Defining the “Intellectual”

It is not an entirely controversial idea that society values certain modes of intelligence- and occupations requiring that intelligence- more than others. If we ask the average person to compare the intelligence of an economist or scientist to that of a cook or an unpublished poet, many would say that the former two have more intelligence. That must be, the logic goes, the reason why these people have such prestigious jobs- they simply have more cognitive ability. It is clear enough that this notion of varying intelligence levels is deeply intertwined with our modern society. The radicalism, then, comes from professing that intelligence itself does not necessarily matter, at least not in the way that we recognize it today.

To zone in directly on the crux of the issue, I believe that intelligence itself is a flawed concept. It is not that we do not see the potential of everyone (though that is a bit of it) but, rather, that we choose to emphasize the flawed ideal of intellect. In this way, I agree with Graff in a very real sense. However, I certainly believe that we should go deeper.

The primary point at which I agree with Berry’s In Defense of Literacy is the notion that “the purpose of education is the mass production of producers and consumers”. Indeed, it seems quite that way today, particularly with the idea that someone who has attained a lot of wealth must be more deserving and ‘intelligent’ than the average person (see: Donald Trump).  It is clear enough that both of the authors agree on this point- the education system is flawed. However, I believe that Graff is going far further in the right direction. Berry’s primary qualm is that, educationally, we seem to be teaching “ignorance of books and the lack of a critical consciousness of language”.

Is that really the most important flaw of the education system? I’d like to think that it is not. On the opposing spectrum, Graff posits that books and linguistic skill are useful and important, but that there is a wealth of ‘untapped potential’ in students who do not think they are ‘book-smart’. I find this viewpoint far more relatable. This echoes the comment I placed in the ‘Wreading Parlor’, which I will simply paste rather than summarizing:

“I feel that I simultaneously relate and do not to the author’s own experience. I did, as a child, read with both pleasure and comprehension. However, I also displayed intelligence in ways that are not considered academically fruitful, particularly for a small child. I would ‘act up’ consistently in class and be forced to sit alone in a corner- it was because I was easily distracted from the work at hand and preferred, instead, to create elaborate fictions and ‘clubs’ with my classmates. My active imagination proved a detriment to my academic life unless it was channeled into the classwork that I was provided. However, upon looking back, I now realize that my academic achievements and behavioral concerns were from the same source; it was just that only one was particularly appreciated by teachers.

As most children do, I had rather high self-esteem at the time, so I did consider myself ‘intelligent’. The author, who states he originally described his adolescence as “thoroughly anti-intellectual” may not have. However, I feel that he and I can find some common ground here- though my academic skills and behavioral issues seemed at odds, they were actually drawn from the same source. Today, I can still relate to the idea of analysis of pop culture seeming inferior to such things as Plato, nuclear fission, etc.. Though I read Foucault and political theory, I also devote plenty of theorizing to pop culture and what it means for people on a societal level. To some, such analysis may seem vapid- “what could Nicki Minaj have to teach me?”- but it is actually quite important, not ‘anti-intellectual’.”

However: is it not true that the modern education (and, with it, the notion of intelligence) was and is founded upon principles of racial superiority, social Darwinism, and an ‘everyone for themselves’ mentality? The very term ‘intelligence’ has a sordid history. The word has been abused. And yet, scientists themselves cannot come to a consensus on what intelligence actually is. While knowledge of classic literature, calculus, and other such topics may be useful, refocusing upon them and teaching students a true understanding of them can only do so much. We still deal with realities such as the school-to-prison pipeline, the lack of funding given to education, and the lack of class consciousness that still permeates our society. I propose that while the idea that everyone has ‘hidden intelligence’ might be quite the rosy concept, I feel that we owe ourselves more. Indeed, we owe ourselves a dismantling and rethinking of the idea that is ‘intelligence’.