On Intellectuals

From Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:

Intellectual:
1in·tel·lec·tu·al
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a: of or relating to the intellect or its use b: developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational c: requiring use of the intellect
2 a: given to study, reflection, and speculation b: engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect

Intellectual:
2intellectual
Function: noun
Date: 1615
1plural archaic : intellectual power
2: an intellectual person

Anti-intellectual:
an·ti–in·tel·lec·tu·al
Function: adjective
Date: 1884
: opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach

A friend of mine whom I love getting into conversations with has on several occasions told me that my problem is I'm anti-intellectual. He makes this assumption because at times I rail against higher education in this country or when I dismiss or question what is being taught. Basically, his psychoanalysis of me is that, even though I have knowledge, I'm "smart" and have thinking skills, because of my economic status, background and lack of formal education I resent being dismissed or ignored by "intellectuals". Therefore, based on my resentment, I dismiss and ignore the "intellectuals" thus making me an anti-intellectual. Now when my friend says this I usually reply with a half smile, roll of the eyes "Well, kind of, sort of but not really. It's a little more complex than that". Here's the problem with my friends analysis.

Take the second definition of intellectual as an adjective. "Given to study, reflection and speculation...". That's me, I am an intellectual. I observe, I study, I read, I think, I reflect, I anylize, form ideas then question them, test them and further develop them. I'm always doing these things. In other words, I'm always thinking. Ask anyone who really knows me and they will confirm it. My problem with higher education is that the concept of "intellectual" has changed. It no longer is an adjective describing a thinking person but has become a title or a status symbol to denote one's level in society. Far too many people who are labeled intellectuals are not intellectuals. They are more like pseudo-intellectuals. They may be intelligent and have the capacity to memorize vast amounts of information and then regurgitate that information but they don't question what is taught, they don't analize it, they don't figure it out. They simply swallow it hook, line and sinker. Is it their fault they are that way? Perhaps, but it may also be that their time spent in academia involved not learning how to think but what to think.

The original concept of universities, at least in Western Civilization, was an area for higher learning. In order to accomplish that there had to be space for the free expression and development of ideas. Different theories were taught and debated. You were graded on your ability to understand those ideas and theories, not on whether you subscribed to those theories and ideas. Today, and this is not a blanket statement, far too often it's the opposite situation. In order to pass, you must not only demonstrate that you understand the idea but also that you subscribe to it. You must prove you are a "true believer". That is not intellectualism, it is indoctrination. Dogma and doctrine are the result of anti-intellectuals. Basically the message is "You don't need to understand the subject. You only need to accept it as fact. It is fact because we say it is fact. End of discussion!"

So, am I anti-intellectual? No, I am anti-pseudo-intellectual which means I am anti-fake. I am also against against anti-intellectualism even when it presumes to be intellectualism. I can't wait for the feedback on this one.