The Greatest Crime in the Country. (FB repost)
I was chatting with a random stranger the other day (Joe you were there, though not I think for this part) and she mentioned that she feels a need to suppress and not indicate in conversation her level of intelligence for fear that her family might disapprove.
At first I scoffed at this idea, what family or group or society could disapprove of intellectual betterment. Why should anyone feel that they need to reduce their apparent intelligence level? Why is it that significant portions of the population in the United States sees the need to suppress their intellectual abilities?
How has a society that was founded on the ideals and abstract thought born in the Enlightenment, that gave birth to a system of representative government through similar theories, a society dominated by intellectuals, fallen to the point that the society feels the need to ridicule and debase people who do not hide their intelligence?
In short how has the quip about Britain (that the ultimate English crime is being to bloody clever by half) been transplanted and nurtured in the United States?
Part of this to be sure is a transplant from some of the original English heritage, where it was common for men and women of talent, ability, and intelligence, to downplay their skills in a show of modesty. However, in the age of self promotion that we now inhabit, where it is expected for one to 'toot one's own horn,' how is it that this by product of the 18th century drive towards gentrification still holds sway.
Should not the amazing intellectuals of the country, of the world, speak out and show their brilliance to the world? Should not people be proud of their accomplishments?
Leaving behind self-propagandizement for the moment let us look at where this supposed snobbery is most clearly evident, in language. Several of you are familiar with my previous rants about the slow failure and dilution of our language, and this is in its own way a continuation of such.
(I know this next section makes me seem a reactionary, I do not feel myself to be so, however, I can see how others might come to that conclusion.)
There seems to be a growing tendency amongst the current college generation -- whatever they might be called -- to dilute their language in speaking. Languages evolve - yes - but an evolution that leads to the complete separation of society based on language classes is to be frowned upon. We are not talking about accents here necessarily as G.B.S. was wont to do in Pygmalion. Instead in the United States this 'verbal class distinction' is most apparent in vocabulary.
There is a tendency amongst society to frown at individuals when their word choice is anywhere above a sixth grade reading level. But why? If a word that is used in conversation is such that it cannot be understood by the others in the conversation there are three obvious solutions.
- One, the person who does not understand the word can request a meaning from the person who used the word. If that person is unable to give a satisfactory meaning perhaps they should not have chosen that word.
- Two, the person who does not understand the word can chose to look up the meaning of the word at a later point.
- Three, the person who used the word may choose to refrain from the use of such language in the future.
However, by accepting option three we are left with the first two options that while supporting the continued growth of language also lead to a division between the speakers. By the suggestion that one person has knowledge that the other lacks we strike against the very soul of perceived equality. We indicate that there is in some way a teacher and a student, and while that relationship is acceptable in the classroom in public and amongst the rest of society this patriarchal idea is firmly opposed.
And yet the student teacher relationship exists almost everywhere one looks. No matter what your individual intelligence might be there will always be someone to teach you something new, likewise you will always have something to teach to another person. Often times you will switch roles, you may teach someone something about woodworking, they may teach you something about electrical currents. When viewed in this light it becomes obvious that the student/teacher relationship is not per se a hierarchical relationship but one of joint discovery. (This, please note, is a Confucian concept, I just cannot think of which of the Analects applies off of the top of my head.)
If therefore language use, and vocabulary choice in conversation, is not in some way disturbing the idea of equality, if society can absorb and understand that use of an extensive vocabulary does not indicate superiority on the part of the speaker, then why do we allow this suppression of exterior signs of intelligence?
On a personal level there is nothing that annoys me more than a person's choosing to hide their intelligence because it might be socially awkward or inconvenient. I have several friends who can carry on brilliant conversations and are really very intelligent, but who purposefully 'dumb' down these abilities. Can their be a greater crime than that of denying humanity the right to increase knowledge through multiple teacher/student relationships?
*sigh* If you read all of this thank you. If you have responses even to say *pttttthhhb* go ahead and leave them.
PS. I also want to quickly note that I am not talking here about the written word, Cows knows my writing is bad enough(my apologies to all you grammar types out there), just the spoken word.