If a person has a reputation of being an "intellectual" that can be a mixed bag. Among some that would be regarded as a compliment but among many others it would be treated as more of an insult. There is, in fact, widespread anti-intellectualism in some circles which seems incomprehensible to those who would treat the "intellectual" label as something positive.

I think that in many ways this quote from Albert Camus can help illuminate both perspectives:

An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself.
- Albert Camus, quoted in Life, Sex, and Ideas: The Good Life Without God, by A. C. Grayling

To start with I should make it clear that I am one of those who considers the label of "intellectual" to be positive and, moreover, I think that Camus' description of it goes a long way to explain why this should be so. The word "intellectual" is an adjective that refers to the "intellect," or the ability to learn and reason — especially the ability to think abstractly — as distinguished from one's emotional or other mental faculties.

It is the human intellect that separates us from other creatures to a great extent and an "intellectual" actively and specifically cultivates this particular faculty. After all, everyone reasons and learns on a daily basis; thus, if simply reasoning and learning were all there was to being an intellectual, then everyone would qualify and the term would lose it's meaning. To understand what it means to "actively and specifically" cultivate the intellect, we need to turn to Camus' description.

 

Critical, Deliberative, and Reflexive Learning

It may be true that everyone reasons and learns, but it is not true that everyone does so critically, deliberately, and reflexively. Very often when someone "learns" something they are merely accepting as "fact" whatever the common wisdom dictates or whatever they are told to think by authorities. Very often when someone "reasons" they do so without even understanding what logic is, much less how to correctly apply it in order to reduce the likelihood of errors or fallacies. Fortunately most people don't suffer too much, which is of course why there is little perceived need to do more.

An intellectual, on the other hand, is someone who tries to go a step further by learning and reasoning in a more critical and reflexive manner. Their mind "watches itself" in that they maintain some critical distance from what they are learning and thus avoid developing too much emotional attachment to beliefs that might have to be revised or abandoned later. They deliberate on their reasoning in order to discover flaws or errors which would undermine the validity of their conclusions. They reflect on what they have learned in order to determine if it might be improved upon rather than just slavishly adopting or imitating it.

Does this make intellectuals better than others? Many intellectuals think so, which is surely part of the cause of at least some anti-intellectualism. For anyone who places a premium on humans' ability to learn and reason, it is perhaps natural that those who do it better or at least make an effort to do it better will be seen as being better. Such a conclusion is not quite valid, but at least it's understandable. A person who considers cooking skills to be the most important thing about being human could, similarly, regard accomplished chefs as better than everyone else. It's possible that people in many professions harbor vaguely similar sentiments.

There is, however, another source of anti-intellectualism which is a bit more interesting: the attitude that people should spend less time thinking and more time acting. Is this position more or less common than the first? I really don't know, but I do think that we can see more evidence of the latter than the former — especially in politics.

I can't remember the last time I saw a politician or pundit complain about intellectuals claiming to be superior to the average person, but we can see complaints accompanied by calls for action, the importance of moving forward, and the value of a decisive leader. None of this is automatically qualifies as a condemnation of intellectuals or intellectualism, but it does articulate a principle which pushes against that of careful, critical reflection on one's beliefs, ideas, and attitudes.

 

Are You an Intellectual?

Do you consider yourself to be an "intellectual"? How much time do you spend in careful, critical reflection on your beliefs — especially those beliefs you like? How much time do you spend on maintaining critical distance to things you learn? Most people simply can't invest much time in such activities because they would interfere in the activities necessarily to simply cope with day-to-day life.

Being an "intellectual" doesn't have as much value when you have to deal with paying the mortgage, getting the kids to school, and fixing the leaky basement. This isn't a criticism of anyone, it's just the way life is. Investing the time in being more of an intellectual does not have, for the average person, any more obvious payoff then investing more time in being a better cook, a better carpenter, or a better auto mechanic. So why do it? Payoffs exist, I think, but they aren't obvious or immediate — and because people clearly survive without them, there is no great motivation to seek them out.

I have no resolution for this situation — I'm not even sure that there is a "problem" that requires resolution — but it is a situation that I find interesting and worth thinking about. Of course, that involves thinking about what I am doing and why which would place me squarely in the "intellectual" camp. The same goes for you, if you have read this far, even if you disagree with everything I have written. We are as much a part of the situation as we are observers of it. Do our biases preclude us from understanding and evaluating it properly? And on we go...