Friday, April 16, 2010 at 1:18PM | in Other Why academics cluster on the left
Departing from the usual themes of this blog, I thought this analysis by Robert Nozick (picked up from Clive Crook's blog) was very interesting. It answers the question of why academics cluster around the ideological left:
The intellectual wants the whole society to be a school writ large, to be like the environment where he did so well and was so well appreciated. By incorporating standards of reward that are different from the wider society, the schools guarantee that some will experience downward mobility later. Those at the top of the school's hierarchy will feel entitled to a top position, not only in that micro-society but in the wider one, a society whose system they will resent when it fails to treat them according to their self-prescribed wants and entitlements. The school system thereby produces anti-capitalist feeling among intellectuals.
Thoughts?
Friday, April 16, 2010 at 1:18PM | in Other 
Reader Comments (4)
I skimmed the original article. Nozick seems to be operating on a hefty hypothesis: that intellectuals are anti-capitalists. However, he does not give *any* solid data to support this hypothesis. He states it like a fact, and runs with it.
Is it just that there are more *vocal* lefty intellectuals than righty ones? Or is the hypothesis actually true? Before he goes on some sociological rant (as he prolifically does), he better figure this out. Otherwise, he has no point.
Having struggled through Nozick's article I ask how does he define "intellectuals"? I would say anyone who thinks deeply about the world and chooses to consult with others in order to deepen their understanding. Perhaps those people generally agree that capitalism is not the way for mankind to advance and are seeking a better way.
What does the term ideological left mean to the author? I began to intensely dislike the terms 'leftist', 'liberal' and 'conservative' because they have lost their meaning. I also find it intellectually wrong to stereotype an entire category of workers, in this case academics, as being of one mind. Isn't that intellectually weak of the author to do so? I'm really tired of divisive language which is used to demean and dismiss people and their ideas. Problems need to be solved and divisive behavior only creates more problems.
While I don't share Nozick's worldview, I have found myself thinking along similar lines -- having just entered the world of work after attending a university where a leftist ideology pervaded much of the curriculum.
I think the social observation is astute, despite the view of commenters. Our education system tends to incubate its students, setting up a long sequence of incentives that reward a particular cast of mind. There is limited effort made to connect one's studies to the state, market or society. The result is that many graduates who excel in school (often pursuing graduate degrees) proceed to enter into a workforce that rewards different qualities than the ones they have spent their lives cultivating. It may be unsurprising that several recent studies show that academics do cluster to the left of the political spectrum (see: http://nyti.ms/cVcXZR). Nozick posits that this ideological position is related to the frustration that those successful in school may feel that their competencies are not rewarded in society as they are in school.
The problem, from my perspective, is not 'intellectuals' or 'academics', but an education system that is insular and disconnected from practical realities. We need to redefine our concepts of 'success' and 'excellence', and find ways to rewarding and promoting different competencies in education.