Anti-Intellectualism: Harbinger of a Nation's Decline

Anti-Intellectualism: Harbinger of a Nation's Decline
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
March 10, 2014

Summary: Many academics who become cabinet members give up high-paying jobs. They contribute their professional insights. They could have criticized from the sidelines. But they chose to emerge from academia to practice their professions. They chose to contribute. To level such blanket condemnations of academics is unfair. If anything, we should be more concerned about anti-intellectual political commentary. It has already added fuel to the fire of an increasingly populist society. Anti-intellectualism is the harbinger of social and national decline.

Full text below:

The economy has remained in a long-term slump. Government policies have inspired little public confidence. People are depressed. The public questions the ability of officials to govern. Public fora echo with criticisms of politics and the government. The general impression is that the Ma administration consists mainly of Ph.Ds sequestered in ivory towers, and has little idea how the other half lives. The expressions "bu shi ren jian yan huo" and "tian long guo" have become rote criticisms.

Recently the local media has begun arguing that "Taiwan's worst mistake was allowing intellectuals to lead the nation to disaster." Some even argue that "If a government has too many Ph.Ds, it is not a blessing. It is a tragedy!" These are among the harshest criticisms of "rule by academia."

A number of charges have recently been leveled against academics within the cabinet. They include, "They are leading the nation to disaster," "When in office, they use their positions to engage in plunder," "They lack real dedication," "They are extremely arrogant," "They refuse to admit that they do not understand," and "They refuse to listen to ordinary people." Among the usual criticisms of "rule by academia," these are perhaps the most negative and most hostile. To refer to such criticisms as "anti-intellectual" is no exaggeration. The role of intellectuals has been vilified, even demonized. As a result, it did not require much of a stretch to blame the Ma government's crisis of governance on "Too many Ph.Ds."

But this is an unconvincing argument. Evaluating a nation's governance is not easy. At the macro level, there is the global business cycle and regional geopolitical competition. At the micro level, there are matters of government vs. opposition rivalry, policy orientation, and even leadership style. Any and all of these could be reasons. To offer "Too many Ph.Ds" as the sole reason is probably the most bizzarre reasoning of all.

If this reasoning is correct, then the Ph.Ds and professors in the administration should be herded back to the campus. They should be replaced with less educated candidates with high school diplomas at best. The current governance issues will then magically be solved. Clearly no one with any modicum of common sense would ever make such an argument.

Interestingly enough, former President Lee Teng-hui's cabinet was filled with university professors and Ph.Ds. The percentage was as high as it is in today's Ma cabinet. No one seemed to have any criticisms of them back then. Lee was followed by President Chen Shui-bian. Then Academia Sinica President Lee Yuantse mobilized a large group of academics. He even formed a "National Policy Advisory Group" in support of Chen's election campaign. Chen Shui-bian remained in power for eight years. During that time his cabinet had no shortage of professors and Ph.Ds. When the Chen government scandals erupted, no one argued that "academics led the nation towards disaster." The intellectuals who were made cabinet members were beatified as contributing to "clean government." They were praised for "upgrading the government." The intellectuals who are cabinet members today on the other hand, are vilified as a "leading the nation towards disaster." Their involvement is characterized as a "tragedy." To paraphrase President Ma's famed expression, "If this is not a double standard, what is a double standard?"

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof recently urged university professors to emerge from their ivory towers to actively debate and research public issues, and to have the courage to exert influence. In an article entitled "Professors, We Need You!" Kristoff wrote, "Some of the smartest thinkers on problems at home and around the world are university professors, but most of them just don't matter in today's great debates." He urged scholars not to isolate themselves from society. When a public issue arises, they must not be as disoriented as the public. He thinks university professors have more and more tools by which they can educate the public. Kristof concluded by saying, "So, professors, don't cloister yourselves like medieval monks -- we need you!"

Kristof may not realize it. But the vision expressed in "Professors, We Need You!" was long ago realized on Taiwan. But it has been demonized by some as the chief culprit in misgovernance.

Does the ability to govern have any relationship to the number of academics in the cabinet? That is a question that can be debated. Ph.Ds and professors may have their own prejudices on the matter, based on their own specialities. A cabinet consisting entirely of Ph.Ds could find itself mired in rational decision-making while ignoring the feelings of ordinary citizens. That does not mean one must reject "rule by academia" in toto, or make generalizations such as "leading the nation towards disaster," or even referring to their involvement as a "tragedy."

Many academics who become cabinet members give up high-paying jobs. They contribute their professional insights. They have no fear of slander or criticisms. To characterize them as "predatory" is grossly unfair. Many of them could have remained on campus, above it all. They could have criticized from the sidelines. But they chose to emerge from academia to practice their professions. They chose to contribute. To level such blanket condemnations of academics is unfair. If anything, we should be more concerned about anti-intellectual political commentary. It has already added fuel to the fire of an increasingly populist society. Anti-intellectualism is the harbinger of social and national decline.

