Saturday, February 16, 2008

Is Knowledge Midwife To Ignorance?


How Can It Be?

In Patricia Cohen's interesting New York Times article, "Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?", writer Susan Jacoby ponders America's apparent penchant for anti-intellectualism or, perhaps more accurately, its antipathy toward knowledge. When dealing with such a topic as this, where hard-as-nails knowledge is concerned, we can expect to find some mention of Christian fundamentalism, and our expectations are indeed met. But how Christian fundamentalists have succeeded in convincing "nearly two-thirds" of the country to give equal weight to creationism is not something we can expect to explore in this sort of discussion. That omission is, sadly, something most of us could have also predicted.

Besides Ms. Jacoby's probably accurate but overstated charge against fundamentalism, she avers that the "failing educational system" is to blame (one wonders if Ms. Jacoby connects that deterioration with the largely liberal, largely Democratic teachers' unions), as are various progressive political goals in the restructuring of university academic policies in the post-civil rights era.

Though I admit that Ms. Jacoby may enlarge upon her thesis in her book, The Age of American Unreason, one suspects she ignores the utilitarian ethos that permeates the American dream. Utilitarianism is, in part, the personal pursuit of happiness as defined by each American; knowledge is useful insofar as it advances any person's particular pursuit. That "American Idol" finalist and successful country music singer Kellie Pickler deserves to be chided (by Ms. Cohen) for not knowing of the existence of Hungary, may indeed signify something, but surely it is not a sign that Ms. Pickler has been debilitated by her ignorance of European geography. Ms. Pickler's seemingly doing quite fine, and while she is not prone to writing books, she is no doubt au courant in those knowledge schemes that give her expertise in her field. To the frustration of many an intellectual, pragmatism often trumps idealism.

What seems to be lacking in Ms. Cohen's article is any query as to why knowledge -- however it is defined -- should matter. How DOES knowing of the existence of Hungary help anyone who will never travel to that fair land? What purpose does knowledge serve? Surely Ms. Pickler is an expert in her field; she might even be a country music genius. Does she really need to score well in a Trivial Pursuit match against her financially less-successful peers? What is the purpose of learning? Do we learn for knowledge's own sake -- or for our own edification -- or is learning tied to praxis, to what we will DO with our lives?

I bet Ms. Cohen and Ms. Jacoby both have some compelling reasons why knowledge matters, but we are not permitted access to those reasons here. Perhaps they believe knowledge prevents one from being deceived; perhaps knowledge is a great defensive weapon against the zeitgeist. Perhaps.

What is also lacking in this discussion is any apparent exploration of the elevation of expertise -- call it the apotheosis of expert witnesses, if you will -- that pervades intellectual life in America. One repercussion of this pervasive habit is the signal it sends: I don't need to know "it" -- some bit of knowledge -- because someone else does. Nary a day goes by, I am sure, when debates on a loading dock, or around a coffee kiosk, or on a sports bus, do not include some assertion made by an eager interlocutor who substantiates a bold claim by referring to "they say" or "everybody knows" or "I read somewhere," or some similar appeal to an external locus of control. Implicit in these statements is not just the self-interest in appearing right; what is also implied is that some other thing is all-knowing, authoritative, binding ... and right. Sadly, this other thing takes many a modern form: a panel or commission, an encyclopedia or news agency, a think-tank or the Internet, or a poll or survey or "peer-reviewed study." Why is this sad, you may ask? Because it reveals the deep disconnect modernity and prosperity have created: there is a divide between memory and knowledge stored. Once memory and knowledge were practically synonymous. But now, knowledge can be stored elsewhere, like in the brain of an expert, the opinions of a panel, or the servers of a search engine. One need not apply oneself as vigorously as in years past, since so much can be recalled with a few typed words.

One could say, then, that America's ignorance, if it is indeed so ignorant, is not the result of ignorance; America's ignorance is the result of its knowledge. After all, it is knowledge that has given us the edge over nature; it is the learned person who has given us all sorts of ways to live without needing to know how we do what we do. How many people understand the keyboard beneath their fingers, the screen before their eyes? Why memorize poetry when poetry can be this morning's digital wallpaper? All such things are given us by knowledge; it is the advances of the age that have allowed us to live unfettered by the annoying need to know. Finally, ignorance is bliss -- given to us by what we know. (It's all a twist on T.S. Eliot's line from "Choruses from 'The Rock'":
All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance...)

