Looking back at Anti-Intellectualism and what is means for Public Health then, now, and beyond

Alexis Magsano

​

​

As of September 30, 2020 the U.S. has suffered 205,372 deaths due to COVID-19 [1]. Amid the crisis of the pandemic, despite opinions from experts far and wide, America continues its attempts to any sorts of normalcy. Every state has some sort of outdoor seating policy for restaurants. Many establishments all around the country are re-opening its doors to the public with the rest of the world watching in shock and awe.

 

With all the public opinions coming from many public health professionals, including a very public voice in Dr. Fauci, what is encouraging many of the American people to come out? Some come out due to necessity, whether that is being forced to work because of poor social programs and a tight budget or for a grocery trip to feed their family for a few more days. Some individuals, however, attempt to live normal lives because they do not respect the opinions of those who were lucky enough to pursue any kind of higher education.

 

Anti-intellectualism is an ideology that has reared its head all throughout American history. While it normally is a political problem, recently it has interfered with the workings of many public health officials throughout the country. “Anti-maskers” as they’re called vehemently reject mask-wearing and physical distancing in order to prove that they know better than what experts and scientists say. How did it all start and what does that mean for us now?

HISTORY

The anti-intellectual movement in America started rather early on. Richard Hofstadter notes in his book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, that the first spread of American Anti-Intellectualism can be credited to “the Jacksonian movement... [for] its distrust of expertise, its dislike for centralization, its desire to uproot the entrenched classes. [2]” While a desire to uproot the entrenched classes was, and still is, a noble cause, the Jacksonian movement’s real danger was its distrust of expertise. Because of this, the political scene among the public at the time was skewed against more of the political runners, save for Andrew Jackson himself, due to their viewing of the potential candidates as “lackluster, squabbling batch of what we’d today call Washington insiders.”

 

One of the first times we see anti-intellectualism directly interfere with public health, however, is the Spanish Influenza pandemic of 1918. Similar to today, many local governments across the nation were calling for mask wearing and social distancing to prevent the spread of the flu [3]. After some time of preventative measures, many members of the public grew tired of the harsh social conditions and began protesting these measures, even going so far to form an Anti-Mask League. One interview in the San Francisco Chronicle in 1919 stated that “what doctors don’t know about this epidemic of influenza would fill a decent-sized library. And yet they have the ‘gall’ to force us to wear masks as a preventive, when no two authorities in the United States are agreed as to the cause, let alone the prevention or cure of the disease. [4]” While the Spanish Flu eventually died down, the lingering effects of the Anti-Mask League are still felt as the spirit of their organization lives on in many anti-maskers today.

 

Perhaps the event that had the most negative impact on the intellectual community was the Red Scare and McCarthyism of the 50s [5]. At the time, the U.S. saw communism as one of the greatest threats to the world, and the U.S. was on high alert for anything even remotely related to it. To government officials that perceived communism as a threat, one great fear for them was that “communists” could come from within the government and undermine them. With that single idea as his inspiration, Senator Joe McCarthy sparked the Red Scare, a campaign of finger-pointing and fear-mongering tactics to single out “communists” and have their careers ruined, all with little to no evidence for many of his victims. Hofstadter said, “Of course, intellectuals were not the only targets of McCarthy’s constant detonations—he was after bigger game—but intellectuals were in the line of fire. [6]” And indeed the intellectuals were under fire. Most notably were Albert Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer were publicly criticized by many U.S. politicians, and in turn many of the general public [7]. The Red Scare set a dangerous precedent of politicians ignoring, or even going so far as to insult, the opinions of members that hold high positions in the scientific community. Now more than ever are the fruits of that era visible as statements from highly educated individuals are ignored by parts of the population through a few dismissals from key politicians.

