Populism and demagoguery are terms that have become on vogue in journalistic jargon to label major political communication strategies aimed at consensus building. Another expression that has gained currency in the United States, especially during the 2016 presidential election campaign, is anti-intellectualism. The concept is indeed not new since the first American scholarly work to address the subject goes back to 1963. In that year, Hofstadter published his Pulitzer-Prize winning book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, in which he describes anti-intellectualism as endemic to US society and a reflection of their cultural heritage. In a nutshell, the book discusses the tension between American intellectualism (synonymous with elitism) and egalitarianism in four distinct domains: religion, politics, business culture and education, with an eye to historical development. A milestone in its own right, the book has spurred further academic research in the field of education (e.g. Bloom 1987; Howley et al. 1995). The interest of political scientists on this topic, however, has been more limited. An exception is Lim’s (2008) recent publication, which focuses on American anti-intellectualism as “a defining characteristic of the contemporary presidency” (x). Lim identifies anti-intellectualism as a rhetorical situation in which “presidents talk a lot” but “say very little that contributes constructively to public deliberation” (x). The present study considers anti-intellectualism as a widespread phenomenon that affects contemporary culture and society in many respects. Anti-intellectualism is seen here as related to the promotion of a voyeuristic and unquestioning cultural orientation, which is attracted by spectacle without substance and allured by entertainment that diverts attention away from the real issues. One of the most obvious reverberations of such a cultural inclination in the political domain are image-oriented choices, especially during election campaigns. In the arena of politics, anti-intellectual voters (the majority) are prone to grant their support to candidates based more on politicians’ portrayed images of themselves than on their proposals concerning future policymaking. For this reason, politicians work hard to construct appealing public images through which they can win the favor of their electorate. Jacoby describes this type of general situation in the US as one that is characterized by a celebration of video culture joined with anti-rationalism and a declining education system. This paper also interprets anti-intellectualism in the domain of politics as connected to the lack of an intersubjective and ethical stance. This can be observed in the behavior of politicians who reject a priori the worldviews not conforming to their own, decline any debate with differing opinions and are unable to show empathy for others. Anti-intellectual people, in politics as well as in other realms, stick to their own identity and beliefs to the point that they cannot engage in any real dialogue, which would project them outside their strongly safeguarded ‘territory’. When selfishness and self-righteousness replaces reasoned debate, anti-intellectualism has certainly taken the lead. Embedded in culture and social behavior, anti-intellectualism is also reflected in language, as this study intends to investigate. Here, it coincides with plain, poor and unrefined forms of discourse, characterized by catchy phrases and bathetic appeals. In the battleground of politics, anti-intellectual discourse is not only discourse lacking substance, it is rhetoric promoting simple us vs them dichotomies, celebrating the cult of personality, demonizing opponents and engaging in an instrumental use of fear to obtain support.
Endangered intellect: a case study of Clinton vs Trump campaign discourse
DEGANI, Marta
2016-01-01
Abstract
Populism and demagoguery are terms that have become on vogue in journalistic jargon to label major political communication strategies aimed at consensus building. Another expression that has gained currency in the United States, especially during the 2016 presidential election campaign, is anti-intellectualism. The concept is indeed not new since the first American scholarly work to address the subject goes back to 1963. In that year, Hofstadter published his Pulitzer-Prize winning book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, in which he describes anti-intellectualism as endemic to US society and a reflection of their cultural heritage. In a nutshell, the book discusses the tension between American intellectualism (synonymous with elitism) and egalitarianism in four distinct domains: religion, politics, business culture and education, with an eye to historical development. A milestone in its own right, the book has spurred further academic research in the field of education (e.g. Bloom 1987; Howley et al. 1995). The interest of political scientists on this topic, however, has been more limited. An exception is Lim’s (2008) recent publication, which focuses on American anti-intellectualism as “a defining characteristic of the contemporary presidency” (x). Lim identifies anti-intellectualism as a rhetorical situation in which “presidents talk a lot” but “say very little that contributes constructively to public deliberation” (x). The present study considers anti-intellectualism as a widespread phenomenon that affects contemporary culture and society in many respects. Anti-intellectualism is seen here as related to the promotion of a voyeuristic and unquestioning cultural orientation, which is attracted by spectacle without substance and allured by entertainment that diverts attention away from the real issues. One of the most obvious reverberations of such a cultural inclination in the political domain are image-oriented choices, especially during election campaigns. In the arena of politics, anti-intellectual voters (the majority) are prone to grant their support to candidates based more on politicians’ portrayed images of themselves than on their proposals concerning future policymaking. For this reason, politicians work hard to construct appealing public images through which they can win the favor of their electorate. Jacoby describes this type of general situation in the US as one that is characterized by a celebration of video culture joined with anti-rationalism and a declining education system. This paper also interprets anti-intellectualism in the domain of politics as connected to the lack of an intersubjective and ethical stance. This can be observed in the behavior of politicians who reject a priori the worldviews not conforming to their own, decline any debate with differing opinions and are unable to show empathy for others. Anti-intellectual people, in politics as well as in other realms, stick to their own identity and beliefs to the point that they cannot engage in any real dialogue, which would project them outside their strongly safeguarded ‘territory’. When selfishness and self-righteousness replaces reasoned debate, anti-intellectualism has certainly taken the lead. Embedded in culture and social behavior, anti-intellectualism is also reflected in language, as this study intends to investigate. Here, it coincides with plain, poor and unrefined forms of discourse, characterized by catchy phrases and bathetic appeals. In the battleground of politics, anti-intellectual discourse is not only discourse lacking substance, it is rhetoric promoting simple us vs them dichotomies, celebrating the cult of personality, demonizing opponents and engaging in an instrumental use of fear to obtain support.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
