Post by Amalcas on May 27, 2007 18:55:45 GMT -5
Well, here's the essay I mentioned in another thread. I wrote it recently for my english class (it was supposed to be a research paper tying in somehow to Black Boy by Richard Wright). I haven't gotten my grade back yet, so no guarantees. 
It's moderately lengthy (~3 pages), so settle in:
The Perpetuity of Anti-Intellectualism in Black Culture
Foremost among the internal problems facing the United States is the troubling achievement gap across racial lines, with African-Americans performing considerably below the average of their Caucasian counterparts. This is easily attributable to a particular, prevalent brand of anti-intellectualism, one of the sadder aspects of the Black culture. The phrase “Black culture” is used herein to denote the culture espoused specifically, if not exclusively, by the descendants of slaves and African-Americans who lived in the Jim Crow era in order to differentiate it from the wider concept of an African-American culture, which would also include African-Americans whose American lineage does not extend into said era. In order to treat this condition, one must develop an understanding of the origin of the disease and the mechanism by which it progresses from generation to generation, individual to individual; the treatment, then, would consist of a disruption of this mechanism. The simple solution to this question is to conclude that, as the behavior can be traced back to racism, its continuation is due to a continuation of racism in some hidden form. However, while the root of anti-intellectualism in Black culture is based in the racially oppressive conditions of the Jim Crow era, its continuation is not principally due to external racial sentiment, conscious or unconscious, but to an internal cultural mechanism.
First, if not foremost, is how anti-intellectualism was ingrained into the Black culture during its formation. Important to this is, as McWhorter observes, is that the Black culture is almost completely distinct from the specific African cultures, inheriting only vague impressions as Africans were scattered irrelevant of culture when sold as slaves (138), and thus it is, in fact, a new culture, entirely American in origin. The problem inherent in this formation of a new culture was the selective oppression of certain cultural elements at the time by Whites, said term being used similarly to “Black.” In other words, as slaves and African-Americans at the time were discouraged from reaching for and often simply not allowed access to education, intellectual behavior was not given importance in the newly forming culture. Furthermore, it distances Blacks from scholarly pursuits via a lack of precedent; Black scholars were suppressed during the early years of the culture, and thus scholarly behavior is viewed as somehow separate or outside the realm of being Black (McWhorter 138). This oppressive environment, however, more than simply distanced or neutralized the concept of intellectualism; as intellect in Blacks was actively discouraged and incited punishment by Whites, family and community members would discourage intellectualism themselves, both as a twisted form of mercy and to protect their own interests. A last, but ironically significant, contributor was the manner of desegregation itself. When desegregation was implemented, the non-White schools were categorically the schools decommissioned; admittedly, the majority of these were inferior to the White schools, but even excellent schools were shut down. This was largely misunderstood in many Black communities as an attempt to destroy their communities’ structures (Garrow 91). While the measure is more appreciated now, the misunderstandings resulted in a further distancing from academia, rooted in the confusion over why students were being forced to go to “White” schools, and an association of the newly restructured school system with the oppression of Blacks.
Before evaluating the modern mechanisms of anti-intellectualism, however, its characteristics must be considered. McWhorter characterizes Black anti-intellectualism as being a product of, and definable by, two definite qualities: a tendency toward “inferential reasoning” and an “aversion to precision” (139). Inferential reasoning is defined as the tendency to seek to reinforce or use existing concepts or axioms rather than question them or utilize novel ways of thinking. This results in anti-intellectual behavior largely and simply because it is antithetical to intellectual curiosity, the willingness and in fact eagerness to learn new ways of thinking, and the process of learning in general. Additionally, it causes individuals to seek to reaffirm or justify anti-intellectualism over attempting a solution or confronting the problem, and directly reinforces the axioms of anti-intellectualism. The avoidance of precision, or a perception of the generalities of a problem without the specifics of either question or answer, is simply in conflict with the “post-Enlightenment ways of thinking that education is founded upon and is dedicated to fostering” (McWhorter 139). Lastly, a mentality of perceiving school as more of a job than an opportunity hinders intellectual growth (143). Students with this attitude, born of the separation felt from the academic process, are likely to expend minimal effort in school, viewing it as an obligation rather than a chance to expand and express themselves.
