The
world stands at a worrying historical juncture.
In Britain we recently saw popular rejection of pan Europeanism despite
spirited attempts by its intelligentsia to persuade a decidedly cynical public
about the perils of this course of action.
The
European integration project that has underwritten among the more peaceful
epochs of a historically warlike continent, now confronts some of its
sternest tests. It must contend with smouldering populist undercurrents that could
only have been emboldened by Brexit.
Across
the pond we watch with bated breath as Americans dally with the possibility of
electing as president, a man with the temerity to not only publically disrespect
women and entire people groups, but one who has expressed unmistakable
admiration for Vladimir Putin, a fellow who has never been accused of
possessing effusive affections for democratic values.
Who
would have thought that we would find within a whisker of the American
presidency a person whose commitment to NATO, an organisation that has stood as
an unwavering bastion of post-Second World War global stability, is flimsy at
best?
We
are justified to be a little troubled by the disquieting implications for the
global world order as it confronts the grim prospect of a dark and
unpredictable era not entirely unlike the infamous nineteen thirties.
The
thread running through much of what I have described is a disconcerting
preference for emotional ventilation regardless of its standing in relation to sound
judgement. The zeitgeist was aptly captured by erstwhile British minister of
Justice Michael Gove, whose simplistic but effective rebuttal of his Brexit opponents,
captured the sentiments of millions of his compatriots – we are tired of the
experts!
As
a South African I observe these developments with a curious if not a wary sense
of déjà vu. The script seems eerily
familiar as I have a distinct memory that hearkens back barely a decade ago, of
watching with helpless terror as a wave of anti-intellectualism threatened and
succeeded to sweep away some of the hard-earned gains of the post-apartheid era
in my country.
Disappointment
with the Mbeki administration, led by a man with an well-earned reputation for
intellectualism as well as many real and perceived flaws, came to convince a
large section of the South African population that it was the intellectualism he
represented that was the problem.
A
disturbing consensus gradually coalesced that nothing but his polar antithesis
would do. Zuma came to be the obliging incarnation, complete with a colourful
personally and a singing voice go with. And thus began a grim epoch in our
country’s history with its ubiquitous, well-documented, tragic and at times
embarrassing travails. It is fair to say that the country has already paid an
incalculable price for its flirtation with anti-intellectualism.
The
difficulty with the surge of popular anti-intellectualism is its intrinsic
imperviousness to reason, precisely as it casts as its archenemy, reason
itself. In the ensuing inverted script, unreason is crowned as the new reason. Fools
become the new sages. The discerning are rendered completely impotent as idiocy
becomes the only respected currency of engagement even in the loftiest of
corridors of political power.
As
with Mbeki, intellectuals are usually not entirely innocent in creating the
dismal state of affairs that accounts for their eventual demise. They are
ultimately hoist by their own petard.
Intellectualism
has the tendency to breed elitism and paternalism instead of serving as a
weapon to advance the general good. At worst, as we saw in the recent financial
crisis, it can also be used to advance the crudest form of self-interest that
carries scant concern for the consequent cost to the general public.
Intellectuals
are those with the penchant for disciplined and rational thought. Thought attested
to by the scientific method or well tested wisdom, along with the necessary
demonstrable benefits. Their ranks are swelled
necessarily by those who by virtue of the value of their contribution to
society, become prominent, successful or even wealthy.
All
of this is very desirable. Indeed, it is a perverse and self-sabotaging society
that discourages the legitimate success of its citizens. It can only be
impoverished by their inevitable flight to places where their talent is embraced
and celebrated.
The
successful nevertheless ultimately undermine their own long-term interests, as
we are seeing in the prevailing climate in the West, when they do not consciously
employ their intellectualism toward the advancement of the greater good. There
are after all only so many places they can wander to.
This
unfortunate state of affairs is crudely captured by the yawning economic
inequalities in parts of the West and the accompanying popular resentment. Western
intellectuals are guilty of creating a socio-economic environment that is
increasingly hostile to the socio-economic upward mobility of the rest.
The
resulting resentment can spawn a wholesale rejection of the establishment along
with the values it represents, to the ultimate ruin of everyone. Such as the
very idea of intellectualism.
The
rise of Trump occurs upon the crest of this rising tide of
anti-intellectualism. In times past it swept into the mainstream the French
revolution and the ghoulish Reign of Terror. On a different occasion it swept
into oblivion the Russian Romanov dynasty bringing with it Marxist Leninism replete
with its show trials and gulags.
It
is yet unclear what the current iteration of anti-intellectualism brings for
the West but the prognosis is hardly glowing.
