Rating: 
Summary: More Relevant Now Than Ever
Review: Hofstadter's book surveys American history regarding a rather pernicious tendency--specifically, that especially in turbulent times, an anti-intellectual consensus has carried the day in this country. Do I need to connect the dots? This book is more relevant today than when it was first published; the newest chapter continues to be written thanks to our incumbent's "mandate" (which for him means receiving the majority vote this time) on 11/2/04.
Rating:
Summary: Actually, not dated so much at all
Review: I agree with the other reviewers as to the depth of Hofstadter's scholarship in this seminal work. However, in light of George W. Bush's disdain for government careerists, and John Ashcroft's Patriot Act-mentality threatening to reduplicate the 1950s, this book actually isn't that dated. Rather, it could be considered prophetic.
Rating:
Summary: A truely neo-classic against the Neo-Con
Review: Last year, in 2003, the translation of this work was published. I got interested with it and bought one. What I was really surprised is the publication year of 1962(1963). The reason is the work brilliantly described the present America in a deep way as well as the complexity of the nation. I can understand the publication of Morone's Hellfire Nation, which seems excellent work, but I cannot believe Hofstadter's work was published more than 40 years ago. I would not have wondered the work was published in 2003. I assumed the grass roots conservetism which has sustained the Bush Administration might mainly come from anti-liberalism, however, the fact and history has been more complicated. The work vividly clarifies one but imporant aspect of America which is difficult to understand by non-U.S. citizen. Excellent classic!!
Rating:
Summary: Exceptional writing
Review: Not only does this classic remain timely in 2003, but Hostadter's prose is brilliant. His thought-laced language simply flows.
Rating:
Summary: A penetrating analysis of the American character
Review: One reviewer below insists that this book, while excellent, is "dated." I find this an astonishing evaluation. What stunned me about this book was how familiar the anti-intellectualism from each period in American history felt. True, we are not today facing McCarthyism--our own particular moment in history feels Orwellian more than anything--but Hofstadter's overall point about anti-intellectualism being a constituent part of the national character has not been invalidated by the past forty years. Indeed, his points have been confirmed at nearly every point. And while the anti-intellectuals in the fifties may have railed against "eggheads," today the GOP directs much of their fury against the "liberal elite." Since most of "the elite" is dirt poor financially, clearly they are aiming their guns at the intellectual elite. Figures Hofstadter quotes from the 18th century sound like they could be one of today's right wing pundits.Few books that I have ever read have helped me understand the American character as well as this one. Many of the chapters in American history that he chronicles are somewhat forgotten, but just as essential as the more familiar figures and events. I was familiar with much of what he discusses in the role of religion in fomenting anti-intellectualism in America (though he didn't mention one of the most important factors in the spread of anti-intellectual religion in America: the success of denominations that did not require a college education in their ministers--in fact, were suspicious of ministers who possessed much education--due to geographic remoteness from the colonial colleges, so that Methodists and Baptists throve in the South, which was far away from the colleges that existed in 18th century America; therefore, I believe geography played a greater role and the Great Awakening played a smaller role in building anti-intellectualism than Hofstadter credits). I was also aware of the role that Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy had played in building a prejudice against literacy and culture. The sections on "The Practical Culture" and "Education in a Democracy," however, covers subjects that were somewhat less familiar to me. I was especially fascinated on the chapters on educational theories of the 20th century, with the educational establishment itself espousing anti-intellectual theories by deemphasizing college preparation for students and instead focusing on vocational training. I would put this book on the shortest of short lists of books that anyone interested in understanding the American character ought to read. I have a large number of friends from other parts of the world, and to an individual they are baffled and mystified at the almost willful ignorance they have discovered on the part of Americans. Hofstadter's book will assist anyone in understanding why so many Americans are antagonistic towards intellectuals and those who possess an advanced literacy. This is also one of Hofstadter's greatest books. Unbelievably, despite the several classic volumes he penned, Hofstadter died at the early age of 54. He was in his forties when he wrote this. One wonders what classics we are now missing because of his premature death.
