Painting of Asimov on his throne by Rowena Morill, via Wikimedia Commons
In 1980, scientist and writer Isaac Asimov argued in an essay that “there is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been.” That year, the Republican Party stood at the dawn of the Reagan Revolution, which initiated a decades-long conservative groundswell that many pundits say may finally come to an end in November. GOP strategist Steve Schmidt (who has been regretful about choosing Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate in 2008) recently pointed to what he called “intellectual rot” as a primary culprit, and a cult-like devotion to irrationality among a certain segment of the electorate.
It’s a familiar contention. There have been critiques of American anti-intellectualism since the country’s founding, though whether or not that phenomenon has intensified, as Susan Jacoby alleged in The Age of American Unreason, may be a subject of debate. Not all of the unreason is partisan, as the anti-vaccination movement has shown. But “the strain of anti-intellectualism” writes Asimov, “has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
Asimov’s primary examples happen to come from the political world. However, he doesn’t name contemporary names but reaches back to take a swipe at Eisenhower (“who invented a version of the English language that was all his own”) and George Wallace. Particularly interesting is Asimov’s take on the “slogan on the part of the obscurantists: ‘Don’t trust the experts!’” This language, along with charges of “elitism,” Asimov wryly notes, is so often used by people who are themselves experts and elites, “feeling guilty about having gone to school.” So many of the American political class’s wounds are self-inflicted, he suggests, but that’s because they are beholden to a largely ignorant electorate:
To be sure, the average American can sign his name more or less legibly, and can make out the sports headlines—but how many nonelitist Americans can, without undue difficulty, read as many as a thousand consecutive words of small print, some of which may be trisyllabic?
Asimov’s examples are less than convincing: road signs “steadily being replaced by little pictures to make them internationally legible” has more to do with linguistic diversity than illiteracy, and accusing television commercials of speaking their messages out loud instead of using printed text on the screen seems to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the medium. Jacoby in her book-length study of the problem looks at educational policy in the United States, and the resistance to national standards that virtually ensures widespread pockets of ignorance all over the country. Asimov’s very short, pithy essay has neither the space nor the inclination to conduct such analysis.
Instead he is concerned with attitudes. Not only are many Americans badly educated, he writes, but the broad ignorance of the population in matters of “science… mathematics… economics… foreign languages…” has as much to do with Americans’ unwillingness to read as their inability.
There are 200 million Americans who have inhabited schoolrooms at some time in their lives and who will admit that they know how to read… but most decent periodicals believe they are doing amazingly well if they have circulation of half a million. It may be that only 1 per cent—or less—of Americans make a stab at exercising their right to know. And if they try to do anything on that basis they are quite likely to be accused of being elitists.
One might in some respects charge Asimov himself of elitism when he concludes, “We can all be members of the intellectual elite.” Such a blithely optimistic statement ignores the ways in which economic elites actively manipulate education policy to suit their interests, cripple education funding, and oppose efforts at free or low cost higher education. Many efforts at spreading knowledge—like the Chatauquas of the early 20th century, the educational radio programs of the 40s and 50s, and the public television revolution of the 70s and 80s—have been ad hoc and nearly always imperiled by funding crises and the designs of profiteers.
Nonetheless, the widespread (though hardly universal) availability of free resources on the internet has made self-education a reality for many people, and certainly for most Americans. But perhaps not even Isaac Asimov could have foreseen the bitter polarization and disinformation campaigns that technology has also enabled. Needless to say, “A Cult of Ignorance” was not one of Asimov’s most popular pieces of writing. First published on January 21, 1980 in Newsweek, the short essay has never been reprinted in any of Asimov’s collections. You can read the essay as a PDF here. There’s also, one of our readers reminds us, a transcript on Github.
via Aphelis
Related Content:
Isaac Asimov’s 1964 Predictions About What the World Will Look 50 Years Later
How Isaac Asimov Went from Star Trek Critic to Star Trek Fan & Advisor
Isaac Asimov Explains His Three Laws of Robots
Josh Jones is a writer and musician based in Durham, NC. Follow him at @jdmagness
Someone was kind enough to transcribe the scanned text into a markdown file on github. https://gist.github.com/embats/4934c30d900960ce15a7
Asimov may not have seen this coming, but Orwell did.
“Not only are many Americans badly educated, he writes, but the broad ignorance of the population in matters of “science… mathematics… economics… foreign languages…” has as much to do with Americans’ unwillingness to read as their inability.”
Shouldn’t that be stated “poorly educated”?
Where possession is 9/10 of the law here in the U.S. ignorance is also 9/10 of the population.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say in your article, but I think you “missed the boat” on what Prof. Asimov was stating. Which is, in short, “Americans believe it is inappropriate to be intelligent”. At least that is my interpretation and experience.
One who probably described it best is Aldous Huxley
“This explains why people don’t think like I do!”
Okay, that’s tongue-in-cheek, but it sums up the takeaway that most people get from Asimov’s saying, and this article fosters that by transmitting the feeling of disdain for one’s fellows, without giving any of Asimov’s examples, which are what the comment is all about. As a result, people have often used this saying to *support* in themselves exactly what Asimov was arguing against. You can see it in other comments on this thread. “Ignorance is 9/10 of the population”. It’s not an argument it’s just a vague feeling that other people just aren’t as good as we are, for no specific reason.
This shows once again that it’s impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
One man claiming to know the answer to all is ignorance.
Wonderful and timely. Thank you so much.