社論－反知識是國家衰落的開始
    2014-03-10 01:31
    中國時報
    本報訊

　經濟長期不振，政府施政未能振奮人心，社會顯得異常苦悶，政府官員施政能力更受到民眾普遍的質疑，言論場域充滿了對政治與政府的批評。一般印象認為，馬政府團隊以博士教授為主力，「不食人間煙火」、「天龍國」就成為批評者的慣性用詞。

　但最近媒體出現「台灣最糟糕的就是知識分子誤國」的評論，更說「一個政府博士太多，不是好事，而是悲劇！」，這是對「學者從政」最嚴厲的批評。

　最近出現的詞彙，除了「誤國」外，還包括「在位置上時一直掠奪」、「沒有真正奉獻」、「很傲慢」、「不承認自己不懂」、「不聆聽平民百姓的意見」等，在歷來批判「學者從政」的論述中，這套辭彙恐怕是對知識分子最負面、也最敵意的，說是「反知識分子」也不為過！當知識分子的角色被如此醜化、甚至被這般妖魔化之後，將馬政府的治理危機，簡單歸咎成是「博士太多」，也就不太困難了！

　問題是，這並非有說服力的論述，評價一國的治理問題，本來就不容易，大到全球的景氣循環、區域的地緣競爭，小到朝野關係、政策取向乃至領導人風格等等，都可以拿來做為推論的前提，也都可以形成仁智互見的論述，但是拿「博士太多」做為推論前提，大概是最奇特的論述！

　如果這組推論是正確的，那是否意味：把政府團隊中的博士教授等全趕回校園，全換成學歷較低的學士或更低的高中職學歷，當前政府的治理問題就全部迎刃而解了？稍具常識的人都清楚，邏輯好像不能這樣推吧！

　耐人尋味的是，昔日李登輝擔任總統期間，內閣團隊同樣充斥著博士教授，比例絕不輸今日的馬政府，當時好像未曾見到任何的負面批評；接下來的陳水扁前總統，更是由當時擔任中研院院長的李遠哲動員一群博士甚至院士所籌組的「國政顧問團」支持當選的，陳水扁主政8年期間的歷屆內閣團隊中，具有博士教授背景的閣員同樣沒有少過，那時節扁政府充斥著大小弊案，好像也未曾聽聞過誰站出來說過任何一句什麼「知識分子誤國」的話。如果說當年的知識分子入閣，可以被美化成是「清流政府」，是在「向上提升」，今天的知識分子入閣，卻被醜化成是「誤國」、是「悲劇」，那麼我們還真想套句馬總統著名的修辭學，如果這不是「雙重標準」，那什麼才是「雙重標準」！

　紐約時報專欄作家紀思道（Nicholas D.Kristof）不久前撰文，呼籲大學教授應走出學術象牙塔，積極參與重大公共議題的論辯和研究，勇於發揮影響力。紀思道在題為「聰明頭腦，渺小影響」的文章中寫道，對國內外問題有最聰明見解的人之中，有些是大學教授，但絕大多數人在當今重大議題的論辯上，卻是無足輕重。他呼籲學者切莫自絕於社會大眾，也不應在公共問題發生時，和大眾一樣茫然。他認為現在的大學教授可以教育大眾的工具和管道，已經愈來愈多了。紀思道最後強調，社會需要教授，請教授別像中世紀的僧侶一樣與世隔絕！

　紀思道或許不知道，他所憧憬的「教授，我們需要你！」之景象，早就在台灣實現了，但卻被部分論者視國政治理不佳的元凶。

　政府治理能力與內閣學者是否太多，當然是一個可以討論的議題，任何博士或教授都可能有其學科上的本位與偏見，一群全由博士與教授所組成的團隊，也很有可能會拘泥於決策理性，而忽略了平民最素樸的感受，但這絕不意味如此就必須將「學者從政」全盤加以否定，或概括式評為「誤國」，甚至是「悲劇」！

　當今不少入閣從政的學者，不僅放棄高薪，全心貢獻一已的專業與識見，無畏外界的詆毀與抨擊，說他們是在「掠奪」，真的是言重了！他們其中的許多人本可留在校園扮清高，動嘴批判即可，但他們寧可選擇走出校園將自己專業予以實踐，選擇奉獻一己之力，對學者概括式的批評是不公平的。我們更憂心「反知識」的政治評論，對已經民粹化的社會將更增推波助瀾之效，反知識是社會沉淪、國家衰落的開始。