Lastly, we forget that the appeal to expertise -- which is what journalists and pundits and researchers and politicians do all the time -- is also the fallacy of appealing to authority. Surely not a few Americans are cynical and hip enough to know this fallacy intimately; surely too, the American pedagogical ideal of "questioning authority," an ideal that might even be foundational to postmodern liberalism, has unwittingly led to the broader disinterest in knowledge (and left children confused as schools parade authorities through every corridor). In other words, those allegedly declining schools to which Ms. Jacoby refers have given Americans -- especially young ones -- permission to be their own authorities ... on everything. (See Raphael Demos' quote here.) How we who are products of American pedagogy choose to exercise that authority is by definition personal and private, for it is all about our utilitarian pursuit of happiness.

Who's to say dumb is not happy?

Peace.

BG


©Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

" How DOES knowing of the existence of Hungary help anyone who will never travel to that fair land? What purpose does knowledge serve?"

Hmmm...let's extend that a touch, shall we?

I knew where Iraq was/is, and I knew that the world's experts were not only confident, but insistent in their knowledge that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, therefor I knew that the apes in the White House were lying to me/us for their own purposes.

Unfortunately, the mass majority of the American public not only did not know these facts, but were/are too stupid/lazy to care and seem yet blissed out in their ignorance, while I am pointing out the obvious to an an overly literate critic who assumes mordant wit for logic will suffice.

Sorry – forgot “long-winded”.

T.C. said...

Because you "knew" where Iraq "was" means you knew it had no WMD?

I've seen specious statements in my day but this...

Knowledge CAN deceive I suppose. Some people "know" things and still manage to miss the point.

Excellent piece, Bill.

I'm just curious: how did you navigate using utilitarianism without inserting Jeremy Bentham?

Anonymous said...

the commentator -

"Because you "knew" where Iraq "was" means you knew it had no WMD?"

not what i said. In fact, your deliberate misreading could be construed as placing you in the group of folks Susan Jacoby was writing about.

"Knowledge CAN deceive I suppose. Some people "know" things and still manage to miss the point."

Clever...but it bit you: if Gnade's entire piece was in support of the notion that ignorance (based on knowledge) is bliss (or at least defensible), my simple response was 'nuh uh', to include a clear-cut example. that i chose not to done on and on and on about the step-by-step causality involved does not refute the larger point that lack of knowledge is more often harmful than beneficial and, moreover, when applied broadly across a society in general is usually a precursor to many, many bad things.

Bill Gnade said...

Dear Doc:

You wrote:

...if Gnade's entire piece was in support of the notion that ignorance (based on knowledge) is bliss (or at least defensible), my simple response was 'nuh uh'...

I am glad that you made this a conditional, for without that "if" tucked into this set of propositions, I should say you've misunderstood my entire piece. As it is, it seems you probably have.

I have quite clearly stated my position: neither Ms. Cohen nor Ms. Jacoby give us any idea why knowledge is important, or why certain kinds of knowing are important, or why we should care if knowledge is important. Moreover, I make a case that it is precisely our learning that has contributed to our ignorance. My sense -- and I admit again that I have not read Ms. Jacoby's book -- is that the importance of (certain types of) knowledge is merely presumed in Jacoby's book (it surely is by Ms. Cohen), and this presumption dismisses other types of knowing.

To be properly philosophical about it, neither Ms. Cohen nor Ms. Jacoby define their terms for us; the bulk of this oversight of course falls on Ms. Cohen and the NYT. As a result, there is something smug about it all, something even provincial and perhaps even privileged. I have no doubt that ignorance is NOT bliss, assuming that what is unknown matters, that not knowing something has a deleterious effect on one's life and one's culture. But what IS knowledge, and what is valuable knowledge: what matters? Plus, if a nation is like a body (like St. Paul describes the Christian Church), then not all parts of the body do the same thing, nor should they know the same things. Intellectual homogeneity would result in death, death by a sort of intellectual entropy. Kellie Pickler knows what she needs to know (presumably), as does the mechanic working on Ms. Cohen's car. Should the mechanic need to know all sorts of other things, the sorts of things that suggest refinement, learnedness and culture, perhaps Ms. Cohen would no longer have a mechanic.

For all we know, Ms. Pickler was an A-student throughout her school career; she may have gotten an A+ in her European geography class. That she fails to know that there is a Hungary is maybe disconcerting, but we DO NOT KNOW WHY she doesn't know it; perhaps she did and has forgotten it under the pressure of a game designed to mock and scoff. If I go over to test my 90 year old neighbor, a former scholar, should I consider him ignorant if he does poorly on world geography? What students KNOW and what they remember -- and NEED to know -- are very different things.

Knowing is far different than analysis; it is not the same as the ability to criticize, descry or scrutinize. You seem to be a reasonably discerning person. However, I very much doubt you KNEW what you are claiming to know here about Iraq. Your trust in the "world's experts" is not knowledge; one could argue that it is capitulation (and fallacious). You TRUSTED someone else; you did not KNOW. And how did you come to trust these experts? Why trust them at all? Is trusting the same as knowing? And what of those who trusted the experts in the CIA, the UN, the British intelligence reports, the President and his cabinet, who reached a different conclusion about Iraq?

