Mothering Forum banner

Do you think our culture is anti-intellectual?

9K views 228 replies 40 participants last post by  EXOLAX 
#1 ·
Do you think North American culture is anti-intellectual?

How do think our collective attitudes towards intellectualism affect our children - and their future?

Kathy
 
#152 ·
I have been facinated by this discussion. I admit that I am often a lurker here and love reading most of the threads but rarely participate.

However, I felt I just had to make two comments. First, I absolutely do not believe the majority of NA citizens value intellectualism. Maybe I am just confused about the terminology but doesn't to value something mean to hold it as a high priority in your life? I think maybe some people say they value something because it seems like it is the right thing to say.

If you say you value honesty and are not an honest person, how can you value honesty? If you say you value being generous with your money, yet you do not do what is within your power to help someone who is truely in need, do you truly value generosity?

So, to say that people value intellectualism, which I consider pursuing activities that encourage you to stretch your mind, to deeply appreciate beauty, or to learn new things just for the sake of aquiring knowledge, it would imply that those things are present in their lives as well. I can't agree that the majority of people in this country are actively pursuing knowledge for the pure love of learning.

Library lady, I wanted to agree with you about the ads that shown on T.V. I am most disgusted about the back to school ads that focus on how "cool" you will look when school starts, what clothes are the most "in" and how you will be able to fit in if you are wearing the right top. Why are there no ads about how you will have the opportunity to learn new things, or think in new ways? I know ads are meant to sell products, but they have public service ads all the time. Why don't they have more public service announcements encouraging kids to be excited for school to start simply for the joy of learning? Maybe because that isn't what public school education is about for most people? Just a guess.

I was a public school teacher for five years. I will never, ever, ever, go back to that job. My last year I worked with kids who we put in my remedial reading class. When I asked them what they wanted to learn more about, they each said nothing. I was shocked. Not even about a sports hero, a music star, nothing. No, nothing, they said. I had to work so hard to convince them of even wanting to go into more depth in the things they were interested in. I was so proud at the end of the year when my kids asked me to watch a version of Romeo and Juliet. I had left a very poorly done watered down script version of the play lying around, and they read it out loud. I mentioned it was in movie form and they asked to see it. I showed them the Leonardo DiCaprio version. It is faithful to the language of the play and would have someone in it that was familiar to them. They loved it and asked so many questions. I happened to be observed that day. I was later questioned as to why I would show the students a movie that had bad language. Um, hello, have you ever read Romeo and Juliet? It's the same language that was in the move. The administrator felt the movie had too much violence in it. Um, again, have you ever read the play? Do you or do you not want kids to read Shakespeare? She literally told me I was not needed at the school and would have been let go if I had not already resigned because I was pregnant with my twins. Those kids left my class caring more about reading that year (because I allowed them to read whatever they wanted, not just books that were supposedly at "their level." Yep, that's right. IF the kid tested at a third grade reading level in eighth grade and we found them even attempting to read a nineth grade level book even if it interested them, we weren't supposed to allow it).
 
#153 ·
Quote:
I was later questioned as to why I would show the students a movie that had bad language. Um, hello, have you ever read Romeo and Juliet? It's the same language that was in the move. The administrator felt the movie had too much violence in it. Um, again, have you ever read the play? Do you or do you not want kids to read Shakespeare?
Wonder which Romeo and Juliet the administrator had studied in school.


Being who I am I probably would have just said. "Well, I supposed I could have had them study Titus Andronicus.


Quote:
(because I allowed them to read whatever they wanted, not just books that were supposedly at "their level." Yep, that's right. IF the kid tested at a third grade reading level in eighth grade and we found them even attempting to read a nineth grade level book even if it interested them, we weren't supposed to allow it).
I know someone who was there. She was "assessed" at a low reading level. I use quotes because they way the did it, she was guaranteed a low level. She couldn't read out loud very well and that's how they tested her so she got in trouble for reading above her level. Because the teacher caught her reading The Lord Of The Rings. No inquiry into whether she was comprehending what she read (which she was) just straight to "Your not a good enough reader for that book."

That really does mess up someones love of reading. On her own she LOVED reading. But in the confines of what they wanted her to read she hated it. It made her feel stupid. Luckily her parents caught on sooner then the school and stopped questioning her book choice.
 