“the Reagan Revolution, which initiated a decades-long conservative groundswell that many pundits say may finally come to an end in November”
Only the electoral college can save us now, and if you read under “The Mode of Electing the President” in The Federalist Papers #68 (link below), you’ll get the impression that that is actually what it was intended for. The people were supposed to elect wise and capable electors, who would themselves select the next President. But that has been subverted, and the electors are mere messengers.
Quote:
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
link:
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-68
Not so much “inappropriate” which seems to be reserved for uncomfortable statements of truth, but intelligence is deemed “Uncool”, certainly.
I’m glad you shared this, since, as you noted, it’s not in any of the published collections of his work that I’ve read. I used to say things like “ignorance can be cured but stupid is forever.” I believe Professor Asimov found himself banging his head against one willfully ignorant person too many and let it fly. I certainly understand his attitude. Don’t we all?
I’m glad you shared this, since, as you noted, it’s not in any of the published collections of his work that I’ve read. I used to say things like “ignorance can be cured but stupid is forever.” I believe Professor Asimov found himself banging his head against one willfully ignorant person too many and let it fly. I certainly understand his attitude. Don’t we all?
I’m glad you shared this, since, as you noted, it’s not in any of the published collections of his work that I’ve read. I used to say things like “ignorance can be cured but stupid is forever.” I believe Professor Asimov found himself banging his head against one willfully ignorant person too many and let it fly. I certainly understand his attitude. Don’t we all?
the cult of the scathing mockers is far worse. plenty of ignorant people laid down their lives for this country in all the wars. and suffered bravely. The American Revoluntionary foot soldier was probably
“ignorant” too. You did not make the stars and the other planets. You created nothing but intellectual snobbery and the cult of unkindness certain of you and its still going on. To heck with your intellectual prowess if you cant even exercise simple kindness.
the brave ignoramuses die constantly in wars for oil, and at the end of their life defend those who sent them to kill innocents or die in a stinking hole.
Just as it is true for the entire western hemisphere, maybe even the entire world, where access to, and the willingness to read and write is downsized to a mere soundbite of characters.
2020 could use all of this right now. Outstanding words.
Wow!! Asimov was one bitter man. He’s examples for his insane article were ridiculous. He said Adlai Stevenson “who let intelligence and learning… peep out of his speeches” found people flocking to a Presidential candidate who speak normally and invented a new English-language. I searched for any writings or noted differences between Eisenhower and Stevenson, I didn’t found any. Ike’s popularity was what’s simple. A WW2 Supreme Commander of The Allies in Europe. He was so popular that even before he picked a political party, without formally entering the race, he won the New Hampshire primary for both parties thanks to a write-in campaign. He beat Stevenson twice by landslides in 1952 and in 1956. Heck, Stevenson was the sitting Governor of Illinois when it voted for Ike rather than him.
Ike presidency was among the best presidencies. Eisenhower was a moderate conservative who continued New Deal agencies and expanded Social Security. He covertly opposed Joseph McCarthy and contributed to the end of McCarthyism by openly invoking executive privilege. He signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent Army troops to enforce federal court orders which integrated schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. His largest program was the Interstate Highway System. He promoted the establishment of strong science education via the National Defense Education Act. His two terms saw widespread economic prosperity.
Asimov is a very hapless man whinning about the changing of written raod signs to pictures. He notes that the valid reason is to standardize road signs around the world, nonetheless, in his assessment, this is just another example of ignorant Americans who don’t want to read.
He thinks politicians who are experts are promoting distrust in experts, because they feel guilty that they have gone to school. And the voters will, somehow, reject them for that reason. What a ludicrous assumption.
No wonder this article was not reprinted in any of his published works. It’s utterly stupid.
The way you write and your style of argument just reinforces Asimov’s point.
One of the first political statements I remember my father making when I was a child, was “Adlai Stevenson can’t get elected — he’s too smart.”
In sixty-some years, I have not seen anything to argue that. People who bother to educate themselves — doesn’t have to be formal education, just looking into subjects that come up that they don’t understand — make better decisions — including the decision to accept the decisions of those who do understand, if necessary. Nobody can know everything — but knowing you know less than someone else, is a huge indicator of intelligence. Dunning-Kruger came along later and showed us that — and large swathes of the population still won’t accept it.
Until those same folks are willing to let the garbage man do their brain surgery if needed, I’m not inclined to believe that they’ve put any real thought into it, and just want to be (perceived as) right.
Considering that anti-science, incompetent narcissistic tRump was elected and still has his cult following, I appreciate Asimov’s sentiments. I am hopeful for the future, though, since the voting public ushered an experienced, decent man, Biden, into the White House. But at the same time, the voting populace did not rid us of obstructionists such as Mitch McConnell, who I loathe as much as the bloviating lying orange buffoon.
Re: “Eisenhower”: He was the one who inflicted us with the invisible deity nonsense on our paper currency and in our pledge of allegiance. I remember the daily school morning indoctrination without having to utter “utter god”.
It’s funny how this quote has become even MORE relevant since the date this article was published…
Interesting discussion that manages to hit home in 2021..Ignorance has now morphed into violence and racism..The next phase will be scapegoat blamming and so on and so on.. At some point it will lead to the end of mankind as a civilization..The remaining mortals will duel each other to oblivion..I would entertain a different outcome..Thanks
Worth circulating
Would have been interesting to have known his take on so-called social media. He would have been even more pessimistic since apparently more than 50% of Americans get their “news” from Facebook.