With an understanding of its characteristics, the pressures and processes which underpin and perpetuate anti-intellectualism can now be explored. First, the institution widely accepted to have the most bearing and influence on the individual must be examined: the family. The uneasiness and downright rejection of new ways of thinking, as present in Black culture, can be ascribed to a type of family organization common in Black communities. This structure is based on a strict enforcement of rules and a firm expectation that they be fully met, even at an early age; McWhorter describes these as “no backtalk” families (142). While obedient children are certainly wished for by many parents, the particular method used to obtain obedience results in a tragic flaw: although the children will perform the rote aspects of a task satisfactorily and to completion, they are averted from questioning or attempting to understand the underlying reasons behind the task; this naturally proceeds into a more general aversion to novel thinking. Adding to the baseline problem set by this brand of parenting are the various influences transmitted primarily through peers, particularly during the impressionable period of youth. Foremost among these is the concept, a product of the separation from academia, that intellectual pursuit is in some way “acting White.” This is meant as a derogatory declaration, suggesting that the individual in question is not truly “Black” or somehow believes he is superior to the Black culture, the estrangement inherent in both of which causes many to hesitate before pursuing scholarly goals. These influences are in no way limited to youth; while the influence of one’s peers is certainly highest in that period, no person is immune to the pressure of his peers at any point of his life, and the expectation that these pressures will suddenly and mysterious change in nature upon reaching adulthood is sure to be disappointed.
The root and nature of anti-intellectualism and other negative aspects of Black culture are a topic of considerable controversy; thus, the role of Black culture as the primary instigator thereof has come under considerable scrutiny. In particular, it has, as mentioned, been argued that these aspects are largely the fault of a so-called “dysconscious racism” inherent in the focus on “colorblind” laws and policy in all aspects of life, notably education (Williams and Land 580). In other words, the active attempts by teachers and officials to not favor by race in any fashion forces the recognition of race, but prevents even logical and reasonable consideration thereof; culture, which impacts an individual’s educational needs significantly, is undeniably correlated with race, and thus race is a necessary factor to be dealt with in education. This condition, Williams and Land argue, results inevitably in an unintentional racism, even if only in that it directly results in students’ needs being met irregularly. Similarly, standardized testing and tracking, the separation of students by apparent level of academic capability, are said to impact races unevenly due to the standard of education being based on a single culture, the White culture, instead of all the cultures prevalent in the United States (580); this is supported by such evidence as how desegregation was actually a migration of Black students to previously White schools, instead of a true attempt at integration. While these arguments hold merit, and present problems which must also be addressed, the question is in whether they present the major obstacle to intellectual behavior. If the standards were accordingly adjusted and race as a concept for discussion and careful consideration reintroduced into the classroom, the effect would certainly be positive, but such an effort contradicts the pattern of inferential reasoning found in anti-intellectualism; an individual already tainted by anti-intellectualism would be, by fault thereof, incapable of dealing with and understanding the concepts necessary to reverse his condition. Thus, the only weakness of this disease is in the transmission, in the interactions between individuals, in the culture. Tracking also further disadvantages those who already suffer a disadvantage, but it cannot be marked as a cause; Black students have been found to begin to fall behind notably years before tracking usually begins (McWhorter 123). Additionally, the implementation of policies affecting by race has been argued to be interfering with a natural process of cultural healing, in essence, attempting to rush a slow process (Schrag 23). Kennedy argues similarly that the “problem” is in fact a lack of perspective; what is spectacular is how much the Black culture has progressed and grown in such a short period of time (8). Such a perspective is certainly largely correct, and a focus on the achievements of the Black culture would in fact be part of the solution; however, this does not mean that, simply because the problem cannot be solved immediately, or even within a lifetime, it should be ignored or thought to be self-resolving; the race gap is widening, not closing, which dictates that some form of interference is necessary.
