Saturday, November 13, 2010

How Many Conservatives Hate the Rich

I've been thinking recently about the whole subject of wealth in its many different forms. Of course, when we speak of wealth and riches, we most often mean pecuniary wealth. But it is not all that uncommon for us to speak of wealth and riches in other, non-pecuniary ways, too. We talk about the riches of family life, or the riches of creativity or ideas. I'd like to ponder the idea of a kind of wealth related to intellectual capital, or what we might know more commonly as the "wealth" of knowledge -- a phrase that I would say is familiar to many. But it's in that one area of capital accumulation -- the area of knowledge -- where many conservatives hate, despise, and/or envy the rich.

Let me start with a recent example of something that I happen to experience a fair amount in my dealings with conservatives, especially in intellectual debates. I hold a Ph.D. That's no secret. But I can honestly say with full confidence that I never flaunt this in my dealings with others, and I never use this as a cudgel to try to beat down another in an exchange of ideas. To the extent that it ever does enter into a debate, it is usually as an example of an accomplishment that I am proud of, especially given that the conditions of my upbringing and class background are such that my earning a Ph.D. would have been such an unlikely outcome. I am the oldest child in a family of six siblings born to working-class parents who married extremely young (Dad - 18, Mom - 17) and who never even earned a high school diploma (though both eventually earned their GEDs). I take pride in my Ph.D. because I did it all myself. My parents created an environment that was supportive and encouraging, and for that I am lucky and grateful; but my parents did not have the benefit of experience to guide me through the undergraduate college experience, much less to even comprehend the world of graduate school, comprehensive exams, field research, and dissertation writing. In effect, my education is the most significant "pulling-myself-up-by-the-bootstrap" accomplishment in my life. I fortunately had the God-given talent to do a doctorate in my chosen field; and, by God, I earned it. There was nothing about my academic accomplishment that was handed to me on a silver platter from a position of privilege. And the material fruits of my hard work have come not in pecuniary wealth, but in a wealth of knowledge. When it comes to knowledge, I'm a pretty rich dude, so to speak.

And yet ... it is precisely in this area of wealth where I find the most spiteful disdain levied at me by a fair number of conservatives.

For instance, in a recent debate I was having in a comment thread over at a conservative blog, I had the fact that I have a Ph.D. (i.e. my wealth) thrown out at me out of the blue in a discussion where my Ph.D. had absolutely no relevance at all to the debate. You can read the comment thread for yourself, but let me note that the debate centers around the validity of a generalization that liberals blog and think in a particular way that is, shall we say, disreputable and flawed, compared to how conservatives blog and think, which is, shall we say, admirable and correct. In the midst of this debate, in which I disputed the notion put forward by my debate opponent that a generalization could be made about the way conservatives and liberals blog so as to be able to render a value judgment on their thinking, my debate opponent threw in this comment:

I don’t wish to take on a condescending tone here. But you need to take note of the meaningful difference between a hard-and-fast rule that is so be imposed on people, with no exceptions, and an observation of a general trend. A trend of events which, if somehow objectively measured, would yield statistics validating the suggested trend.

Does earning a Ph.D. have something to do with losing track of this difference, or maybe assuming a fair-weather-friendship with it, looking past it when it doesn’t service whatever point you’re trying to prove? A lot of people would say that about Ph.D.’s before they even catch wind of these exchanges we have over this issue, and here you are proving it.
I have no idea what the relevance of my Ph.D. is to the actual argument itself, so I am left to assume that throwing this comment in the debate was meant as some kind of anti-elitist dig at me. And given the hostility that conservatives generally tend to have towards folks with advanced academic degrees, I think the odds are clearly in favor of that interpretation, even though I think this conservative blogger and commenter is generally a respectful and good fellow. But, even if this was the intent of bringing my having a Ph.D. into the debate, that's fine. I'm used to this. It's not an experience that is all that uncommon for me in such contexts. And it certainly does nothing to diminish the pride and value I ascribe to my academic accomplishment and the wealth of knowledge it has afforded me. But what strikes me as ironic is that this kind of reaction is coming from conservatives who would consider such a reaction as pretty despicable if that wealth that I possessed wasn't a richness of knowledge and academic achievement, but was rather a pecuniary wealth derived from entrepreneurial behavior in the "business" world.

Accumulating intellectual capital, or generating a wealth of knowledge, is the one area where many conservatives tend to become the very anti-rich class-warrior demagogues that they claim to despise.

4 comments:

eric said...

Huck,

I agree that there wasn't really any need for your PhD to be brought up in that discussion. I'm still a little confused as to what the point was supposed to be.