Anyhow, perhaps you could clarify for us what you mean by knowledge; perhaps you can help us discern why knowledge is important and what sort of knowledge is the most valuable. (I am quite certain I know more about downhill ski technique than almost any 100 people. Are they ignorant?)

Peace,

BG

Anonymous said...

BG -

Hmmm, okay: let me feed and hose down the girls, tuck 'em into bed and I'll be back...

T.C. said...

Chomp, chomp! Thanks for the explanation. I could have been more tactful myself.

I see your point and once upon a time thought that knowledge was a means to an end. Just acquire it and well...things will be swell.

But it's not like this for people. Put it to you another way. Have you ever met a person who engaged you intellectually and with wisdom without actually knowing, I don't know let's say, doesn't know who the PM of Canada is. Or doesn't know much about inflation and how it affects interest rates? And so on.

I know I have. In fact, some of the brightest people I ever met were somewhat aloof to these things. Which is an odd thing to say but it's true.

Let me continue.

You can understand hockey and still not know who the players on the Montreal Canadiens are. You can play music without knowing how to read the notes.

Before I ramble maybe it would be best to define knowledge and ignorance in this context here. I fear I can steer off.

But to defend Doc's point: My wife is apolitical. Not because she chooses ignorance but simply because it doesn't interest her. More to the point: she doesn't understand the dynamics behind it.

Politics has little impact on her personal growth. I suspect it is this way for many people. She freely admits this is a bad thing. She should be more aware. If everyone is like her then it's not crazy to assume we get what we deserve: bad governance.

And my gal is one smart, sharp, wise and classy dame.

Personally, I believe you should be curious to explore and acquire knowledge. But Bill's point is an interesting one: why is it important?

Anonymous said...

In response to your last question, one could note that it was the tasting of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil which brought the downfall of Man.

But, of course, that would demonstrate supreme ignorance on my part.

Cheers.

Anonymous said...

BG -

Before we continue, there is a continuation of jacoby's thesis here today...have you read it?

Bill Gnade said...

Dear Doc,

No, I have not read it -- yet. Thanks for the link.

Please know that you are free NOT to respond to my comments. Life is short; there are many things far more important. Time -- the most precious commodity -- is not always well spent on issues of this sort.

If I can got out from under the overwhelming amount of work I have to do, I am going to write an essay or two exploring knowledge and learning. There are a few more interesting (to me!) points that should be made.

Peace,

Gnade

Bill Gnade said...

Randall,

Ahh, you have indeed proven yourself to be a fundamentalist, which means you are responsible (so am I) for the dumbing down of America. Who cares if you are a lawyer?

Surely we can hear the Manhattan Magisterium declaim: Anyone who would dare mention some throw-away passage from the patriarchal book of Genesis -- that vehicle of oppression -- is undeniably low-brow.

Peace and mirth,

Gnade

Bill Gnade said...

Dear Commentator,

I pray you're well.

Thanks for your contributions here.

Blessings,

Gnade

Bill Gnade said...

Doc,

I appreciate your comments also. Thanks for caring.

Gnade

Anonymous said...

BG -

hey: i STILL care. and here's an opportunity to get the info you want from the horse's mouth: Susan Jacoby will be online at noon EST today here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/15/DI2008021502904.html

you can submit your queries beforehand or live...

i look forward to your interaction with her...

Bill Gnade said...

Shoot, Doc, I missed it! As I said, I am swamped right now. Sorry.

I might see light at the end of this tunnel sometime Wednesday.

Gnade

Undergroundpewster said...

The opportunity to obtain knowledge is becoming more accessible to all of those who are motivated to seek knowledge. In my underperforming school district, we have exceptional students that have pursued their personal quests for knowledge through the help of advanced courses in the public school system. There will always be those who are content to be ignorant and happy, for like the poor, they will always be with us. Without trying to be elitist, skool ain't for everybody. It would seem to me that Bill is getting to the root of the educational issue. "What is in it for me" is the thought that goes through the unmotivated teenage mind. Getting parents, teachers, and kids to see a purpose to education, even a financial benefit, might be one way to answer the question, "Why do I need to know the capital of Hungary?" Maybe the educational system used in other countries where a vocational track is taken early on by those not suited for bookwork. Arguments that learning is for the sake of "knowledge" just do not seem to work for much of our contented citizenry.

Bill Gnade said...

Dear Underground Pewster,

Very incisive. Thank you. You've inspired me.

Peace be with you,

Gnade

T.C. said...

Good comment by UP.

For the record the capital of Hungry is Boodapest.

Where's my money?

Undergroundpewster said...

It's Foodapest.

T.C. said...

D'oh!