DISCUSSION

A common thread between all of that history is why the people could not trust those who were seen as “more educated”. This education created a gap between individuals, and as sociology indicates, humans tend to continually look for in-groups, out-groups, and reasons to divide themselves. The divide between the two, however, is a bit more complex now more than ever. Higher education has now become a privilege of either those who can afford it or those willing to risk taking on massive amounts of student loans. As such, “becoming educated” is now much more difficult than in previous years. On top of the difficulty to pursue higher education, this socioeconomic divide, coupled with individual beliefs, makes it easier for certain parts of the population to endorse “anti-intellectual” ideas. In the age of information, and false information, the line is starting to blur between “self-researching” and “anti-intellectual”. There are many people who are highly educated, yet still could be seen as anti-intellectual through their beliefs and ideals. The opposite is also true of individuals who are not traditionally “educated” but are able to sift through the noise on social media and the internet to stay up-to-date and well-learned. Thus, an “anti-intellectual” in the present day is not simply somebody who lacks a formal education or follows politicians blindly, because nowadays we hold the ability to find information with great ease. Instead, a better understanding may be that “anti-intellectuals” are individuals who do not take the time and effort to remain educated and informed through trustworthy sources.

 

Today, we now have anti-maskers, anti-mask protests, and entire sections of the public and the government ignoring every piece of advice from scientists around the world. This issue is a long-standing issue with deep roots in history. As such, it is not something with a quick fix. We may be able to provide a small bit of relief as we start to advocate for vaccinations, but in reality a more permanent solution is more likely to affect future pandemics. In order to aid the effort for a public that is better equipped to find their own reliable answers, a coordinated and continued effort is required from every facet of the population, not only medical professionals or highly educated individuals.  

​

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

• Members of the health community must be open to dialogue with people that may not be as informed about current public health practices and help encourage as well as educate, not only what the best practices are, but why they are the best practices and how to come to this conclusion.

 

• Members of a community privileged enough to have access to higher education must strive to spread knowledge whenever they can and give back to communities who may not be able to receive that kind of education. In addition, they should stay informed in order to stand as an example to never stop the pursuit of knowledge.

 

• Members of the media hold immense power as sources of information, and should handle such power carefully. The information they spread could have massive benefits if utilized correctly.

 

• Politicians and individuals in positions of power especially have an obligation to stay informed themselves so as to not mislead the people.

​

While there are many other subcategories of the population not listed, the main goal to keep in mind is to stay informed. One important step to take to help aid the ease of staying informed is to push for equal access to science. Making research papers more accessible without a paywall is one such step. Eliminating the use of unnecessary jargon in said papers is another step. Placing science and higher education back into popular culture is possibly one of the biggest steps we can strive to take. Figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye have historically been large parts of popular culture, spreading more knowledge to many of the public. As we continue to make science more accessible, public health will also flourish. Expert opinions might start to persuade those in the public that presently ignore them. The U.S. might be able to rebound exceptionally from the current pandemic. And hopefully increasing the accessibility of science creates more opportunities outside of public health, like increasing interest, and therefore funding in bigger and better research projects. One day we can dream for all that and more, but for now I will settle with at least an adherence to proper public health guidelines.

​

References:

1. CDC COVID Data Tracker. (n.d.). Retrieved October 01, 2020, from https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/

2. Hofstadter, R., & Wilentz, S. (2020). Chapter VI: The Decline of the Gentleman Section 3. In Anti-intellectualism in American life: The paranoid style in American politics: Uncollected essays, 1956-1965 (p. 155). New York, NY: The Library of America.

3. University of Michigan Library (n.d.). Influenza Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 01, 2020, from https://www.influenzaarchive.org/cities/city-sanfrancisco.html

4. Dolan, B. (2020). Unmasking History: Who Was Behind the Anti-Mask League Protests During the 1918 Influenza Epidemic in San Francisco? Perspectives in Medical Humanities, 5(19). http://dx.doi.org/10.34947/M7QP4M Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5q91q53r

5. Return to THE AGE OF EISENHOWER landing page. (2020, March 03). McCarthyism and the Red Scare. Retrieved October 01, 2020, from https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/age-of-eisenhower/mcarthyism-red-scare

6. Introduction [Introduction]. (2020). In 957103462 745301067 R. Hofstadter & 957103463 745301067 S. Wilentz (Authors), Anti-intellectualism in American life: The paranoid style in American politics: Uncollected essays, 1956-1965. New York, NY: The Library of America.

7. McCarthy Era: AMNH. (n.d.). Retrieved October 01, 2020, from https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/global-citizen/mccarthy-era