Regarding conservatives and intellectualism, I will say this: there is a growing trend among conservatives to be dismissive or even derisive of purely academic merit, especially outside of medicine and the hard sciences. It would be easy to read that as being anti-knowledge, but I think it is more accurately a criticism of how we create and treat hierarchies of knowledge in our society. For instance, until this post I did not know you held a PhD. Knowing that you hold one does not now change my respect for your intellect, anymore than knowing my doctor has one effects my respect for his sense of humor. I don't reconginze a PhD as being some sort of sign that you have a particularly diverse richness of knowledge, other than to say it means you have a deep knowledge of a specific area of academia. Similarly my mechanic may have a deep knowledge about the internal combustion process, but I've never discussed headier issues with him, so I can't say much for or against the richness of his knowledge, applied broadly.

Now I do have an idea as to your personal intellect and knowledge, but that's because I have engaged with it, not because of your academic merit. I think you would find that most conservatives have a great appreciation for the accumulation of intellectual capital and that they strive to create a wealth of knowledge in their own lives... they just don't always recognize the modern academy as the best resource for doing so, especially for knowledge that is not prerequisite for a career.

Huck said...

All good points, Eric. But the degree that I have does imply an accumulation of a wealth of knowledge than not having earned such a degree. There can at least be some recognition that I do know some things much better than others know them, just like I would presume that an MD or an MBA or a JD implies a wealth of knowledge in those fields. I don't pretend that I know everything, and I certainly respect all kinds of knowledge. But it's the knee jerk reaction among some conservative circles that having a Ph.D. somehow diminishes a person's standing in an intellectual debate that bothers me. It is also troublesome to me when accumulating a wealth of knowledge through the education that comes with earning an advanced degree is viewed derisively and is conveyed with a tone that such an accomplishme is prima facie a bad, shameful, and ultimately meaningless thing. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been, but I was trying to say that the reaction to the fact that I hold a Ph.D. (and all that this entails) by some conservatives is much the same as what a liberal might do to the wealthy simply through acknowledging their wealth. It's as if the end result (i.e. the fat bank account or the fat mind) is the product of a process that must be bad.

eric said...

"There can at least be some recognition that I do know some things much better than others know them, just like I would presume that an MD or an MBA or a JD implies a wealth of knowledge in those fields."

Absolutely, and furthermore there can be a recognition that getting a PhD in any field is an accomplishment beyond the ability of the average person, and something that should be honored as such in the appropriate circumstances.

My point was only that a criticism of the merit of a PhD outside it's specific field of study is not, in and of itself, a sign of anti-intellectualism.

This discussion reminds me of one of my cousins who, during her freshman year in college, became eneamored with Noam Chomsky, and who, for a long time, didn't believe me when I told her his academic accomplishments were in the field of linguistics and had nothing to do with sociology, political science, history, or economics. When she found out this was in fact the case, it greatly diminished the stature of Chomsky in her mind... and that has always bothered me. Shouldn't the merit of one's arguments be obvious aside from their academic pedigree? If their academic training is so good, shouldn't that appear in the way they think and construct their arguments?

I know you aren't arguing the contrary, and in fact I think you do a superb job of debating on your own intellectual merits (thus my confusion and annoyance about the comments directed at you in the thread you cite above). I just think you are wrong to play this off as an example of an anti-knowledge flavor in conservatism, when what it really is is a disagreement about the qualifications of intellectual merit.


"...the reaction to the fact that I hold a Ph.D. (and all that this entails) by some conservatives is much the same as what a liberal might do to the wealthy simply through acknowledging their wealth."

Perhaps, but I'd say both represent a minority. I don't know many conservatives who despise a PhD on face value, and I don't know many liberals who think the accumulation of wealth automatically makes somebody an evil person.

Huck said...

My point was only that a criticism of the merit of a PhD outside it's specific field of study is not, in and of itself, a sign of anti-intellectualism.

Of course, you're right, Eric. But it can be; and, I think, when it is used in contexts such as the one I cite, that's the precise purpose of its mention. It's used in such instances primarily as a dig against the character of the degree holder. And the character trait that is being treated derisively or dismissively is the supposed intellectual competency that derives from it. In such instances the criticism is not that a Ph.D. is speaking outside of his field of knowledge; but rather that the advanced academic training in and of itself is derisive. In that sense, it is anti-intellectual because it demeans the very process of accumulating a specialized knowledge through the intellectual rigor of an advanced degree program.

If their academic training is so good, shouldn't that appear in the way they think and construct their arguments?

Absolutely. But I'm telling you, Eric, in my experience, once that dirty little secret is revealed in a conversation, it colors everything. It tends to get brought up in ways just like what happened in the discussion thread.

I don't know many conservatives who despise a PhD on face value

Maybe despise is too strong a word, but try this test with your conservative friends: (1) give half of them a moderate argument written on paper and don't identify the academic pedigree of the person, and then ask them to rate the argument on a scale of 1-10 on its persuasiveness. Then give the other half the very same test only mention that the person making the argument has a Ph.D. (and don't mention what the Ph.D. is in). Let me know what you find out.