On the Nature of Intellectualism

On the Nature of Intellectualism
        Gerald Graff’s essay, “Hidden Intellectualism,” explores the relationship between supposedly anti-academic interests and rhetorical argument and concludes that these so-called street smarts can be translated into intellectual discourse. Graff argues that “‘saturation of life by argument’ can occur in practices often dismissed as nonacademic” and that it is the role of the teacher to “tease out and help to articulate” the hidden intellectual inside the average student. Proceeding to evaluate his own experiences with latent intellectualism, the author examines the relationship between arguments about sports or the complexity of toughness and those over literature or philosophy. For Graff, being perceived as dorky in the anti-intellectual age was to risk being ostracized by his peers. One might point out, though, that this is not always the case. Many students, in the current era at least if not in the anti-intellectual age, have a great interest in the joys of reading, in analyzing, and in presenting truly intellectual arguments to discuss with others. To hold these students back by having them instead discuss their favorite baseball player or the latest fashion trend would be both an unfortunate waste of their potential and a disservice to their future academic careers. It is not likely that these students’ future professors will be asking for a ten page paper on which reality television program they most enjoy. Simply, students should be taught meaningful subjects in intriguing ways in order to truly promote intellectualism, not dilute it.

        On this basis I would not so much consider myself to be a hidden intellectual. I’ve always loved books and reading, and being taught how to delve further into the intricate stories and complex arguments that came alive from mere pristine white pages and black ink fascinated me. I take issue with Graff’s plea to replace some of the valuable and intriguing discussions I shared with my classmates over the plight of Oedipus and Tess D’Urberville and the rhetoric of Martin Luther King Jr. and George Orwell with those over fall sports and spring fashion trends. I can understand that this may not be true of everyone, but as Wendell Berry points out in his essay, “In Defense of Literacy,” it is not enough to learn the bare minimum, students must be actively engaged in literature and the language wherein they are not trained to be mere consumers and “practical men.”

        Graff’s description of the common student is indeed quite different from my own experiences. I am aware that some students simply drag themselves from bed to attend school because it I required of them by law and make only the smallest effort at engaging themselves in the learning process, but Graff’s general sweeping description of the archetypical student is outside the realm of what I imagined and certainly not in line with what I have seen. Graff asserts that those who do not take interest in intellectualism will fill the void with “drug-trafficking, gang-banging, and other criminal behavior,” and he talks of the violent tendencies of students to lash out when not given an outlet. Besides being generally offensive to those who simply have no taste for schooling and intellectualism, this statement is also unfounded. I have known those who channel their nonacademic “street smarts” into other fields such as technical school or perfectly respectable, non-gang-related jobs. Although, as Berry mentions, it would be best to instill these students with a sense of language and literature beyond the mediocre requirements of the day, to demonize this section of students entirely is unjustified.

        To teach students some of the topics from Graff’s list of accepted nonacademic pursuits such as sports and dating is to teach the language of the consumer, not the language of the intellectual rhetorician. Berry’s essay attacks the idea of “premeditated language” that is prevalent in youth culture. Having students argue in this language only serves to propagate it, not elevate it. Although there is nothing wrong with enjoying the most trivial pursuits in life, they are to be indulged separate from the educational system. When the two are merged it becomes too easy to confuse the “prepared language” of pop culture with the pure language of the classroom and intellectualism. The point of schooling is to further education and expose students to the highest levels of achievement. It is not to dilute these high standards.

        In response to Berry’s argument, Graff might note that getting students to engage with the topics that interest them will set them on the path to an intellectual life, but this in in no ways a certainty. It may be true that Graff’s love of argument transferred from sports to fine literature, but perhaps this is because he has always held a love of intellectual discussion within himself that only manifested itself later in life. Teaching students mediocrity does not promote future success, if anything, it promotes future mediocrity. One of Graff’s underlying premises is a valid one. Students possess different types of intelligences. One could have an encyclopedic memory of each and every Star Trek episode but be disinterested in literature. Another could have read most the books in the school library but be disinterested in scientific discussions. Where I differ with Graff’s argument is where he insists that the school system attempts to cater to the vast array of teenage interests in order to finally force some vague, diluted notion of intellectualism into every last unwilling, apprehensive student. Perhaps this is too much of a sweeping dismissal of Graff’s proposal, but schools are, at least to me, for the purposes of higher learning and advancement. Being nonreligious, they represent the most sacred institution I have ever willingly participated in. Filling them with nonintellectual ideas and discussions seems like sacrilege.

        In all, the educational system should continue to guide students toward a pure form of intellectualism and provide topics for discussion that represent these high standards. Although Graff’s argument may not represent the best interests of students, he does respond to what is a very valid problem. What is to be done with the students who are unwilling to learn? In my experiences I have seen how the success or failure of an entire class hinges on the methods of the teacher. Perhaps if schools truly want to engage and advance their students along the road of intellectualism, they should focus not on changing the meaning intellectualism but on providing students with teachers who are passionate and supportive of furthering the best interests of the student and the educational intellectual community.