Skip to comments.Does Modern Academia Encourage Unthinking Acceptance of Authority?
Posted on 05/12/2013 9:10:49 AM PDT by DanMiller
This post is based in large part on an article titled Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill
Is there a current tendency to consider those who cherish and seek to preserve our rights, including those under the First and Second Amendments, mentally ill for that reason? Interesting for the focused question it poses directly, the article should raise broader but similar questions about the current nature of academia in general.
I have had no direct contact with academia since my years in undergraduate school (1959 - 63) and in law school (1963 - 66). "Back in the good old days," we were encouraged toward independent thought and away from authoritarian notions that discourage it.
One of my favorite teachers at Yale, John Morton Blum, was an academic and a liberal (not a "librul" as I have come to use the word) in the classical sense. A student of both Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, he had recently done much research at Hyde Park reviewing FDR's papers and discussing them with his widow, Eleanor. On the day following her death, he asked whether we would object if, rather than cover his intended subject matter, he extemporized about Mrs. Roosevelt, whom he had got to know quite well. We approved and he did.
Mr. Blum's twice weekly lectures on American political history were very popular and were therefore taught in the largest auditorium available. They were attended by several hundred students. We were divided into seminars of fifteen or so taught weekly by post doctoral teaching assistants. The TA who led my seminar, previously a labor organizer, once gave me a bad grade on an essay he had told us to write on "whether slavery was a good preparation for democracy." A one word response, "no," would not have served and it was evident that he wanted us to criticize slavery on the ground that it was not; I decided not to do so. Instead, I took and supported the position that it had not been intended for that purpose -- much as an automobile, not intended for the purpose, would be an inadequate means of transport across the Atlantic Ocean. There were many valid grounds for criticizing slavery. That slavery did not fulfill a propose for which it had not been intended was not among them. When I challenged him, he seemed initially hostile but nevertheless rethought the matter and within a day or two gave me a much better grade. I do not know whether he consulted Mr. Blum on what to do, but suspect that he did.
Others in various fields also sought to encourage independent thought. Brand Blanshard, for example, taught an undergraduate philosophy course. A rationalist, he "espoused and defended a strong conception of reason during a century when reason came under philosophical attack." Reason is the antithesis of ideological conformity and of its beloved cousin, political correctness. Mr. Blanshard's lectures were simultaneously entertaining and designed to encourage us to think independently. He retired at the end of the school year during which I attended his classes and we gave him a standing ovation. Emotionally overwhelmed or joking (I never knew for sure which), he walked off stage into a broom closet (where he remained until after we had left) rather than through the door he had customarily used.
My major field of study was economics. Authur Okun, my honors thesis adviser, adhered to the same traditions. He encouraged me to pursue the subject of my paper (impact of the Robinson-Patman Act on the automotive replacement parts market) without preconceptions as to where it should lead and seemed pleased that I had done so.
Viewing modern academia, including even public primary and secondary education -- only from a distance and mainly by reading -- it strikes me that those who encourage the questioning of authority and independent thought may now be exceptions. Zero tolerance policies in primary and secondary schools -- which themselves discourage rational thought by teachers and administrators in favor of reliance on overly broad applications of inflexible policies -- may be symptoms of this decline. To the extent that their own rational thought processes are discouraged, might they be unlikely to encourage them in their students as well?
Toward the end of the article on which this post is substantially predicated, the author says
Why Mental Health Professionals Diagnose Anti-Authoritarians with Mental Illness? Gaining acceptance into graduate school or medical school and achieving a PhD or MD and becoming a psychologist or psychiatrist means jumping through many hoops, all of which require much behavioral and attentional compliance to authorities, even to those authorities that one lacks respect for. The selection and socialization of mental health professionals tends to breed out many anti-authoritarians. Having steered the higher-education terrain for a decade of my life, I know that degrees and credentials are primarily badges of compliance. Those with extended schooling have lived for many years in a world where one routinely conforms to the demands of authorities. Thus for many MDs and PhDs, people different from them who reject this attentional and behavioral compliance appear to be from another worlda diagnosable one. [Emphasis added.]Please read the entire article.
Do comparable attitudes now prevail generally in other fields of academia? If so, are they recent phenomena or have they been progressing steadily downward for many years? It occurs to me that the now commonly sycophantic "legitimate media" acceptance and regurgitation of (currently) leftist or librul political talking points may have roots pointing downward to the education received by many journalists. (I used the passive word, "received," rather than the active word, "taken," purposely.) The recent questioning -- even by some in the "legitimate media" -- of the Obama Administration Benghazi talking points is a refreshing change. I wonder how long it will last, how far it will go, in what directions with what consequences.
Many factors that the linked article suggests plague the study of psychology and psychiatry seem likely to operate broadly as well in the "social sciences" in general. They could provide fields for potentially fascinating research should anyone competent chose to pursue them.
As a retired university professor and a person with a lifelong interest in studying consciousness and mind control techniques, I can definitely laugh at the thought that academia is not focused on surrender to authority. One of my trainings was in stage hypnosis in order to learn to identify the highly suggestible gullible subjects for selection during demonstrations. This is so easy, especially in a religious setting or with young impressionable minds whom are just searching to formulate an individual identity after leaving the protective umbrella of the family unit.
If you want to get a shocking experience on this subject, read about Stanley Milgram’s research on this subject. There are several YouTube videos that demonstrate how easy people surrender to authority.
