How is anti-intellectualism anti-intellectual? From the Fukushima Nuclear Wastewater Controversy

Hello everyone, I'm Marie. This is a small channel dedicated to improving your thinking ability and tearing your hands apart. In each issue, we will combine a political and economic case to help you analyze the reasons behind it and different thinking dimensions.

Recently, two things have caught my attention. One is the wastewater discharge incident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, which is well known to everyone, and the other is a discussion on Ai Weiwei's "Nian Nian" activity that took place on the clubhouse.

Let's talk about the first thing first, Japan's nuclear wastewater discharge. This matter must be clear to everyone. Domestic public opinion almost overwhelmingly condemns Japan, and believes that European and American countries have collectively lost their voices. What is not surprising is that a lot of accounts that show the big V of science and technology and the big V of academics, and even university professors, have begun to write articles to analyze the harm of this incident and present evidence. Therefore, the conclusions drawn are mainly in two directions. One argument is that Japan and European and American countries can actually allow Japan to do evil for the sake of ideology, regardless of the ecological interests of their own countries and the world. Another argument is that Japan is intentionally creating nuclear pollution, which will have an impact on China through emissions. Both of these arguments clearly reveal the criticism of "anti-intellectualism", what do you think is wrong with the world? As a Western country known as democracy and science, how could it make such an ignorant and shameless decision.

Before talking about this issue, let's briefly review the history of "anti-intellectualism". The word Anti-Intellectualism first appeared in the book "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" published by American writer Richard Hofstadter in 1960. (hereinafter referred to as "Anti-Intellect", by the way, there are two versions of this book in simplified Chinese, which were published by Yilin Publishing House and Shanghai Yiwen Publishing House, and both were released at the beginning of this year. This one is in mainland China It is indeed not common. The name of the Taiwan version is "American Anti-Intellectual Tradition" and it was published in 2018. If you are interested, you can find it yourself.) A book from the 1960s was published almost simultaneously on both sides of the Taiwan Strait 60 years later , combined with today's political situation, is indeed quite meaningful.

Based on the McCarthyism in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, this book explains the prevalence and causes of anti-intellectualism in the United States at that time from different aspects such as history, religion, and culture, how intellectuals were persecuted, and how populism controlled the right to speak, etc. , as well as the author's own thinking and suggestions for intellectuals.

In 1950, McCarthy said in a speech at the Wheeling Republican Women's Group rally: "It is not the unfortunate, nor the members of the disadvantaged, who sell the country, but those who embrace the richest man on earth. All the benefits the country has to offer - the sweetest homes, the best colleges and the best jobs we can give... These young men born with silver spoons in their mouths have always been the worst guy."

It was at that time that under the special anti-communist historical background (the prelude to the Cold War), the political suppression of left-wing ideology and left-wing intellectuals initiated by the political elites rose to the pragmatism, utilitarianism of the whole people, and their disdain for academics and professional knowledge. A glance of thought.

For this "wisdom". Hofstadter mentioned the difference between "intelligence" and "intellect" in the book. We all understand intelligence very well, which is your ability to acquire knowledge and understand knowledge. And "intellect" has a higher level of ability in the context of English, which can be understood as reason or wisdom. In other words, general natural science or conventional knowledge relies on intellect, and when it rises to the level of social science or philosophy, it must rely on intellect to analyze and judge, which is the so-called difference between "art" and "Tao" we often say . The book "Anti-Intellect" is mainly aimed at doubting and distrusting "knowledge" and the owners of "knowledge", that is, intellectuals.

The author said that in fact, the "anti-intellectual" trend of thought has been deeply embedded in the genes of Americans in history, and it can easily evolve into resistance to absolute authority and blind confidence in oneself during social evolution. We can clearly see the trend of turning to the right from the Trump era. In addition to the political right turn, the most obvious examples in social manifestations are the extreme freedom and resistance to authority in the fight against the epidemic, as well as various conspiracies The prevalence of theory. It is undeniable that Hofstadter's worries have reappeared in today's America, and he has been greatly questioned and paid a huge price.

Let's go back to the history of China. On the surface, compared with other cultures, China respects the intellectual and intellectual classes. However, the specter of "anti-intellectualism" has never disappeared. Historian Yu Yingshi pointed out that there has always been an anti-intellectual atmosphere in China's political tradition. Although Confucianism and Confucius advocated that intellectuals engage in politics, rather than unprincipled as an official food and salary. In the era of Mencius and Xunzi, they directly advocated "expert politics" and "scholar politics." Although the political thoughts of Taoism and Legalism have many similarities with Confucianism, they stand on the opposite side of Confucianism when it comes to dealing with intellectuals and intellectuals. Taoism favors nature and despises culture, and does not value intelligence and knowledge at all. Lao Tzu openly advocates "fooling the people". He believes that once the people have sufficient knowledge, there is no way to control them. If Lao Tzu only proposed a highly abstract principle, Legalists planned a set of specific implementation methods. . Anti-intellectualism is most fully developed in the legalist system, and whether it is destroying intelligence or suppressing intellectuals, the legalist proposition is the most thorough.

The Legalists' idea of ​​governing a country is completely from the perspective of the ruler. The Legalists pointed out that the best way for the ruler to organize and control the government and expand the country's wealth and territory is autocracy. So this is also the main reason why Qin was able to unify the six countries. Although in the era of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, he officially "dismissed all schools of thought and respected only Confucianism", the system established by the Legalists continued, which is what Yu Yingshi called "Confucianism to Legalism". For example, the spirit of "following the way but not the emperor" was replaced by the anti-intellectual "three cardinal principles", and the idea of ​​"the emperor respects the ministers" became the cornerstone of the autocratic monarchy for thousands of years. The rule of law method of "Chunqiu Prison Breaking" has formed a discourse system of a specific intellectual elite represented by Dong Zhongshu. It makes people "not only die by the law", but also "die by reason at the same time", and blurs the boundary between morality and law, sowing the seeds of "pocket crimes" such as ideological guilt and literary inquisition.

