In recent times, there has been a noticeable rise in anti-intellectualism in society, as evidenced by the spread of fake news, the dumbing down of critical debates, and superficiality in the construction of knowledge. This phenomenon is characterized by the rejection or devaluation of intellectual, academic, and scientific knowledge, often accompanied by rhetoric that questions the credibility of experts and educational institutions.
Nowadays, social media has expanded the reach of opinion leaders, who exert a significant influence on the way their followers think. In this context, digital influencers and leaders can contribute to the spread of anti-intellectual discourse, especially when they prioritize superficial opinions and unfounded information at the expense of critical thinking.
How anti-intellectualism was propagated in history
The rejection of science and educational institutions is not a recent phenomenon. Throughout history, various political movements have sought to control the circulation of ideas, limit the autonomy of these institutions and censor knowledge that doesn’t compact with their interests.
Robert K. Merton, a famous US sociologist, analyzed how anti-intellectualism took root in Nazi Germany through his studies of social democracy and scientific institutional structure. In his view, this is not an individual phenomenon but a social one, and it was not deliberately planned but took shape as a result of the shift in social dynamics brought by the totalitarian regime established during that period.
The Nazis believed that intellectual activities were a threat to his social control. Therefore, like a strategy to propagate their governance, using discourses that spread hostility toward science. Under the regime of Adolf Hitler, the educational formation was reorganized, the form that studies of science was considered the last option, because the principal was physical development and character building, focusing on society’s idolization of the country. In addition, the government controlled the transition of information in radio and books, so the people didn’t question what happened and didn’t manipulate about other different ideologies.
Although the current context differs from that of Nazi Germany, history allows us to recognize a recurring pattern in attempts to weaken institutions and voices that challenge dominant narratives. On social media, this process needs even greater attention when the credibility of educators is replaced by unconditional trust in public figures.
The Anti-Intellectualism on Social Media and Politics
The short story “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut Jr is about the USA living in a reality where nobody is prettier, stronger or more intelligent than others, everybody has to be equal. The prettiers have to wear a mask, the strongest have to load jumbo and the smart ones use sensors that beep every time you try to think.
Even the reality described by Vonnegut is fictional and does not directly correspond to how social media works, the short story offers a reflection on the risks of a society that loses its ability to question. Bringing to reality, social media today can create an environment where people are constantly exposed to the same opinions, making it easier to follow popular ideas.
In the digital world, influencers are gaining space because they are able to establish a deeper connection and act as communicators who interpret and convey information to consumers. This creates a false sense of belonging to the community that is formed on social media.
The influence of these figures can be understood through the two-step flow of communication theory, developed by Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet. They are referred to as “opinion leaders,” who are essentially individuals who inspire others by observing the behavior and consumption patterns of their target audience.
In Brazil, “Bolsonarismo”, a political movement associated with former President Jair Bolsonaro and often analyzed with the context of the radical right, illustrates how direct communication with followers can contribute to the spread of political interpretations that challenge traditional institutions and media outlets.
A recent example of this debate can be found in the statements made by content creator and entrepreneur Pietra Bertolazzi about educator Paulo Freire. In an interview with the Jovem Pan Entretenimento channel, she said: “Few things are as useless as Paulo Freire’s books.” The declaration, for itself, is not directly related to the concept of anti-intellectualism, since criticism of an author is part of intellectual debate. The issue arises when the rejection of a particular thinker becomes an argument for broadly discrediting academic knowledge.
Mistrust of science can also reach the highest levels of political power. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Brazil’s ex-president, Jair Bolsonaro, made statements questioning vaccination and the severity of certain risks associated with the disease. In remarks recorded by the press in 2020 during an event, Bolsonaro made a statement about his opposition to the vaccine: “If you turn into an alligator, that’s your problem.” Critics and subsequent congressional investigations argued that the federal government’s delay in procuring vaccines contributed to over a thousand preventable deaths.
So, when information related to public health is treated as a political issue, trust in science can be undermined, with consequences that extend beyond the online world.
The psychological comfort in superficial thinking
Staying on the surface requires no effort. It’s just like swimming in a competition pool, when we reach the deep end and our feet can no longer touch the floor, we feel the effort in every movement and our arms and legs burn, while the other side seems farther and farther away. Bringing this into the discussion of the age of anti-intellectualism, the truth is this: thinking requires effort.
The reason so much fake news spreads stems from the belief that someone else will do the thinking for you. Not delving deeper into a discussion keeps people in their comfort zone.
After a tiring day where a person woke up early, dealt with crowded public transportation, turned on the news and saw reports on violence in their country, spent hours at college, and finally arrived home, all they want is something that doesn’t require even more cognitive effort. In this context, spending hours scrolling through TikTok can feel like a reward and a way to disconnect their mind from the problems surrounding them. And this is where we find comfort in superficiality, as a way to numb the problems around us.
As in the short story “Harrison Bergeron” after Harrison, a fourteen-year-old boy, was captured by the Handicapper General for being more considerate than others, his father, though concerned for his son safety could do nothing, because the mental disability device fitted in his ear emitted a deafening sound every time he allowed himself to think beyond the news broadcasts.
So perhaps the fact that many people remain in the ignorance is related to a distraction that provides us with entertainment and relief, but also competes for our attention and keeps us stuck in a cycle of mindless consumption, in which one video leads to another and, little by little, we lose the ability to question things.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
The article above was edited by Fernanda Rhomberg.
Liked this type of content? Check Her Campus Cásper Líbero for more!