Here is a video on Milgram’s experiemnts
Everyone should watch this and share it with their children in order that they learn to NOT be vulnerable to this...
Being a “ditto head” is not desirable no matter the direction you surrender your authority. Never stop thinking and utilizing your critical thinking skills.
I had an English professor who told me, “All art must support the revolution.” He didn’t seem to know exactly which revolution it was supposed to support. I asked him about his thoughts on Bach and Monet and Shakespeare. He said that they weren’t artists. I saw a lot of this in my university days. The professors sitting in the back of the coffeehouse trying to seduce the coeds with their talk of revolution. I think we give the professors too much credit. They are human beings. Most of their high sounding rhetoric is just a cover for greed and arrogance and horniness.
Exactly what prevents you from posting your entire article from your blog here?
I did post my entire article. The linked and properly attributed article I urged my readers to read in its entirety was not mine and I have no authority to post it in its entirety at FR.
I find people who are supposed avid readers tend to be liberals. These people often boast on how intelligent they are but often can not think for themselves. These people often parrot the same talking points from the MSM.
I cut and pasted the italicized line I replied with from your post, From Dan Miller’s Blog, written by Dan Miller or so the pertinent information indicated?
Written by somebody else you didn’t attribute? From the main title and backup, it reads like you wrote it. That cryptic thing at the beginning only mentions “from an article”....doesn’t say ‘not you’.
Movies and Video games have desensitized people plus add the decline of traditional church goers doesn’t make for a good society.
I disagree with you Gaffer. It is plainly evident to me that DanMiller clearly stated his article was based upon the article “Why Anti-Authoritarians are Diagnosed as Mentally Ill”. This disclaimer was up front and at the beginning of his article. Later on in his article, Miller suggests readers go to the same article he took his premise from and provides a link. I see no intent to deceive at all. Frankly, I think you are way off base here.
Well, this did work pretty well in the old Soviet Union. Disagree with communism? You must be insane, so have a nice stay at the asylum... Or gulag.
That depends on how you want to define "liberal in a classical sense." Blum wasn't a libertarian, which is how many people would define the term nowadays, more of a liberal in the mould of the two Roosevelts.
The explanation is that the "dittoes" are in reference to previous callers' praise and admiration, and do not represent a rubber stamp on any of El Rushbo's pronouncements. That's the theory. It's funny that "mega dittoes" is very close in form and meaning to the Homeric mega kudos - great glory.
I think we give the professors too much credit. They are human beings. Most of their high sounding rhetoric is just a cover for greed and arrogance and horniness.
I noticed that when I was in school, (19661972.) There seemed to be a great deal more posturing than substance, and much of what passed for "substance" eventually led me to conclude:
There is no greater conformist than the rebel.
I think the best and most concise yet general definition I have come across is "one with an open mind but not an empty head." It is quite possible to be a liberal in the classical sense and to cherish our freedoms accordingly without being a libertarian, particularly with respect to foreign policy.
Like it or not, the United States were for a long time a force for mainly good in the world. As that changes based on adoption of largely internationalist ideologies and minimization of our military power, we concurrently forfeit our domestic freedoms. See generally, the United Nations and increasing Obama Administration reliance upon it rather than asserting what should be our own foreign policy. See also, UN arms control treaty efforts.
Mr. Blum was a Democrat and supported Democrat candidates. That support never, as I recall, became a part of his lectures or of our assigned reading materials (of which there were many). I remember fondly his introduction of Barry Goldwater (who later became the 1964 Republican candidate for President), whom he had invited to speak to our history class. We welcomed Senator Goldwater with loud applause.
There once were, and may still be at least a few, Democrats capable of being "open minded but not empty headed." That is a condition to be commended and encouraged.
But guess what - most of those avid readers have read very little. I say this as a bookworm since childhood - I have never met a liberal who was even half way informed on any topic about which I have knowledge. And I include university professors with Phds. The ignorance is astounding. I have compared talking to them with driving a car on a street full of potholes.
Reading is food for the mind but thinking is exercise for the mind.....reading without thinking leads to being a fathead
So ... the classics? Homer in Greek ? Well, I’m guessing the Federalist Papers for sure!
in the 70’a when I attend college Propaganda Analysis was a REQUIRED course so that we would question the authority at that time. It is no longer taught at the university.
Finalist: No Hint of Irony Award. ( Unless I'm missing it! )
In the early 1940s and my one semester in college before being drafted for WWII I took an elective course called something like ‘Contemporary Writings’. The course prof was a guy who was rumored to lean pretty far to the left. Course readings were from people like of Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Lippmann, Chase even Mussolini as I recall with smattering of people like Lincoln, Hearst and others. The final exam had a question that asked for the definition of ‘propaganda’. My answer was propaganda was like we were being taught and exposed to in the books we had to read and the discussions that were laid out. I was given an A for the test and an A for the course. I have always thought highly of that prof no matter that he and I were not bent the same way politically.
Are you asking me about my areas of interest?
Early medieval art, Caribbean history and culture, Victorian literature, early modernism, film history.....
Of course, your reading! Can't you read?
( My sly self might suppose that, no, you haven't read the Federalist Papers. )
Re: “propaganda”, I do hope you know the origin of this word. Was that in the test?
Yes, I did, but don’t consider them to be a specialty. The classics I got by osmosis, from my father.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.