Judging from the history after the Qin and Han Dynasties, Legalists' anti-intellectualism had a lasting and profound impact on China's political tradition. Compared with the speculative American-style anti-intellectualism and anti-intellectual attitudes generally diffused among the people criticized by Hofstadter, the systematic top-down anti-intellectualism in Chinese culture is even more terrifying, so we also It is not difficult to understand why there is such a phenomenon as the "Cultural Revolution" against the intelligence of the whole people.

Let's go back to the incident of Fukushima nuclear wastewater in Japan. It is understandable to discuss and pay attention to it as a social issue. But after the official media set the tone, a large number of big V experts followed up and published articles, using some technical terms that ordinary people can't distinguish, analyzing its harmfulness and political intentions, and thus came up with a huge conspiracy theory as mentioned before. . The most anti-intellectual behavior is that one is an article from an employee of a nuclear power plant in China who analyzed that the harm of the drainage plan may not be serious, but it was reported by netizens and the post was deleted. The other is that a comic popular science V who has always been known for being neutral, objective and humorous quickly released related "popular science comics", concluding that "globalization is not terrible, but the realization of global biochemical". But what makes me a little relieved is that on the walled Clubhouse, there are still enthusiastic netizens living in Japan who open a room to provide human interpretation for everyone. The implementation plan report has been confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Association for everyone's rational discussion and verification of evidence. , relieved the anxiety of many people. It doesn't matter if you don't understand science, but pretending to understand and being arbitrary is very anti-intellectual. I recall that Western countries questioned the WHO before, and Chinese public opinion was filled with righteous indignation. Why can you not trust the International Atomic Energy Association until now? You must believe in the so-called "scientific analysis" you believe in. Then how can you embarrass those spiritual leaders who support Uncle Ma's dialectical materialism?

Speaking of Clubhouse, let's continue to talk about another paradoxical anti-intellectual event. On Clubhouse, dissident artist Ai Weiwei launched an event called "Niannian" to commemorate the students who died in the Wenchuan Earthquake, attracting passers-by to mourn in the form of contemporary art. The main way is that you can participate by reading the list of victims. A group of patriotic little pinks who claimed to be insiders or lovers of the art industry questioned this, thinking that it was a hype with obvious political intentions, so they opened a room for discussion, and correspondingly, a group of supporters of this event started a discussion. another room for discussion. It was understandable for everyone to discuss in each room, but a little pink suddenly ran to the supporter's room and tried to refute a speaker's remarks. The speaker himself was a bit of a whim, but it angered the supporter speaker, so there was a lot of hype. Although under the host's strong persuasion, both sides refused to budge, and the result was that little pink was forced to leave the room. So he opened another room to continue discussing the matter.

To be honest, I listened to both rooms for about an hour. If you listen to the evaluation of this matter in any room alone, I think the main speakers on both sides are quite good in terms of logical thinking, expressive ability, and professional skills. Everyone's charisma and influence can be said to be comparable. But a fatal flaw of the pink room is that it presupposes a position from the beginning to the end, that is, the political intention of this event, and all opinions and analyzes are how to prove its political intention and malicious intentions. Until a volunteer from the organizer came in and explained the purpose and intention of the event calmly and eloquently with her affinity and professional ability, the atmosphere of the whole room began to reverse slowly. Such rational and well-founded expositions and responses forced the pinks to switch from aggressive and I have already seen through everything to a rational discussion. Although they still insisted on their position, they could only deal with it Art itself is good or bad, and more and more speakers are here to support the activities. Due to time constraints, I didn't hear the end. As for the final result, I don't know, but this is the most wonderful classic debate case I have ever heard.

Speaking of these two examples, let's think back to today when the Internet is so developed and information is so abundant. It seems to be an intellectual era in which a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend, but due to information asymmetry, a large number of "cultural elites" and "professional elites" pretend to be intellectuals and think they are intellectuals. The way and the code of wealth, using their little bit more knowledge reserves and expression skills than ordinary people, they use the cloak of representing the interests of ordinary people, relying on political correctness, and spare no effort to produce "truth", "authoritative analysis" and various To form a "lazy bag" to form their own knowledge hegemony and knowledge monopoly, and to use "the technique of wisdom" to promote the "way of anti-wisdom", which is really ridiculous.

Finally, let's end today's content with a passage from the author in the book "Anti-Intellect":

"If evangelicalism and primitivism opened up Americans' "anti-intellectual" consciousness, then the later commercial society ensured that "anti-intellectual" is a feature of American thinking. Beginning with Tocqueville, most people who study America believe that practical commercialism trumps thinking and speculation in this country. The American life of democratic politics and business supremacy has cultivated a mentality and habit, that is, everything needs to be quickly decided and reacted to seize opportunities. So in-depth, delicate and precise thinking is not what the American life encourages. The experience and intuition accumulated by the common people from their daily lives are the most valuable life guidance, and they also support the common values ​​​​behind American democracy. However, aesthetic, philosophical or religious theories that are too esoteric are not only unrealistic, but also make the world more chaotic. . "

Okay, that’s all for today’s sharing. I’m Mali. If you think this video is helpful to you, please help me to like, share, subscribe and support. See you next time, 88.