Anti-intellectualism, provincialism, and cosmopolitanism…what is “the soul of America?”

{This is a way of introducing a topic of cosmopolitanism into the public discourse. I will be exploring this in a series on cosmopolitanism, bringing into the foreground cultural issues of today (for example, a relationship between religion and cosmopolitanism, as a way of trying to understand where we have been and where we are going.}

Tower of Babel, Pieter Brueghel the Elder, 1563.

A society, for the most part, functions on the basis of naming things.  We use language to express ourselves, however imperfect and inadequate it may seem.  Art, especially painting/sculpture and music, transcends the inevitable linguistic barrier.  But when we are dealing with one another, when we are encountering one another, on most occasions, we use language to communicate.  And so, we name things.    In Genesis 2:20, “the man gave names to all the tame animals, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals.” 

Naming is important; it speaks to the uniqueness of our world and the creation.

Let me juxtapose the proper naming to empty labeling of humanity.  I don’t think that we are doing much “naming” these days: in other words, we are not open to life process, we are not actually encountering, judging, thinking, and making a decision.  Unfortunately, we fall into “political party” lines and we recite them creating populism and collectivism, which I really can’t stand.  I have an aversion when someone accepts all the precepts of a particular political system without giving it any thought, without dynamism of human mind.  And this relates to the matters of faith as well.  “A thousand questions do not equal one doubt,” said Cardinal Newman.  So, ask!  Think!  Judge!  Decide!

Falling into a particular party line, whether it’s conservative or liberal, externally, is what bothers me the most.  Let me clarify this.  If you are a “liberal,” then you must dress like a hippie, or an academic, and drive a Volvo, Subaru or VW.  If you are a “conservative,” then you have to like country music, proclaim how ‘merica’s the best country in the world, and you also have to like hunting.  If you’re a “liberal,” then you will constantly criticize your government (that is, Republican government) and will want progress at all costs, without really knowing what this progress is, you will be “open-minded” to other cultures as well, and you’re bumper sticker will say “coexist.”  If you’re a “conservative,” then you will hate those Muslims because they should all perish. They are all the same, and Islam needs to become extinct.

Pretty joyless picture of what it means to be a “liberal” and “conservative” these days, if you ask me.  All of these externals have nothing to do with who you are, in your interiority, in your soul. 

Who has decided that an affiliation to a political party is a deciding factor how you live your life day to day?  That is, who decided that if you like country music, then you are a “conservative” and that if you are interested in other cultures, or you have respect for other cultures, then you are a “liberal?”  This is so silly. 

Does anyone think?  Is anyone present to the reality of the world?  Or put another way, is anyone living in the present moment?

And dialogue?  Ha!  Dream on!  Both conservatives and liberals are too proud and too stubborn to admit that they actually might agree on some aspects in how America should be run.  If I mention the word dialogue or justice or the importance of art expression in our lives, I will be pronounced a “lefty.”  So be it, then.  Then, I am a “lefty.”  And if I speak of tradition and ethical values, then I will be pronounced an arch-conservative, the backward looking person.  So be it, then.  Then, I am an arch-conservative.

I think that we are dealing with here is not so much a difference between a liberal and conservative but with a difference between cosmopolitanism and provincialism.  The question is what is America?  Is America an anti-intellectual nation?  The real “class warfare” in America has nothing to do with economics (although it does play a part).  It is between intellectuals and the “people.” 

Intellectuals have not been exactly a welcoming bunch.  Let’s face it: they talk a lot, they spin theories, they are the elite and the hoi polloi is somewhere down there.  The masses distrust the ways of the intellect.  Just do it!  Don’t think!  Don’t ask too many questions.  The masses don’t need all that fancy talk.

I think that intellectuals have been smeared.  Or rather, those who call themselves “intellectuals,” the elite, are really ideologues and semantic theorists.  Academics certainly fall into that category.  These ideologues make discourse impossible, they confuse the reality of the world with unreal theories, and are not willing to see life from an other’s perspective.  As a result, those of us, who love learning, in other words, who have love of wisdom and praise imagination, are dismissed.  This would certainly be an instance of anti-intellectualism.

We are experiencing a strong level of division, of political polarization and both “liberals” and “conservatives” are guilty of it.  If we’re going to have a dialogue, then we have to begin to listen, first.  And certainly stop ad hominem attacks.  I don’t think we need more polarization.  I am certainly tired of it.  

Don't move beyond the norm - that is the song.  It is the song of collectivism and conformism.  These are forms of totalitarianism, and this, I find to be a far bigger problem than either forms of the Right and the Left.  The danger is in blind following and lack of critical thought.  We have to move beyond the group think, and finally begin to view the person wholistically, as opposed to a set of vacuous, vague, and mind numbing labels.