ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM IN OPUS DEI
Opus Dei is a Roman Catholic institution defined by cultic attributes, thought control in particular, so that it is naturally marked by anti-intellectualism.
Thought control in Opus Dei has been widely expounded over the decades. Relevant posts in my “Odds and Ends” blog include:
“Is Opus Dei a Cult?”
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2017/11/is-opus-dei-cult.html
“Is Opus Dei Influenced by Fascist Ideas?”
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2017/11/placeholder.html
“How Cults Cause Psychological Harm”
https://oddsandendsgonzalinhodacosta.blogspot.com/2017/10/how-cults-cause-psychological-harm.html
Anti-intellectualism—what is it?
“The concept of anti-intellectualism has changed and evolved over time, without one single definition. In historian Richard Hofstadter’s groundbreaking book, Anti-intellectualism in American Life (1963), anti-intellectualism is explained as ‘a resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind and of those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition constantly to minimize the value of that life.’
“…Today, we define American anti-intellectualism as a social attitude that systematically denigrates science-based facts, academic and institutional authorities, and the pursuit of theory and knowledge.
“…It is important to note that anti-intellectualism is not so much a school of thought, but rather, a composite of related strategies to uphold certain ideas (and systems) put forward by those in power (e.g., creationism, or the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from divine creation). As such, its tactics are not confined to members of a certain group, although they may be more prevalent in some.
“Anti-intellectualism is often associated with America’s current ideological right, conservative thinkers, and religious followers, yet progressives and liberals have also wielded anti-intellectualism to protect their own political power and social standing (including, ironically, perpetuating a non-existent correlation between intellect and class, and a paternalistic approach in addressing social change).
“…In 1991, Professor Daniel Rigney built upon Hofstadter to name three distinct types of anti-intellectualism:
“1. Religious anti-rationalism: rejection of reason, logic, and fact in favor of emotions, morals, and religious absolutes;
“2. Populist anti-elitism: rejection of elite institutions as well as those categorized within the social and/or intellectual ‘elite’ (e.g., professors, old-money politicians);
“3. Unreflective instrumentalism: belief that the pursuit of theory and knowledge is unnecessary unless it can be wielded for practical means (e.g., profit).
“Anti-intellectualism is not, contrary to popular belief, a result of a lack of education or hostility towards acquiring knowledge. Rather, anti-intellectualism distinguishes the concept of knowledge between intellect and intelligence, and heavily favors the latter. As Hofstadter describes, intelligence is utilizing ideas in a practical way, while intellect is about developing, challenging, and evolving the ideas themselves. He states: ‘Intelligence will seize the immediate meaning in a situation and evaluate it. Intellect evaluates evaluations, and looks for the meanings of situations as a whole.’
“Because the continued pursuit of intellectual knowledge necessitates a certain ‘discontent with dogmas’ (Hofstadter), it often conflicts with and challenges widely accepted philosophies, societal structure, and the power dynamics of its time. As a result, anti-intellectualism is evoked as a way to halt the acquisition of new knowledge that would undermine groups with power and privilege, and does so by painting these new ideas as irrelevant to daily life, or simply false.”
https://www.studioatao.org/post/understanding-anti-intellectualism-in-the-u-s
—Edric Huang, Jenny Dorsey, Claire Mosteller, Emily Chen, “Understanding Anti-Intellectualism in the U.S.,” Studio ATAO, September 4, 2020
Based on my personal experience of Opus Dei, I would say that it is indeed an organization defined by anti-intellectualism—not surprising because it is a right-wing sect whose overweening objective is not, believe it or not, the spiritual well-being of its own members or even the good of the Roman Catholic Church, the larger institution in which it is ensconced, but rather its own maintenance and expansion within the institution that is so necessary for the sect to survive and even to flourish.
To this end, which we would say is overriding and defining for Opus Dei, the sect is anti-rational and anti-scientific, engaging in endless ideological wars with opposing or divergent intellectual and social elites, so that Opus Dei is intellectually pragmatic yet intellectually dishonest whenever to advance in this manner serves its utilitarian ends.
Apropos of Rigney’s tripartite classification of anti-intellectualism, we make the following observations about Opus Dei anti-intellectualism.