#154 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by xaloxe View Post

That Is Nice: Your thoughts on SAHM'ing reminds me of the book "What's a smart woman like you doing at home"
I'm not familar with that book. What does it say in regard to SAHMs?

As I said, I think education, including college education, is valuable unto itself. I'm a SAHM, and my college degree has never been a waste, nor will it ever be a waste.

I firmly believe nothing has changed by my SAHM status.
 
#155 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by mymiraclebabies View Post
However, I felt I just had to make two comments. First, I absolutely do not believe the majority of NA citizens value intellectualism. Maybe I am just confused about the terminology but doesn't to value something mean to hold it as a high priority in your life?


I wasn't using that definition, and if I did, I'd have to agree, that, no, North American culture does not value intellectualism.

I was addressing this with "value" being defined as relative worth, merit, or importance.

Or, to further define, in a social context, the ideals, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward which the people of the group have an affective regard. These values may be positive, as cleanliness, freedom, or education, or negative, as cruelty, crime, or blasphemy.

This is from the dictionary.

I think in a North American social context, there is an affective regard for intelligence. People may not choose it for themselves (can they even do that or are we talking only about inate ability?), or have it as a priority in their own life, but that doesn't mean they don't value it or respect it.
 
#156 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by mymiraclebabies View Post

If you say you value honesty and are not an honest person, how can you value honesty? If you say you value being generous with your money, yet you do not do what is within your power to help someone who is truely in need, do you truly value generosity?
These are good analogies.

If you value beauty, do you have to be beautiful?

With regard to your examples, I think they are parallels (somewhat) to intellectualism and society placing value on it.

I would say North American culture values honesty and generosity (look that the definition of value in my previous post).

But, by and large are most people honest and generous? Liars and less than generous people are pervasive in our culture (unfortunately).

I think it's the same with intellectualism. And I think intellect is an inate trait. One can't make a priority in one's life if one isn't naturally intelligent. Now, you can make education, achievement, academic success priorities if you're not born smart, but as this discussion has already said, those aren't the same things as intellectualism.

We can't say the majority of people aren't intellectual and then say they don't value intellectualism because they aren't making it a priority in their own lives.
 
#157 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by mymiraclebabies View Post
I am most disgusted about the back to school ads that focus on how "cool" you will look when school starts, what clothes are the most "in" and how you will be able to fit in if you are wearing the right top. Why are there no ads about how you will have the opportunity to learn new things, or think in new ways? I know ads are meant to sell products, but they have public service ads all the time. Why don't they have more public service announcements encouraging kids to be excited for school to start simply for the joy of learning? Maybe because that isn't what public school education is about for most people? Just a guess.
Commercials are designed and funded by companies who want you to buy their junk. They have to make the junk look cool, not school. Their purpose is not to sell school, but things you supposedly "need" for school.

Public service ads cost money. I have seen a few that drum up excitement for learning and school. But there just aren't a lot of public service ads in total because they're not selling a commodity and backed by sales.
 
#158 ·
That Is Nice - again, maybe I am missing something but I still have a hard time understanding what you are saying. According to the definition you provided intellectualism is "devotion to the exercise of intellectual pursuits" how can you value (consider something important or useful) if you are not devoted in some way to pursuing somethings considered such as reading quality literature or non-fiction, actively appreciating art, watching quality filims, just to name a few things, how can you consider them important.

Everyone has a certain level of intelligence. Someone does not need to have an IQ of 150 or even 100 for that matter to like to read things that are not trashy and have some value. You don't need any degree or schooling to walk through an art museum and appreciate the beauty of what you are seeing. True, a higher level of intelligence will allow you to take in more which will lead you to want to pursue it more, but still everyone is born with a desire to learn new things and has a certain level of curiosity. I think the point some people in this thread are trying to make is that the majority of public schools, not all, suck that curiosity right out of you at a very young age. If the desire to learn and get excited about learning something to the fullest extent you are able is squashed when you are young, a lot of people will not try any more.

I think it is sad that an awful lot of people just sit around watching mindless T.V. shows, hang out in clubs or bars, or even just not care to learn something new. No, we do not value intellectualism. The largest percentage of people wouldn't look at someone who wanted to read a good book on Friday night instead of hanging out with friends at a club (I guess I'm thinking of a younger crowd here)and admire them even if they would not choose the same thing for themselves. Most people would wonder what was wrong with them, if they had some social disorder.

