Why did you listen to that man, that man’s a balloon
My redneck past includes a childhood steeped, like the family formula for making sweet tea, in a demand that children respect authority — authority-for-authority’s sake, the status of authority despite the credibility of the person in that status.
And is typical in the South, these lessons were punctuated with refrains such as the one my mother launched at us often: “He’s a know-it-all that don’t know nothing.”
But the best laid plans of parents often go awry, and they certainly did for me because this aspect of my redneck past backfired big time, resulting in a life-long skepticism of authority as well as my own pursuit of expertise trumping status.
Among my most irritating qualities, I suspect, is I work very hard not to hold forth until I am well informed, but when I do hold forth, I am passionate and that passion often comes off as arrogance.
I have little patience with debating when the other side lacks credibility, and I also balk at the silliest of all — “We will agree to disagree, then.”
Well, no, since your position has no credibility.
So I am particularly fascinated with what I consider a parallel interest currently with fake news and post-truth, what Tom Nichols calls The Death of Expertise.
Nichols and his argument, coming from his conservative perspective, represent, I think, why expertise currently and historically has been marginalized in the U.S.
Uneducated Fonzie is always smarter than the educated, and Ross is a laughing stock among his friends, notably often one-upped by the very anti-intellectual Phoebe and Joey (I discuss the latter more fully in Belief Culture).
Nichols and I share a concern about how little expertise matters in political and public discourse as well as policy, but while he and I share some elements of being experts, we are divided by our essential ideologies.
This presents a paradox: The U.S. rejects a cartoonish and monolithic “expert class,” but most fields/disciplines have a fairly wide spectrum of stances within them (in other words, the “expert class” rejected by the U.S. simply doesn’t exist).
But even that is oversimplified. Let me return to my redneck past.
In the South specifically, rejecting expertise is often about traditional views of respecting authority, best captured, I think, in how Huck Finn’s father shames Huck for his book learning. Huck even confesses: “I didn’t want to go to school much, before, but I reckoned I’d go now to spite papa.”
One of my former colleagues recounted often that his own father identified sending my friend to college was the worst mistake his father ever made.
Perversely, many see being informed, knowledgeable as rudeness, disrespectful.
A better recent confrontation of expertise than Nichols’s, I think, is Freddie deBoer’s What Is Aleppo?, focusing on Gary Johnson:
I would like to nominate Gary Johnson’s infamous “What is Aleppo?” gaffe as the moment which, for me, most typifies 2016, at least as far as our intellectual culture goes.
Predictably, and deservedly, Johnson was raked over the coals for this. A major presidential candidate — one who had far more electoral impact than Jill Stein, for instance — not knowing about this important foreign policy issue was disturbing. But it’s essential to recognize what he actually got in trouble for. Johnson’s great failure, what actually fed his public humiliation, was not a lack of knowledge. It was a lack of knowingness.
deBoer argues: “Ours is a culture of cleverness, not of knowledge, one that is far more comfortable in assessing wit than in assessing evidence.”
And here we may have a more accurate window into why someone who is not really an expert, such as Donald Trump, but is smug and cavalier about being smart, is more compelling in the U.S. than actual experts. Trump passes deBoer’s test:
That kind of thing: obviously smart but not, like, all tryhard about it. You are expected to work out relentlessly to train your body and to show everyone that effort, but your intelligence must be effortless, even accidental.
As I have argued, this is a very high-school popularity kind of dynamic in which bravado trumps credibility; again, think Fonzie’s allure in pop culture: “See, the drop-out is smarter than all those teachers!”
My own career as an educator has highlighted these exact patterns.
As a teacher of English, I am not credible in the field of English because I am just a teacher with an undergraduate, Master’s, and Doctorate in education (not English). However, to politicians and the public, I am routinely rejected in debates about education because my experience and expertise lie in education.
As a prelude to the rise of Trump, consider Arne Duncan, who has no degree in education and who has only experience in eduction as a political appointee.
Who do you think has more public and political influence on education — Duncan because of his statuses of authority or me with 33 years in education, an advanced degree, and a substantial publication history?
That question is nearly laughable in the U.S.
Let me end with a couple examples that are useful for a more nuanced consideration of the role of experts, grounded, I think, in deBoer’s discussion.
I immediately blogged a rebuttal to Teller, and discovered through responses to my concerns that Teller has greater expertise in literature than composition (which I suspected).
Hess’s rebuttal is grounded in his expertise in composition, his status of authority (president of NCTE), and his appeal to disciplinary authority (citing ample research that accurately reflects the field of composition).
None the less, Teller’s piece speaks to both an uniformed public and a click-bait culture, and it is likely, as John Warner mused, that Hess’s better piece will not garner as many views or as much commentary as Teller’s.
This debate between experts serves to highlight, again, the failure of media in terms of honoring expertise, but it also demonstrates that expertise is often narrow and that disciplines are more often contentious than monolithic (although there are some things that are essentially settled and no longer debatable).
Bluntly, we must admit that simplistic resonates more than complex — and expertise is not only narrow but also complex.
Finally, to highlight that expertise is as much about wrestling with knowledge as having knowledge, I offer a debate in a guest co-edited volume of English Journal, centered on The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn:
- Editors’ Introduction: Teaching Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: Essays in Conversation [FREE ACCESS], Julie Gorlewski and David Gorlewski
- Huck and Kim: Would Teachers Feel the Same if the Language Were Misogynist? [FREE ACCESS], Peter Smagorinsky
- The Irrationality of Antiracist Empathy [FREE ACCESS], Leigh Patel
- Is Huck Finn Still Relevant? Revisiting “The Case for Conflict” [FREE ACCESS], Ebony Elizabeth Thomas
- We Dare Not Teach What We Know We Must: The Importance of Difficult Conversations [FREE ACCESS], Jocelyn A. Chadwick
At one level, the experts included in this debate, in my informed opinion, are far more likely to have credible positions about the topic than people without degrees and experience in literature, the canon, race/racism, and teaching.
Yet, among these articles, you will find pointed disagreement — and as someone with expertise in these areas, I find myself siding with some, rejecting others, even as I respect the basic expertise among them all.
So in 2016, we are faced with a historical and immediate problem, one that could be solved if we reconsidered our cultural antagonism toward expertise and embraced a greater appreciation for informed stances, the realm of the expert.
It is ours to resist extremes, neither ignoring experts nor abdicating all authority to experts.
As cumbersome as it may seem, democracy that honors all voices works well only when we start with the most informed voices and then allow “all voices” to occur in an educated space.
Currently, we are prisoners to bravado drowning out expertise, and in that echo chamber, freedom cannot survive.