The disease of anti-intellectualism which plagues the Black culture can then be understood to be the product of a complex situation and, while not exclusively, supported by the Black culture itself. This argument is, however, not an attempt to blame the Black culture for its own condition; history clearly puts the blame of corrupting the Black culture with anti-intellectualism at the feet of the White culture. Nevertheless, it is clear that the same conditions are no longer present in American society, and those who can be faulted are, for the most part, now dead. This presents the United States and its myriad cultures with a unique opportunity, the opportunity to change its focus from assigning blame to cooperating in solutions. The anti-intellectualism in Black culture must be regarded as a social condition, and thus must be solved by targeting not the manifestation of the condition itself, but the passage of the trait from generation to generation and individual to individual.
Works Cited
Garrow, David J. “Separate and Unequal.” The Wilson Quarterly Spring 2007: 90-3. ProQuest Platinum. ProQuest. 15 May 2007 <http://proquest.umi.com/login>.
Kennedy, Randall. “Losing The Race Self-Sabotage in Black America By John H. McWhorter; The Free Press: 284 pp., $24; One Step Forward, Two Steps Back.” Los Angeles Times 3 Sept. 2000, home ed.: 8. ProQuest Platinum. ProQuest. 15 May 2007 <http://proquest.umi.com/login>.
McWhorter, John H. “The Roots of the Cult of Anti-Intellectualism.” Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America. New York: The Free Press, 2000. 137-63.
Schrag, Peter. “How the Other Half Learns.” Nation 277.15 (2003): 23. ProQuest Platinum. ProQuest. 15 May 2007 <http://proquest.umi.com/login>.
Williams, Dawn G, and Roderic R Land. “The Legitimation of Black Subordination: The Impact of Color-Blind Ideology on African American Education.” Journal of Negro Education 75.4: 579-89. ProQuest Platinum. ProQuest. 15 May 2007 <http://proquest.umi.com/login>.
Feel free to comment, not that I need to say.
It's moderately lengthy (~3 pages), so settle in:The Perpetuity of Anti-Intellectualism in Black Culture
Foremost among the internal problems facing the United States is the troubling achievement gap across racial lines, with African-Americans performing considerably below the average of their Caucasian counterparts. This is easily attributable to a particular, prevalent brand of anti-intellectualism, one of the sadder aspects of the Black culture. The phrase “Black culture” is used herein to denote the culture espoused specifically, if not exclusively, by the descendants of slaves and African-Americans who lived in the Jim Crow era in order to differentiate it from the wider concept of an African-American culture, which would also include African-Americans whose American lineage does not extend into said era. In order to treat this condition, one must develop an understanding of the origin of the disease and the mechanism by which it progresses from generation to generation, individual to individual; the treatment, then, would consist of a disruption of this mechanism. The simple solution to this question is to conclude that, as the behavior can be traced back to racism, its continuation is due to a continuation of racism in some hidden form. However, while the root of anti-intellectualism in Black culture is based in the racially oppressive conditions of the Jim Crow era, its continuation is not principally due to external racial sentiment, conscious or unconscious, but to an internal cultural mechanism.