The point which I was trying to make about the ads was society does not need to equate school with a social order, being popular or fitting in. It is a harmful and destructive thing. People used to think it was cool to have cigarette ads. Sure the tabacco ads wanted to sell a product, but to have something that was so harmful to a person's health portrayed in such a positive light was wrong. That's why those ads are pulled now. I'm just trying to say that I believe (and this is just my opinion) that saying that you have to dress in a certain style or act a certain way is the only way you will enjoy school is emotionally distructive for kids. They could promote their products with kids being somewhere other than in a school setting. The vast, vast, majority of kids do not see the importance of school as important (they don't value it). They see it as a waste of time. And, again in my opinion, it is for many kids. However, we don't need to further promote the idea that a place that is supposedly designed to further learning is really only an outlet to showcase your popularity.

I've just read over my post and the way I've worded it seems a bit harsh. I really, really, really hope no one is getting the bad idea that I'm trying to be rude or sarcastic here. This is just a topic I feel very strongly about. I really do respect a lively debate and am always interested in listening to other's opinions regardless of whether I agree or not. I hope this comes across.

MusicianDad - you're right! With all the gore in Titus Andronicus I would have been booted out the door before the end of the day!
 
#160 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by mymiraclebabies View Post
through an art museum and appreciate the beauty of what you are seeing.
Well, we might be getting hung up on semantics and varying definitions for the concepts we're talking about. That tends to happen on MDC threads.

How do we define culture? Is is society at large? Society collectively? Individuals?

How do we define intellect/intellectualism? Is it inate intelligence? Is it choosing reading and museums over sports and tv (all examples brought up in previous posts)?

How do we define value? Is it respecting and holding in regard? Or is it making it something a priority in our own life?





See what I'm saying?

I'm looking at culture at large, what we do as a collective public. Therefore, I think because the collective public builds and funds such things as museums, libraries, public art we value intellectualism. I think because we as a collective public provide public schooling through high school (wasn't always the case), public universities, community colleges, student loans, etc, that we value intellectualism. I think because we hold cultural creatives and innovators in high regard, that we value intellectualism.

I'm defining value as holding in high regard, respecting, not necessarily pursuing in one's own life.
 
#161 ·
Ok, to put this another way, I guess I'd look at it from the opposite approach. Do we as a culture value ignorance? No. There are no institutions (other than perhaps the default of failing ones due to public funding inadequacies or lack of personal responsibility) that teach ignorance that are culturally accepted.

(I'm sure someone is going to argue with that and say public schools or prisons or something like that is an institution that teaches ignorance...but I'm talking about intent, not mismanagement.)

Ignorance and lack of education are not valued by our culture. We have cultural institutions in place to combat those things.

Now, is achievement or monetary success valued? Yes. Of course. Probably disproportionately so (I would argue that anyway).

But that does not take away from the fact that intellectualism is held in high regard by our culture i.e. valued.

Honestly, what intellectual who is known in a cultural way (authors, playwrites, scientists, etc) is not highly regarded? Our culture celebrates modern day and historical high intellectuals and cultural creatives.
 
#162 ·
Also, I think the examples of public school failings and/or mismanagement are not indicative of our culture not placing value on intellectualism.

Many of our streets and bridges are in need of repair due to age and structural obsolescence. Does that mean society and culture does not value public infrastructure? No, of course not. We have finite public resources. But we have a long standing history of placing value on public infrastructure in our culture.

It is a shame that schools and teachers are not fully equipped (whether that be because of unawareness, poor training and education, inadequate funding, internal politics, individual personalities and limitations, whatever) to accommodate highly gifted students who might be bored or have other issues such as sitting still, ADHD, being on the Autism spectrum, and many other things.

We need to do better, obviously. Children have many different strengths and weaknesses and that needs to be reconized and supported better. Obviously.

But school is one subset of culture at large. The failings of public schools, or, as another example, the general population's preference to watch tv over read a book, are not indicators alone for culture at large not placing value on intellectualism.

