Our aversion to intellectuals, or to the term, may go back to when we were at school where nobody likes a "swot". In fact, almost any kind of braininess is disparaged: scientists are mad-haired "boffins", tech-savvy kids are "nerds", and people can be "too clever by half". Indeed, we would claim that we are naturally practical thinkers and too full of common sense to produce such highbrows - a situation not helped by many of the people who we consider to be intellectuals denying the fact.
One problem is that of definition: what qualifications are required and what sort of activities does someone have to engage in before they can be called an intellectual? One possible definition is that public intellectuals should be independent of those in power and critical of received ideas. Furthermore, he or she must be someone who raises embarrassing questions in public, contests dogma, and who cannot be persuaded to join governments or corporations.
Let's take a thinker from last century whose theories still have an impact today and see if the definition fits: John Maynard Keynes was an economist who worked for the Treasury and wrote influential books on monetary policy, an art collector, and a member of the Bloomsbury group of writers, artists and intellectuals. Perhaps we need to adjust our definition slightly!
According to the text, which of the following are true of English attitudes towards intellectuals?
Result:
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Option 3: "In general, the English do not admire or respect intellectuals."
Explanation: The text indicates a cultural aversion to intellectuals in English society, describing them as terms of abuse and suggesting that braininess is disparaged. This supports the idea that, in general, the English do not admire or respect intellectuals.
Option 1: "They never join forces with those in authority."
Explanation: The text does not state that English intellectuals never join forces with those in authority. In fact, it mentions that public intellectuals should be independent of those in power, but this does not imply that all English intellectuals adhere to this principle.
Option 2: "Most people would not be able to name an intellectual."
Explanation: While the text suggests that when asked to name an intellectual, people often turn to the continent, it does not explicitly state that most people cannot name one. Therefore, this option is an overgeneralization.
Option 4: "Even some English intellectuals do not like to be called intellectuals."
Explanation: The text mentions that many people considered intellectuals deny the fact of being called intellectuals, indicating that even some English intellectuals may not embrace the label. This aligns with the option's assertion.
Option 5: "They are not clear about what an intellectual is or does."
Explanation: The text discusses the problem of defining an intellectual, but it does not imply that the English are unclear about the concept. Instead, it suggests that there are varying definitions and expectations, which does not equate to a lack of clarity.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation