I've often heard intellectuals classified as snobs, but I haven't seen much
evidence that this is the case, and Wayne's "cause" seems to be more of a
myth than a fact.
Consider classical music. The people I know who share my taste in music
generally don't like C&W, R&B, hip-hop and such, but I rarely hear them talk
about it and certainly not put it down (the one exception being "elevator
music"). But I often hear people who don't like classical characterise it as
screeching, boring, and generally they have insulting things to say about
it.
The same goes for literature. If you are reading War and Peace in a public
place you are more likely to provoke condescending comments than if you are
reading a popular romance or detective thriller.
The curious fact is that people admire those who are strong or fast, and
great atheletes are popular heroes. But in the one area where humans excel
over other animals, intelligence, being smart is viewed negatively - and if
you are clearly intelligent then you don't have to say anything, people will
call you an arrogant snob even if you just sit quietly in a corner and read
a book.
So I think that Wayne is wrong to blame the intellectuals. Most societies
are hostile to people who are conspicuously smart no matter how they behave,
although there are exceptions (the French love intellectuals!).
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 12:58 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Reason and rhetoric The Fall and Growth of Intellectual
Discipline ECOLOG as fertile ground?
"Intellectual" has gotten a bad rap over the years. I suspect that one of
the primary causes is the snooty way those who think of themselves as
intellectuals claim superiority over the more plain-spoken "folk."