Albert Einstein is the classic example (often overused, yes and factually debatable) of a student who flunked and failed in school because he was misunderstood...until his genius was aroused by something that interested him. And yet, he is one of the most culturally significant icons in North American history.

He was not more beautiful physically. He was not more athletic. He was not unusually talented as a singer or dancer or anything remotely "pop culture."

He was known and is remembered for his intellect (yes, of course it was applied during a war time and there are cultural overtones to achievement in that). But, by and large, Einstein (and others) are cultural significant because of their intellect.

We wouldn't have cultural icons like this if we as a culture did not value intellectualism.
 
#163 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by That Is Nice View Post
I'm looking at culture at large, what we do as a collective public. Therefore, I think because the collective public builds and funds such things as museums, libraries, public art we value intellectualism. I think because we as a collective public provide public schooling through high school (wasn't always the case), public universities, community colleges, student loans, etc, that we value intellectualism. I think because we hold cultural creatives and innovators in high regard, that we value intellectualism.

I'm defining value as holding in high regard, respecting, not necessarily pursuing in one's own life.
I think we are all using close to the same definition. You see these things as being held in high regard and some of us do not see that for one reason or another. Maybe it is because we live in different areas. As a collective, there are public schools, universities, student loans, libraries, etc. but the existence of those things do not automatically mean that we value intellectualism. I have stated before that the education system is not set up to encourage people to pursue things from an intellectual standpoint. They are set up for people to get jobs and gain skills. Colleges tend to encourage thinking moreso than the K-12 schools. When I was in college, most of the people were there to get a degree so they could get a job. The education system was set up to create workers, not intellectuals. I don't have a link but I recall reading that somewhere in my studies.

If the institutions that you mention are valued, why do they not receive more funding. A lot of the museums are funded by philantropists and probably would not exist if they had to rely on public funding alone. Why are public schools not funded better? If schools and intellectual pursuits are so highly valued, why aren't teachers paid better? If libraries are so valuable, why are some of them closing down in some areas? If intellectualism is valued, why do libraries have to fight so hard to get funding? There are some public schools where the libraries are not given budgets. Why is it that cities will vote for and fund huge sports complexes but not vote for pay raises for teachers or increased supply budgets for teachers to have the materials that they need? Physical prowess is valued much more than intellectual prowess. Just because something exists does not mean that it is valued.

The only cultural creatives and intellectuals that are valued are those that have money. If you don't have monetary success, like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, then your intellectual and creative pusuits are seen as silly at best. A lot of the people that we hold in high regard, such as Einstein, were looked upon as freaks when they were alive. It wasn't until they had passed and people saw the real implications of what they had been doing that he was held in high regard. I wish I could remember all of my history or had time to look it up but I do not recall a lot of great people that were patted on the back and valued during their time.

I am sorry but the Nobel Peace Prize winners never get near as much press as the quarterback for the winning superbowl team. People as a whole do not care about hearing about the Nobel Peace Prize winners. I know that you will claim that people respect them but I see it as more of an ambivalence. You know, "oh that's nice, whatever" kind of attitude.
 
#164 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by That Is Nice View Post
Honestly, what intellectual who is known in a cultural way (authors, playwrites, scientists, etc) is not highly regarded? Our culture celebrates modern day and historical high intellectuals and cultural creatives.
When are these people celebrated by the general population? Seriously, do you believe most people have a favorite playwright and discuss it with their friends?

The people I see being celebrated by US society are generally REALLY dumb, or at least pretending to be (e.g. Paris Hilton, reality show stars).

Intellectuals may celebrate intellectualism, but that doesn't show what the society as a whole values.

I'm curious-- why are you so passionate about this thread?

ZM
 
#165 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by library lady View Post
People as a whole do not care about hearing about the Nobel Peace Prize winners. I know that you will claim that people respect them but I see it as more of an ambivalence. You know, "oh that's nice, whatever" kind of attitude.
True.

I am not sure if people personally care or not. I don't know.

But I know that the Nobel Peace Prize, etc, is culturally significant, and the work of recipients is valued.

I value culture more than pop culture personally. I don't care, or know, or remember who wins a Super Bowl for instance. But just because I don't care doesn't make it less significant from a pop culture standpoint.