“Religious anti-rationalism” and “unreflective instrumentalism” are both highly characteristic of Opus Dei.
Concerning “religious anti-rationalism,” Opus Dei is particularly anti-scientific. We cite as examples—the organization argues in favor of Galileo’s condemnation by the Roman Catholic Church, defending the verdict of the Inquisition against him; it opposes the theory of evolution, human evolution especially; it considers and treats as taboo the many insights of scientific psychology because of the science’s alleged underlying secular ideologies; and it propagates its own tendentious accounts of history and biography rather than evaluate historical or biographical data according to normative scientific criteria, critical thinking, and disciplined intellectual integrity.
“Unreflective instrumentalism” is not only permitted in Opus Dei but even encouraged in the case of secular professions that do not come into direct ideological conflict with the organization’s official version of reality. So, for example, civil engineering or corporate finance might be considered worthy endeavors for Opus Dei members but major swathes of scientific psychology or scientific history, together with their underlying secular ideologies, might be censored altogether.
“Populist anti-elitism” is somewhat peculiar in Opus Dei. The organization exercises its own populist anti-intellectualist rhetoric for the purpose of indoctrinating the inhabitants of its own ghetto. Opus Dei is anti-elite, directing its program against its own ideological enemies while concomitantly promoting its own brand of pragmatic elitism.
Public domain photo
ReplyDeletePhoto link:
https://www.pexels.com/photo/hallway-with-window-1309902/
Gonzalinho
The concern I have is that as lay faithful we should not be dragged by clergy or religious, whether individuals or institutions, into their intramural wars inside the Church. Their struggles are often partisan, highly personal, ideologically motivated, unduly dogmatic, aggressive, domineering, tendentious, idiosyncratic, and sometimes even delusional. Opus Dei, in my sad, personal experience, drops into this category.
ReplyDeleteGonzalinho
IRRATIONALISM IS A DEFINING ATTRIBUTE OF FASCISM
ReplyDeleteFrom Terence Ball and Richard Dagger, Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, 5th ed. (2004), pages 179-80:
begin
Irrationalism
The final element in the cultural and intellectual background of fascism was irrationalism. This term captures the conclusions of a variety of very different thinkers who call came to agree with the thinkers of the Counter-Enlightenment that emotion and desire play a larger part in the actions of people than reason.
…one who seems to have had a special influence on Mussolini—was the French social psychologist, Gustav Le Bon (1841-1931). In his classic work, The Crowd (1895), Le Bon argued that human behavior in crowds is different from their behavior as individuals. Acting collectively and therefore anonymously, people will participate in acts of barbarism that they would never engage in as lone individuals. The psychology of lynch mobs, for example, is quite different from the psychology of individuals who compose the mob. People acting en masse and in mobs are not constrained by individual conscience or moral scruple. A mob psychology, or a “herd instinct,” takes over and shuts down individual judgments regarding right and wrong.
In a similar spirit, [Vilfredo] Pareto examined the social factors influencing individual judgment and behavior, concluding that emotions, symbols, and what he called “sentiments” are more important than material or economic factors. And [Gaetano] Mosca suggested that people are moved more by slogans and symbols, flags and anthems—by “political formulae,” as he called them—than by reasoned argument and rational debate.
…George Sorel (1847-1922), a French engineer turned social theorist and social activist…insisted that people are more often moved to action by political “myths” than by appeals to reason. To bring about major social changes, it is necessary to find a powerful myth that can inspire people to act. …What matters most, Sorel concluded, is not the reasonableness of a myth but its emotional power, for it is not reason but emotion that leads most people to act. And when the people act en masse, they can smash almost any obstacle in their path.
This was the advice that Mussolini, Hitler, and other fascist leaders quite obviously took to heart. The slogans, the mass demonstrations, the torchlight parades—all were designed to stir the people at their most basic emotional and instinctive levels. But stir them to do what? To create powerful nation-states, then mighty empires, all under the leadership of the fascist elite. So it was not only irrationalism but elitism and nationalism and the attitudes of the Counter-Enlightenment, too, that came together in the early twentieth century in the totalitarian ideology of fascism.
end
Irrationalism embraces anti-intellectualism—not only that of political parties, campaigns, and movements but also that of religious movements and cults in particular.
Gonzalinho