is, this should help explain it; Kerry is an intellectual and emphasizing his military service increases his appeal among the non-intellectuals.

Overall, though the book is now over 40 years old and somewhat dated, I would still recommend it for anyone interested in intellectuals and anti-intellectualism in America. You’ll need quite a bit of time to wade through the rather dense writing, but at times the writing is so brilliant that it more than makes up for the periodic lapses into rote history. The author is also particularly insightful given the lack of social scientific data on this topic. This is a very informative and enlightening book.

McLoughlin, Emmett. 1962. Crime & Immorality in the Catholic Church. New York: Lyle Stuart, Inc. 1962.

Rating:
0

Introduction:
I picked this book up years ago when I was a faithful Mormon. I think I found it in a used bookstore in Morgan, UT. I had the impression that it would be a well-documented book detailing some of the crimes and atrocities committed in the name of Catholicism over the centuries. I was wrong.

Review:
This is a hate book, written by a former priest who converted to Protestantism. And rather than document atrocities in history, the focus of this book is to claim that Roman Catholicism does not inspire morality in its members, “[Religion's] most important product—its reason for existence—is morality, the molding of lives that are not only good, but better than others, with a greater assurance than that of other religions that its members will be far less sinful, much better emotionally adjusted throughout life and thus more certain of eternal happiness in heaven. The purpose of this book is to show that the Roman Catholic Church in its most important work is a failure. Among its members crime and immorality are greater than among the unchurched or the members of other churches” (p. 17). Not only does the author not have any good, authoritative sources to indicate crime rates are higher among Catholics, but his very premise is a logical fallacy – a strawman. He is setting up an argument that is not true and not claimed by Catholicism. The purpose Catholicism claims is to spread its believed truth about the fallen nature of man and Jesus Christ’s atonement. Morality may play a role in that, but it is not the sole reason of existence of religion. Anyone who thinks that religion exists solely to maintain morality is missing the much bigger picture. Yes, from a functionalist perspective in sociology some scholars have made the argument that religion codifies and reinforces morality in society. But that is really not why religion exists. Claiming that is the purpose of religion then showing that one has fallen short in achieving that end is a strawman argument – it is not a logically defensible position.

If you don’t accept Catholicisms manifest reason for existence (which you probably should not accept) – to spread the message of Christ – the latent (and real) reason is still not morality maintenance, but rather its continued existence. As Dawkins argues in his discussions of religion (pick any of his books as a reference), religion is a meme, and the purpose of a meme is self-replication, not societal betterment. Ergo, if a side effect of that meme is that it increases morality in such a fashion that it improves the spread of the meme, than the meme will be more successful than other memes, but that is not the purpose of the meme. The purpose of the meme is self-replication, nothing more.

So, having illustrated that the primary purpose of the book is, in fact, a logical fallacy, now let me turn to the approach. The author loves to say things like, “In the rich soil of freedom of thought and worship prepared and preserved by Protestantism and Freemasonry…” (p. 14). I may not be a genius, but I don’t think it takes one to see where this book is going. The author is a Protestant and a Freemason and is claiming those groups do inspire good morals but Catholics don’t. Not a strong basis for his argument. If he derives his morals from the Bible, one of the most immoral books still in publication, he is at best a hypocrite and at worst just naive. Here’s another example of his biased, indefensible, and hypocritical position, “Because I believe in spiritual and religious liberty I have become a Protestant” (p. 25). As though those two must go together…

Perhaps in recognition of the shaky ground he is on arguing from a Protestant perspective, the author goes so far as to insinuate that Catholicism may not even be a religion, “He might become rather cynical and wonder if Roman Catholicism be really a religion at all, or whether it is perhaps some less noble enterprise cleverly disguised under the masquerade of religion” (pp. 17-18). You can’t very well consider Catholicism a religion if you are claiming religion is all about morality and you are still religious. It kind of taints the whole boat of religions. So, rather than taint his religious position by allowing Catholicism to remain a member of the group he implies that Catholicism is something other than a religion.

The author does claim that Roman Catholics are disproportionately represented among prison convicts, but the source of his data is sketchy. He also says things like, “Illiterates are generally criminally inclined” (p. 35), which just left me with a sour taste in my mouth. Come page 40 and I put the book down. I have better things to do with my time.

So, maybe if you’re a dyed-in-the-wool, Catholic hating Protestant and Freemason you’ll like this book. That would be especially true if you don’t care about logical fallacies or other poor arguments or lack of data. But if you are looking for a historical book on the atrocities in Catholic history, this isn’t the book for you… Look elsewhere.