The same is true of Nobel Peace Prize winners, etc. Heck, even electoral politics, for that matter. I mean, the majority of our population doesn't vote, but that doesn't mean that the election is cultural (and historically) significant.
 
#167 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by library lady View Post
If the institutions that you mention are valued, why do they not receive more funding. A lot of the museums are funded by philantropists and probably would not exist if they had to rely on public funding alone. Why are public schools not funded better? If schools and intellectual pursuits are so highly valued, why aren't teachers paid better? If libraries are so valuable, why are some of them closing down in some areas? If intellectualism is valued, why do libraries have to fight so hard to get funding? There are some public schools where the libraries are not given budgets. Why is it that cities will vote for and fund huge sports complexes but not vote for pay raises for teachers or increased supply budgets for teachers to have the materials that they need? Physical prowess is valued much more than intellectual prowess. Just because something exists does not mean that it is valued.
I think because of the same reason that our public infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc) are not funded well. Public funding is a finite resource, with lots of needs.

Society/culture values public infrastructure...we just don't always have adequate funds and there are lots of competing needs, and most people
don't want taxes raised.

Sports stadiums are not publicly funded. I liken sports stadiums to shopping malls or restaurants or something. They are privately funded.

And, yes, it is a shame that there isn't more public funding available for and support to increase the funding for public institutions.
 
#168 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by zeldamomma View Post

The people I see being celebrated by US society are generally REALLY dumb, or at least pretending to be (e.g. Paris Hilton, reality show stars).
I don't know. I don't think the reality show stars or Paris Hilton are really celebrated in a cultural way.

Are they a pop culture or media sensation? Sure. But what is the staying power? What will their cultural significance be in 20 years? 100 years?

I think the reason we see so much of the reality tv, Paris Hilton, MTV kind of stuff is because that's what is on television, and to some extent newspapers and magazines. That's only because the teen and 20 generation are being target marketed to buy things.

If you draw your news and information from sources that have a different target market (client base) the ads and coverage are vastly different...more news relevant, current events oriented, political, etc.

Pop culture and marketing are but subsets of the culture at large. It's easy to lose sight of that if we spend too much time on one medium.

People and events with cultural significance are important in a historical sense, a monumental sense.

We have a very weird society, I agree. The media feeds on it and I don't understand the attraction to reality stars, Paris Hilton, etc. I don't know if it's real or created. Even Paris Hilton has said she herself is a brand. She is selling and marketing herself (quite astutely I might add) to make money. So, she's not really a cultural icon or culturally significant as much as she is a brand.
 
#169 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by library lady View Post
The only cultural creatives and intellectuals that are valued are those that have money. If you don't have monetary success, like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, then your intellectual and creative pusuits are seen as silly at best.
I don't think so. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are two of the wealthiest men in the world (and look what they've done by the way in terms of contributing to culture and the human condition
). As the wealthiest of course they'll be recognized for that.

But I think people who are not billionaires are also recognized for the intellectualism. As we already brought up, Nobel Peace Prize winners, Pulizer Prize winners, authors, playwrites, scientists, astronauts, etc. Yes, they are achievers, but they are not all millionaires known only for their money.

I am recalling an independent film maker who won an Oscar a few years ago. I wish I could come up with the name. Anyway, I remember during her acceptance speech she said something like, "You know you're in a different league when your borrowed dress cost more than your entire film budget."

Not everyone is wealthy who is an intellectual and celebrated. But, yes, with intellectualism AND achievement often comes success. It's hard to separate this and come up with examples that we would all have heard of.

I know of a few locally celebrated researchers and scientists who most people have never heard of and who have been featured only on local news. They are doing amazing, cutting edge work. They are highly regarded. If you told anyone on the street what they were researching and finding cures for, people would likely give a casual
thumbs up.

That's not anti-intellectualism.
 
#170 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by That Is Nice View Post
I
Pop culture and marketing are but subsets of the culture at large. It's easy to lose sight of that if we spend too much time on one medium.

People and events with cultural significance are important in a historical sense, a monumental sense.