Rating:
Summary: An enduring study.
Review: Richard Hofstadter's remarkable ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM IN AMERICAN LIFE reflects the Cold War/post-McCarthy era, yet still echoes powerfully today. Why this book has endured for four decades is not only because it still rings true, but also for Hofstadter's iron-clad reasoning. (This is not easy reading--at least for me it wasn't). Hofstadter examines the multi-fronted attacks on intellectuals throughout the centuries: attacks from religions who suspected intellectuals of atheism or worse; attacks from the left; attacks from the right; attacks from the lower class who perceived intellectuals as privileged; and attacks from the upper class who worried about the knowledge/power balance. Yes, Hofstadter does linger long about the anti-intellectual movement of the early 60s, and some of those references are lost to us, but that cannot be helped nor blamed on him. I also enjoyed the distinction between intelligence and intellectualism--very acute.
Rating: 
Summary: Deserves a read . . .
Review: The major problem with this book is that Hofstadter fails to be always consistent in his analyses of 'intellectuals' with respect what he had defined as 'intellect' -- "the critical, creative, and contemplative side of mind" (p. 25). And the reader wonders sometime whether what he characterizes as 'anti-intellectualism' is really directed at intellectuals.
The book also suffers from the inevitable deficits that result from an attempt to chart a linear course in the historical development of American anti-intellectualism, which Hosftader argues has its roots in American evangelism.
For all that, however, "Anti-intellectualism in American Life" is an insightful book that draws together several seemingly disparate historical strands. Anyone who has wondered about the curious choices of politicians in whom Americans place in their trusts today will find some answers in this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Why Hofstadter Should Be King
Review: This book discusses the revulsion of technocracy felt by the average American, which continues today. Although Hofstadter uses historical examples and genuflects towards an examination of this sort of "anti-intellectualism," the book often reads as though it was intended an apologia for the role social scientists played in government in the middle part of this century -- a place they still hold in the metastasized governemnts of today's America. Hofstadter makes it clear that he believes that intelligent people should make the important decisions for this country, and Hofstadeter makes it clear that he believes that he is a very intelligent person. Readily informative comparisons are not made: why is it that otherwise "anti-intellectual" Americans seem, at times, to worship Einstein and other physical scientists and mathematicians, while they continue to scoff at (or ignore) the work of the political scientists and sociologists in Hofstadter's coffee klatch? This book will not tell you. As with all of Hofstadter's work, this is a poorly thought out project that simplifies issues in order to make a political point. Hofstadter cannot organize a coherent argument nor will he take the time to describe an issue in full, relying upon omission to convince a reader of the value of his thesis.
Rating:
Summary: If Only the author were still alive!
Review: This book was very insightful, and it leaves me to wonder what kind of updated version Mr. Hofstadter might right if he could witness America now. I actually don't think he would be surprised.
Rating:
Summary: Required reading for Philistines and Euro-snobs
Review: This is a beautifully written thesis on how pragmatism has come to dominate intellect in America by way of concepts implanted early in the development of the national psyche: evangelicalism, Jacksonian egalitarian democracy, business culture, and the progressive school of public education. This book should be required reading for Americans and non-Americans alike who wish to understand the origins of certain unflattering stereotypes concerning American "mainstream" culture. He fails to address two critical issues, however. Firstly, he has a tendency to universally equate "intellectual" with "academic" throughout the book. As America is a nation of so-called "self-made" men, we are also a nation of "self-made" intellectuals. An American intellectual needs not necessarily have his/her position validated by university credentials. To his credit, the author never directly includes this point in his definition of the intellectual. It may be indirectly inferred, however, that the author believes that most American intellectuals populate universities and colleges. Also, the author seems to artificially subordinate the role of America's formidable intellectual community to that of the anti-intellectual mainstream. After reading this book, one may get the impression that Americans lack any sort of intellectualism at all. His points are well taken, but perhpas taken a bit far. Still, this book should be considered a classic.
|