First, if not foremost, is how anti-intellectualism was ingrained into the Black culture during its formation. Important to this is, as McWhorter observes, is that the Black culture is almost completely distinct from the specific African cultures, inheriting only vague impressions as Africans were scattered irrelevant of culture when sold as slaves (138), and thus it is, in fact, a new culture, entirely American in origin. The problem inherent in this formation of a new culture was the selective oppression of certain cultural elements at the time by Whites, said term being used similarly to “Black.” In other words, as slaves and African-Americans at the time were discouraged from reaching for and often simply not allowed access to education, intellectual behavior was not given importance in the newly forming culture. Furthermore, it distances Blacks from scholarly pursuits via a lack of precedent; Black scholars were suppressed during the early years of the culture, and thus scholarly behavior is viewed as somehow separate or outside the realm of being Black (McWhorter 138). This oppressive environment, however, more than simply distanced or neutralized the concept of intellectualism; as intellect in Blacks was actively discouraged and incited punishment by Whites, family and community members would discourage intellectualism themselves, both as a twisted form of mercy and to protect their own interests. A last, but ironically significant, contributor was the manner of desegregation itself. When desegregation was implemented, the non-White schools were categorically the schools decommissioned; admittedly, the majority of these were inferior to the White schools, but even excellent schools were shut down. This was largely misunderstood in many Black communities as an attempt to destroy their communities’ structures (Garrow 91). While the measure is more appreciated now, the misunderstandings resulted in a further distancing from academia, rooted in the confusion over why students were being forced to go to “White” schools, and an association of the newly restructured school system with the oppression of Blacks.
Before evaluating the modern mechanisms of anti-intellectualism, however, its characteristics must be considered. McWhorter characterizes Black anti-intellectualism as being a product of, and definable by, two definite qualities: a tendency toward “inferential reasoning” and an “aversion to precision” (139). Inferential reasoning is defined as the tendency to seek to reinforce or use existing concepts or axioms rather than question them or utilize novel ways of thinking. This results in anti-intellectual behavior largely and simply because it is antithetical to intellectual curiosity, the willingness and in fact eagerness to learn new ways of thinking, and the process of learning in general. Additionally, it causes individuals to seek to reaffirm or justify anti-intellectualism over attempting a solution or confronting the problem, and directly reinforces the axioms of anti-intellectualism. The avoidance of precision, or a perception of the generalities of a problem without the specifics of either question or answer, is simply in conflict with the “post-Enlightenment ways of thinking that education is founded upon and is dedicated to fostering” (McWhorter 139). Lastly, a mentality of perceiving school as more of a job than an opportunity hinders intellectual growth (143). Students with this attitude, born of the separation felt from the academic process, are likely to expend minimal effort in school, viewing it as an obligation rather than a chance to expand and express themselves.
With an understanding of its characteristics, the pressures and processes which underpin and perpetuate anti-intellectualism can now be explored. First, the institution widely accepted to have the most bearing and influence on the individual must be examined: the family. The uneasiness and downright rejection of new ways of thinking, as present in Black culture, can be ascribed to a type of family organization common in Black communities. This structure is based on a strict enforcement of rules and a firm expectation that they be fully met, even at an early age; McWhorter describes these as “no backtalk” families (142). While obedient children are certainly wished for by many parents, the particular method used to obtain obedience results in a tragic flaw: although the children will perform the rote aspects of a task satisfactorily and to completion, they are averted from questioning or attempting to understand the underlying reasons behind the task; this naturally proceeds into a more general aversion to novel thinking. Adding to the baseline problem set by this brand of parenting are the various influences transmitted primarily through peers, particularly during the impressionable period of youth. Foremost among these is the concept, a product of the separation from academia, that intellectual pursuit is in some way “acting White.” This is meant as a derogatory declaration, suggesting that the individual in question is not truly “Black” or somehow believes he is superior to the Black culture, the estrangement inherent in both of which causes many to hesitate before pursuing scholarly goals. These influences are in no way limited to youth; while the influence of one’s peers is certainly highest in that period, no person is immune to the pressure of his peers at any point of his life, and the expectation that these pressures will suddenly and mysterious change in nature upon reaching adulthood is sure to be disappointed.