We have a very weird society, I agree. The media feeds on it and I don't understand the attraction to reality stars, Paris Hilton, etc. I don't know if it's real or created. Even Paris Hilton has said she herself is a brand. She is selling and marketing herself (quite astutely I might add) to make money. So, she's not really a cultural icon or culturally significant as much as she is a brand.
Somehow, it seems like you define what our society values to be what intellectuals value. Intellectuals may not care about pop culture, but if anyone were to study North American society and ignore pop culture, they would be missing an important facet. People pay a lot more attention to pop culture than they do science or literature. I believe this is a reflection of our society's values.

ZM
 
#171 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by zeldamomma View Post
but if anyone were to study North American society and ignore pop culture, they would be missing an important facet. People pay a lot more attention to pop culture than they do science or literature. I believe this is a reflection of our society's values.

ZM
Oh, I am not saying to ignore pop culture. I said it is but one subset of culture at large.

Also, what time period are we talking about...just a snapshot of cultural history?...right now? Or are we looking at this past century? Longer? Shorter?

For whatever reason, our society right now is hyper focused on celebrity pop culture. Mores o than even 20 years ago. It might be just a fad, started by reality tv. I don't know. I think it has a lot to do with trying to sell consumer goods. It's a marketing scheme. It will most likely recede at some point (the economy might help that!).


But I don't think it has lasting power. Who knows, though?

And I don't think it is so culturally significant that it erases who we have been as a culture for the last 100 years or more.

We need to look at history (look how far public education has come in such a short time moving us from an agrarian population to a culture where high school education is standard), and culture at large, not just subsets.

Then again, it is the intellectuals (usually) who write and record history. What will go down as culturally significant from our time? It might be different than what is playing on MTV, E, and VH1, or, I don't know, Extra! or Entertainment Tonight. As I said, that is not our culture. It is a small, small piece of it.
 
#172 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by That Is Nice View Post
I think because of the same reason that our public infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc) are not funded well. Public funding is a finite resource, with lots of needs.

Society/culture values public infrastructure...we just don't always have adequate funds and there are lots of competing needs, and most people
don't want taxes raised.

Sports stadiums are not publicly funded. I liken sports stadiums to shopping malls or restaurants or something. They are privately funded.

And, yes, it is a shame that there isn't more public funding available for and support to increase the funding for public institutions.

I am sorry but I completely disagree with your statement that sports stadiums are not publicly funded. Here is an article that discusses how much funding comes from the public: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...10/ai_n9472619

Historically speaking, yes, sports complexes were privately funded. Nowadays, that is clearly not the case. I ask again, why are public funds going to build sports complexes rather than public infrastructure such as roads, schools, etc. and so on? If intellectualism were valued, the funding would be going to schools and libraries rather than for a sports complex that focuses on physical prowess. Most jocks are not known for being highly intelligent. I know there are a lot of exceptions to that but I am just speaking in generalities. There are a lot of super smart sports players but that side of them is never focused on or highlighted. Who cares that these football players have intellectual pursuits on the side? That side is pretty much forgotten and overlooked. You may say that education and intellect do not sell so they are not going to focus on that. It doesn't sell because that is not what people want. The advertisers and medial push what sells. Education and intellectual pursuits do not sell. They do not sell because they are not valued.

You talk about things standing the test of time and having a historical and cultural significance. Having a historical or cultural significance does not equal being valued. What about wars? They all have a very cultural and historical significance yet they are not all valued.

According to Wikipedia, "Culture can be defined as all the ways of life including arts, beliefs and institutions of a population that are passed down from generation to generation. Culture has been called "the way of life for an entire society."[3] As such, it includes codes of manners, dress, language, religion, rituals, norms of behavior such as law and morality, and systems of belief as well as the art." There is no distinction between pop culture and regular culture. There will be a lot of elements of pop culture that survive the test of time. Look at the Beatles for example, in their time, the older generations considered them to be hoodlems with long hair. How many older people find artists like Elvis revolting because of the way he moved his hips? They are very significant now but at the time, they were not that big of a deal. There are a lot of intellectuals/artists/etc. that are not valued and are seen as rebels or just plain weird. The value does not come until much, much later. During their time, they are actually shunned or seen as problems.
 
#173 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by That Is Nice View Post
Oh, I am not saying to ignore pop culture. I said it is but one subset of culture at large.

Also, what time period are we talking about...just a snapshot of cultural history?...right now? Or are we looking at this past century? Longer? Shorter?

