The Rise of Anti-Intellectualism
Emerging research explores growing mistrust of expertise.
Populism coupled with increasing assaults on scientific integrity have dramatically shifted the political landscape during the last decade and contributed to geopolitical instability. The policy ramifications are yet to be understood, but anti-intellectualism has threatened public health, stymied environmental progress, influenced funding priorities and sculpted the rhetoric of many candidates in local, state and national politics.
Widespread mistrust of expert recommendations such as the rejection of effective vaccines are often described as the result of divisive conflicts between Democrats and Republicans or partisan tribalism. However, emerging research on anti-intellectualism suggests anti-elite beliefs have taken root for more nuanced and complicated reasons.
Because my research explores decision making in Congress, I am extremely interested in how our perceptions related to evidence shape attitudes and influence policies. There’s a lot to unpack between topics like motivated reasoning, confirmation bias and more, so I’ll begin with the rise of anti-intellectualism and return to related themes and challenges over time.
Eric Merkley (2020) aptly described the generalized mistrust of experts as driving a divide between public attitudes and expert consensus, most notably among people highly engaged in political discourse. But even though we can see the ways anti-intellectualism has become a strong force in American political life, we are still struggling to understand exactly what it is, who it most appeals to and its implications for political behavior.
Political scientist Katherine Cramer detailed how support or opposition for policies, as well as how people understand politics more generally, are tremendously influenced by both social and place-based identities. Her 2016 book, The Politics of Resentment, described that rural conservatives support the Republican party because it has effectively tapped into existing resentments toward specific groups and individuals in government, liberals, and certain minorities. Cramer explains that many rural Americans who have struggled economically do not see government programs as serving their own communities. On top of that, the ways that they are popularly depicted as ignorant or unsophisticated by the left reinforces building resentments toward the people they perceive as “elites” that don’t appear to share their values.
Recent years have led many science advocates to adopt the phrase “Facts matter.” Yet facts alone are not enough to reach good decisions. As Daniel Sarewitz observed (2004), facts can be arranged in all sorts of different ways to support completely different versions of a situation. Endlessly collecting facts can perpetually change our perception of reality in ways influenced by the social, institutional, or political context where the people collecting them exist. Further, there even appears to be a point at which adding more data can be harmful (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011).
Science may be central to our lives, but it is also just one of many lenses with which to frame an issue or event. The emphasis many well-meaning citizens place on facts alone has proven inadequate for informed 21st century policy making.
Upcoming posts will continue to explore anti-intellectualism in and out of the literature and highlight research-based strategies to diminish its role in policy making and public discourse more broadly.
In the meantime, now that Unelected Representative is four posts in, I’m interested to hear from readers. What topics are you most curious to explore related to decision making in Congress? Share any suggestions or questions in the comments.
And thanks for reading, sharing, subscribing and joining me on this journey.
References
Cramer, Katherine J. 2016. The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker. University of Chicago Press.
Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Wolfgang Gaissmaier. 2011. “Heuristic Decision Making.” Annual Review of Psychology 62: 451–82.
Merkley, Eric. 2020. “Anti-Intellectualism, Populism, and Motivated Resistance to Expert Consensus.” Public Opinion Quarterly 84 (1): 24–48.
Sarewitz, Daniel. 2004. “How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse.” Environmental Science & Policy 7 (5): 385–403.
Another thought or two:
How do we allow (or even promote) lobbying as a proper mechanism for presenting the views of a given "interest group", including their rights to free speech, while providing for maximum openness and transparency and minimal option or opportunity for corruption, from either side? How are such visits currently documented: who, where, when, what topics discussed, actions or promises made, if any, etc. ??? Any trackable metrics available?
From the scientific and technological side:
What should be the policy for supporting new developments? How far should governmental support extend for some promising new idea? Early and high risk R&D? Possibly including up to substantive laboratory or mechanical demonstrations? Should it extend to prototyping of manufacturing capability? But clearly stop short of supporting commercial pilot operations or full scale production. If the government has paid for the high risk early portion of development, who should the patent or copyright really belong to?
When is subsidizing something justified, and when is it just a favor, or pay back, to insiders and connected operators?
And of course what you plan to pitch to us over the next several weeks is "intellectualizing", too. :-)
One reason intellectuals come across in a poor light is that many do not write very well. I read many essays (or try to) where the core criteria of essay writing:
1) say what you are going to say (introducing)
2) say what you have to say (explaining)
3) say what you have told us (summarizing)
are too seldom followed. Thus, you come to the end and ask "just what did they say??". "Why does it matter to me?" "What am I supposed to do with this new information?" And many also hide their lack of real understanding or contribution behind a barrage of pseudo language trying to look smart. They fail to recognize that "reality is not optional".
If you are going to educate us about various DC jargon and acronyms, I find too many authors present the full name or wording only once, with the acronym following in parentheses, and then expect the jargon to be fixed in their readers' minds. For common things that is ok, but some of us carry jargon from past lives that can be confusing when exposed to a newer field of discussion. For newer or rarer subjects, I request at least two or three repetitions to help set the meaning of the acronym, etc. Piled higher and deeper (PhD) speaking here.
I agree that just facts, without context or correlation, can lead to people just talking past each other.
Some topics I hope you can help explain to us are:
Do congressional staffers receive any training in how to ethically interact with lobbyists?
Or receive training covering some of the various procedural rules applicable to one house or the other? Vs. learning OJT from cynical oldsters??
Are any of these rules something a non-DC resident layman (like many of us) might benefit from learning about as well? Most civics classes are light on such details and on discussing the rationale for creating such rules.
How do such rules impact scientific or non-scientific policy making?