I am revisiting Richard Hofstadter‘s Pulitzer-Prize winning book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1963). Early in the book, Hofstadter makes a distinction between “intelligence” and “intellect.” I found it useful. Here is a taste:
p. 25: Intelligence works within the framework of limited but clearly stated goals, and may be quick to shear away questions of thought that do not seem to help in reaching them…Intellect, on the other hand, is the critical, creative, and contemplative side of mind. Whereas intelligence seeks to grasp, manipulate, re-order, adjust, intellect examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes, criticizes, imagines…The distinction may seem excessively abstract, but it is frequently illustrated in American culture. In our education, for example, it has never been doubted that the selection and development of intelligence is a goal of central importance; but the extent to which education should foster intellect has been a matter of the most heated controversy, and the opponents of intellect in most spheres of public education have exercised preponderant power.
p.26: …few of us believe that a member of a profession, even a learned profession, is necessarily an intellectual in any discriminating or demanding sense of the word. In most professions intellect may help, but intelligence will serve well enough with out it. We know, for instance, that all academic men are not intellectuals; we often lament this fact. We know that there is something about intellect, as opposed to professionally trained intelligence, which does not adhere to whole vocations but only to persons.
p.27: …the professional man lives off ideas, not for them. His professional role, his professional skills, do not make him an intellectual. He is a mental worker, a technician . He may happen to be an intellectual as well, but if he is, it is because he brings to his profession a distinctive feeling about ideas which is not required by his job. As a professional, he has acquired a stock of mental skills that are for sale. The skills are highly developed, but we do not think of him as being an intellectual if certain qualities are missing from his work–disinterested intelligence, generalizing force, free speculation, fresh observation, creative novelty, radical criticism.
This semester, in my Created and Called for Community (CCC) courses at Messiah College, I am teaching a lot of first-year students pursuing professional careers such as nursing, business, engineering, and education. Over the next three years of college these students will learn a specific skill and in the process accumulate a certain kind of intelligence about a subject. They will use this intelligence toward a career. As Hofstadter puts it, they will “acquire a stock of mental skills that are for sale.” (Hopefully they will also put this intelligence to use in a life of service).
But it seems like a text-based interdisciplinary liberal arts course like CCC should be about teaching students to pursue an intellectual life. This course should be an introduction to a way of thinking about the world that transcends narrow intelligence. If I read Hofstadter correctly, a student can gain intelligence during their college career without learning how to foster intellect.
As I challenge students to exercise their minds in general education courses, teach them how to think, and invite them to develop an intellectual life, I sometimes wonder if they are under the impression that I do not believe they are intelligent. This is not the case. I have many intelligent students in my classes this semester, but this does not mean that they are intellectuals. This is a helpful difference that I want to share with them soon.