For whatever reason, our society right now is hyper focused on celebrity pop culture. Mores o than even 20 years ago. It might be just a fad, started by reality tv. I don't know. I think it has a lot to do with trying to sell consumer goods. It's a marketing scheme. It will most likely recede at some point (the economy might help that!).


But I don't think it has lasting power. Who knows, though?

And I don't think it is so culturally significant that it erases who we have been as a culture for the last 100 years or more.

We need to look at history (look how far public education has come in such a short time moving us from an agrarian population to a culture where high school education is standard), and culture at large, not just subsets.

Then again, it is the intellectuals (usually) who write and record history. What will go down as culturally significant from our time? It might be different than what is playing on MTV, E, and VH1, or, I don't know, Extra! or Entertainment Tonight. As I said, that is not our culture. It is a small, small piece of it.
You know, I don't expect to read about our culture in 150 years. Right now I live in it, and I am talking about what our society values at the moment, which is mainly pop culture. That was what the OP mentioned too-- what people will see as valuable about our culture a hundred years from now is a fundamentally different question.
 
#174 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by library lady View Post
I am sorry but I completely disagree with your statement that sports stadiums are not publicly funded. Here is an article that discusses how much funding comes from the public: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...10/ai_n9472619

Historically speaking, yes, sports complexes were privately funded. Nowadays, that is clearly not the case. I ask again, why are public funds going to build sports complexes rather than public infrastructure such as roads, schools, etc. and so on?.
You are correct. There is a recent trend for some public money to be used to build stadiums, mostly with hope of stimulating economic development. I think there are a few stadiums that are 100% publicly funded and owned, but I believe they are the exception.

It's different pots of money, though, and different levels of government. And sport stadiums typically aren't line items in government funding, as are roads, bridges, schools, etc. They are usually special projects due to economic stimulus policy or a special referendum.

Schools are usually funded locally, with some state or federal aid. Local school districts are most often the taxing body. They often have to put additonal funding projects to a referendum.

Sports complexes are probably built with municipal and county funds, with additional state (maybe even some federal) money mixed in. A lot of times, this is only partly publicly funded as a means of economic development. For what it's worth, the same public funding structure and reasons build cultural infrastructure, too, such as civic centers, art centers, museums, etc.

Public funds do go to roads, bridges, highways for economic development reasons, the same justification as for sports stadiums, but also to meet public health and safety needs.

Schools usually aren't used as economic development generators. Different pots of money, different community funding priorities.
 
#175 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by That Is Nice View Post
But I think people who are not billionaires are also recognized for the intellectualism. As we already brought up, Nobel Peace Prize winners, Pulizer Prize winners, authors, playwrites, scientists, astronauts, etc. Yes, they are achievers, but they are not all millionaires known only for their money
really? ok, off the top of your head, name 5 Nobel winners from the past 3 years?
ok, can you name 5 actors from the past 3 years of movies?

this is an interesting thread. Not exactly a poll, but I would vote that the US is not anti-intellectual. Wouldn't vote that it is intellectual either.

America is a melting pot. It's like saying this country is obese. Well, alot of people are obese. But if you go someplace like Boston proper, or the area where I live, you don't see many obese people. Uncommon actually.
Similarly, to put one label on an entire country, which is constantly changing due to shifting population, would be inaccurate imo.

I think (agree) that the US worships money. And beauty. Not necessaily just power, as some have mentioned. Who knows of a Putin or Chavez fan?

Then again there are definitely circles/ regions/ setting, where intellectualism is highly valued. Problem is (if one considers it a problem), not every American has access or the means to participate or live there.
I do believe though, that if you want to "do" something with your intellectualism, that America is a great place to be.
... haven't heard of a rush of post docs into Central America, or sub-Saharan Africa.
if you want to just contemplate and have deep thoughts, and have your livelihood and retirement paid for.... I hear Europe is a great place for that.
(btw, i have lived and worked in Europe for a few years).
 
#176 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by zeldamomma View Post
You know, I don't expect to read about our culture in 150 years.
You don't think our current culture will be historically significant enough to write about in 150 years or 200 years?

I think many events will be.

There are many exciting technological, medical, scientific, and humanitarian developments occuring.

Of course, we have a few very large mistakes happening as well that might overshadow our collective accomplishments and contributions.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top