The root and nature of anti-intellectualism and other negative aspects of Black culture are a topic of considerable controversy; thus, the role of Black culture as the primary instigator thereof has come under considerable scrutiny. In particular, it has, as mentioned, been argued that these aspects are largely the fault of a so-called “dysconscious racism” inherent in the focus on “colorblind” laws and policy in all aspects of life, notably education (Williams and Land 580). In other words, the active attempts by teachers and officials to not favor by race in any fashion forces the recognition of race, but prevents even logical and reasonable consideration thereof; culture, which impacts an individual’s educational needs significantly, is undeniably correlated with race, and thus race is a necessary factor to be dealt with in education. This condition, Williams and Land argue, results inevitably in an unintentional racism, even if only in that it directly results in students’ needs being met irregularly. Similarly, standardized testing and tracking, the separation of students by apparent level of academic capability, are said to impact races unevenly due to the standard of education being based on a single culture, the White culture, instead of all the cultures prevalent in the United States (580); this is supported by such evidence as how desegregation was actually a migration of Black students to previously White schools, instead of a true attempt at integration. While these arguments hold merit, and present problems which must also be addressed, the question is in whether they present the major obstacle to intellectual behavior. If the standards were accordingly adjusted and race as a concept for discussion and careful consideration reintroduced into the classroom, the effect would certainly be positive, but such an effort contradicts the pattern of inferential reasoning found in anti-intellectualism; an individual already tainted by anti-intellectualism would be, by fault thereof, incapable of dealing with and understanding the concepts necessary to reverse his condition. Thus, the only weakness of this disease is in the transmission, in the interactions between individuals, in the culture. Tracking also further disadvantages those who already suffer a disadvantage, but it cannot be marked as a cause; Black students have been found to begin to fall behind notably years before tracking usually begins (McWhorter 123). Additionally, the implementation of policies affecting by race has been argued to be interfering with a natural process of cultural healing, in essence, attempting to rush a slow process (Schrag 23). Kennedy argues similarly that the “problem” is in fact a lack of perspective; what is spectacular is how much the Black culture has progressed and grown in such a short period of time (8). Such a perspective is certainly largely correct, and a focus on the achievements of the Black culture would in fact be part of the solution; however, this does not mean that, simply because the problem cannot be solved immediately, or even within a lifetime, it should be ignored or thought to be self-resolving; the race gap is widening, not closing, which dictates that some form of interference is necessary.
The disease of anti-intellectualism which plagues the Black culture can then be understood to be the product of a complex situation and, while not exclusively, supported by the Black culture itself. This argument is, however, not an attempt to blame the Black culture for its own condition; history clearly puts the blame of corrupting the Black culture with anti-intellectualism at the feet of the White culture. Nevertheless, it is clear that the same conditions are no longer present in American society, and those who can be faulted are, for the most part, now dead. This presents the United States and its myriad cultures with a unique opportunity, the opportunity to change its focus from assigning blame to cooperating in solutions. The anti-intellectualism in Black culture must be regarded as a social condition, and thus must be solved by targeting not the manifestation of the condition itself, but the passage of the trait from generation to generation and individual to individual.
Works Cited
Garrow, David J. “Separate and Unequal.” The Wilson Quarterly Spring 2007: 90-3. ProQuest Platinum. ProQuest. 15 May 2007 <http://proquest.umi.com/login>.
Kennedy, Randall. “Losing The Race Self-Sabotage in Black America By John H. McWhorter; The Free Press: 284 pp., $24; One Step Forward, Two Steps Back.” Los Angeles Times 3 Sept. 2000, home ed.: 8. ProQuest Platinum. ProQuest. 15 May 2007 <http://proquest.umi.com/login>.
McWhorter, John H. “The Roots of the Cult of Anti-Intellectualism.” Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America. New York: The Free Press, 2000. 137-63.
Schrag, Peter. “How the Other Half Learns.” Nation 277.15 (2003): 23. ProQuest Platinum. ProQuest. 15 May 2007 <http://proquest.umi.com/login>.
Williams, Dawn G, and Roderic R Land. “The Legitimation of Black Subordination: The Impact of Color-Blind Ideology on African American Education.” Journal of Negro Education 75.4: 579-89. ProQuest Platinum. ProQuest. 15 May 2007 <http://proquest.umi.com/login>.
Feel free to comment, not that I need to say.
