http://hnn.us/articles/30629.html
-- Michael Pugliese ___________________________________
[WS:] Interesting. However, dismissing Hofstadter's populist anti-intellectualism argument hinges on semantics - whether such behavior was "irrational." Irrationality is a red herring here. Deeply anti-intellectual leaders, such as Pol Pot, were far from being irrational. In fact they were themselves of intellectuals of some sort, and merely exhibited antipathy toward other intellectuals. They espoused a certain set of values glorifying simple rural life, also shared by intellectuals like Rousseau or even Voltaire (cf. Candide), which were hostile to those who, like Marx, considered such life style 'rural idiocy.'
What is at stake here is not reason vs. irrationality or stupidity but different cognitive frames that manifest themselves, inter alia, by preference from bucolic rural life or for urban diversity. Both are pre-rational, that is, frame and direct the rational thought process.
So if we drop the charge of irrationalism, Hofstadter's thesis that American culture tends to be anti-urban and rather local, with all the accoutrements of that localism: navel gazing, suspicion of outsiders, suspicion of high culture, suspicion of big organizations and government, love of small business, religiosity etc. still stands. Local yokels ain't stupid, they just do not like them city slickers.
Wojtek