Volume 61, Issue 4 p. 434-451

Three Kinds of Anti-Intellectualism: Rethinking Hofstadter*

Daniel Rigney

Daniel Rigney

Daniel Rigney is director of the Honors Program, associate professor of sociology, and former assistant to the president of St. Mary's University in San Antonio. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin in 1975. His work has appeared in Social Science Quarterly, Journal f o r the Scientgic Study of Religion, Society, and The American Sociologist. Current research interests include the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of religion, and discourse studies.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: October 1991
Citations: 54
*

I wish to express appreciation to my colleagues in dialogical community at St. Mary's University and to several anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this essay. Editor's Note: The reviewers were Robert N. Bellah, Clyde Barrow, and Irwin Deutscher.

Abstract

Hofstadter's landmark analysis of anti-intellectualism in American life is interpreted within the framework of the sociology of knowledge. His analysis suggests three analytically distinct types of anti-intellectualism: religious anti-rationalism, populist anti-elitism, and unreflective instrumentalism. Each type arises from within its own distinctive institutional matrix. Although Hofstadter fails to anticipate the growing cultural impact of mass media institutions, he demonstrates convincingly that anti-intellectualism is not a unitary phenomenon.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.