This and that last post on French and US intellectuals were summaries of the work of Michele Lamont's _Money, Morals, and Manners_. On anti-intellectualism she writes:
"Anti-intellectualism and anticosmpolitanism can be interpreted as a questioning of cultural standards of hierarchilization and as an attempt to subordinate them to moral ones: cultural sophistication is seen as a superfluous quality in comparison with sincerity or honesty for instance. As an Indianapolis research scientist puts it, "I wouldn't mind associating with a boring, genuine person. I'd rather stick with a boring, genuine person than with a pretentious, interesting asshole." Along the same lines, an Indianapolis business man confesses, "I don't mind if my friends are boring. It's much more important that someone has a sense of morality that's positive and not destructive than the way they look, or how they choose to decorate their house, or where they take their vacation."
Anti-intellectualism is often doubled by a very pragmatic view of the role of education. Education is emphasized by most American interviewees but often for financial reasons: many of them value education as a way of gaining access to an occupation that can support a comfortable lifestyle.
...
This pragmatism is not surprising given that the American university system itself is less isolated from profit-making endeavors and from the market principle of supply and demand than the French. In America, tuition fees are much higher and universities are competing to attract good students -- in France, students are not "competed for." Also, there exists a large number of private institutions in the US, whereas their Fr counterparts expect the state to financially support the university in its entirety.
Opposition to cosmopolitanism is not as prevalent in France as it is in the US. As noted by a Paris scientist, 'We are all cosmopolitan, so it does not matter." ... However, the Clemontois sometimes oppose the intellectual trendiness of the Parisians, while at the same time they have a strong sense of cultural isolation and undoubtedly consider themselves to be less au courant than the Parisians. "
But Chomsky gets a lot nastier, I think. In a passage Tayssir quoted approvingly, he paints intellectuals as engaged in mutual circle jerks. I'm sure people are like this, but I can't imagine it's all of them. Is he just talking the Ivies and the big three? Because the intelligent people at universities and colleges across the country don't act like this.
"instead of trying to provide an answer to this simple requests, the response is cries of anger: to raise these questions shows 'elitism,' 'anti-intellectualism,' and other crimes --- though apparently it is not 'elitist' to stay within the self- and mutual-admiration societies of intellectuals who talk only to one another and (to my knowledge) don't enter into the kind of world in which I'd prefer to live. As for that world, I can reel off my speaking and writing schedule to illustrate what I mean, though I presume that most people in this discussion know, or can easily find out; and somehow I never find the 'theoreticians' there, nor do I go to their conferences and parties. In short, we seem to inhabit quite different worlds, and I find it hard to see why mine is 'elitist,' not theirs. The opposite seems to be transparently the case, though I won't amplify."
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org (NSFW)