Since Richard Hofstadter’s 1963 historical examination of anti-intellectualism in American life, academics and cultural commentators have used that term in their calls of crisis and decline in American culture. While these critiques sometimes offer useful commentary on American culture, most are based on and reinforce narrow views of intellectualism that assume the term designates only a “life of the mind,” a high level of intelligence, or the study of old, abstract, or highbrow ideas. My dissertation intervenes in this critical discussion by moving the focus from listing examples of and laying blame for Americans’ anti-intellectualism to reconsidering past and present views of intellectualism. My objective is to review and revise how we think about learning and its value and to challenge problematic assumptions about intellectualism that privilege certain types of knowledge, measures of intelligence, and locations of learning. I propose a view of intellectualism that is based primarily on people’s desire to learn and think critically and that is more concerned with attitudes toward learning and engagement with ideas than with privileging the texts, ideas, and institutions associated with academic and cultural elites.
It is important to reconsider views of intellectualism because they influence the knowledge and learning environments valued and privileged in the U.S., what and how we teach in American schools, and, ultimately, many Americans’ beliefs about and interest in education. These issues are particularly relevant for scholars of rhetoric, composition, and literacy studies because they affect what literacy practices get valued and they contribute to hierarchies within the discipline of English Studies that privilege the work of literature scholars. This research also reveals the complex relationship between literacy and intellectualism in the United States.
Focusing on three case studies, my dissertation shows why activities and institutions often understood to be non-intellectual may be considered differently. Following an introductory chapter that surveys relevant literature and introduces my case studies, Chapter 2 reconsiders the nineteenth-century lyceum and challenges the assumption that “useful knowledge” cannot foster intellectualism. I argue that the lyceum cultivated an interest in learning among participants and provided the opportunity to engage the knowledge disseminated. In Chapter 3, I demonstrate how the curriculum and pedagogy of Brookwood Labor College stimulated workers to become active, analytical learners and motivated them to educate others through their activist work.
I discuss in Chapter 4 how the reading and writing assignments used in contemporary GED classes can foster students’ critical thinking and interest in education. My examination challenges the notion that basic or remedial education programs—and their participants—cannot be intellectual. In Chapter 5, I show how my interpretations of these case studies complicate accepted views of intellectualism and suggest the benefits of expanding those views. Together, these three sites of learning demonstrate there are multiple ways to foster intellectualism. They also contest social and institutional hierarchies, challenge the literacy myth, and shed new light on scholarship and teaching in the fields of rhetoric, composition, and literacy studies. I conclude the chapter with personal reflections on the teaching of intellectualism.