I concede that undue emphasis on cultivating the intellect at the expense of healthy
emotions can harm an individual psychologically. Undue suppression of legitimate and healthy
desires and emotions can result in depression, dysfunction, and even physical illness. In fact,
the intellect can mask such problems, thereby exacerbating them. To the extent they occur on
a mass scale these problems become societal ones--lowering our economic productivity,
burdening our health-care and social-welfare systems, and so forth. I also concede that by
encouraging and cultivating certain positive emotions and feelings--such as compassion and
empathy--society dearly stands to benefit.
In many other respects, however, emphasizing emotions and de-emphasizing intellect can
carry negative, even dangerous, consequences for any society. Our collective sense of
fairness, equity, and justice can easily give way to base instincts like hate, greed, and lust for
power and domination. Thus, on balance any society is better off quelling or at least tempering
these sorts of instincts, by nurturing reason, judgment, tolerance, fairness, and
understanding--all of which are products of the intellect.
The empirical evidence supporting this position is overwhelming; yet one need look no
further than a television set. Most of us have been witness to the current trend in trashy talk
32
shows, which eschew anything approaching intellectual discourse in favor of pan &ring to our
baser urges and instincts like jealousy, lust and hate. Episodes often devolve into anti-social,
sometimes violent, behavior on the part of participants and observers alike. And any ostensible
"lessons learned" from such shows hardly justify the antisocial outbursts that the producers
and audiences of these shows hope for.
The dangers of a de-emphasis on intellect are all too evident in contemporary America.The
incidence of hate crimes is increasing at a startUng rate; gang warfare is at an all-time high;
the level of distrust between African Americans and white America seems to be growing.
Moreover, taken to an extreme and on a mass scale, appeal to the emotions rather than the
intellect has resulted in humanity’s most horrific atrocities, like the Jewish holocaust, as well as
in nearly every holy war ever waged throughout history. Indeed, suppressing reason is how
demagogues and despots gain and hold their power over their citizen-victims. In contrast,reason and better judgment are effective deterrents to despotism, demagoguery, and
especially to war.
Those opposed to the speaker’s position might argue that stressing cognition and intellect at
the expense of emotion and feeling would have a chilling effect on artistic creativity, which
would work a harm to the society. However, even in the arts students must learn theories and
techniques, which they then apply to their craft whether it be music performance, dance, or
acting. And creative writing requires the cognitive ability to understand how language is used
and how to best communicate ideas. Besides, creative ability is itsdf partly a function of
intellect; that is, creative expression is a marriage between cognitive ability and the expression
of feelings and emotions.
In sum, emotions and feelings can serve as important catalysts for compassion and for
creativity. Yet behaviors that are most harmful to any society are also born of emotions and
instincts, which the intellect can serve to override. The inescapable conclusion, then, is that
the speaker is fundamentally correct.
Issue 28
"The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events
and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people
whose identities have long been forgotten."
The speaker claims that significant historical events and trends are made possible by groups
of people rather than individuals, and that the study of history should emphasize the former
instead of the latter. I tend to disagree with both aspects of this claim. To begin with, learning
about key historical figures inspires us to achieve great things ourselves--far more so than
learning about the contributions of groups of people. Moreover, history informs us that it is
almost always a key individual who provide the necessary impetus for what otherwise might be
a group effort, as discussed below.
Admittedly, at times distinct groups of people have played a more pivotal role than key
individuals in important historical developments. For example, history and art apprecia don
courses that study the Middle Ages tend to focus on the artistic achievements of particular
artists such as Fra Angelico, a Benedictine monk of that period. However, Western civilization
owes its very existence not to a few famous painters but rather to a group of Benedictine nuns33
of that period. Just prior to and during the decline of the Roman Empire, many women fled to
join Benedictine monasteries, bringing with them substantial dowries which they used to
acquire artifacts, art works, and manuscripts. As a result, their monasteries became centers for
the preservation of Western culture and knowledge which would otherwise have been lost
forever with the fall of the Roman Empire.
However, equally influential was Johannes Gutenberg, whose invention of the printing press
several centuries later rendered Western knowledge and culture accessible to every class of
people throughout the known world. Admittedly, Gutenberg was not single handedly
responsible for the outcomes of his invention. Without the support of paper manufacturers,
publishers, and distributors, and without a sufficient demand for printed books, Gutenberg
would never have become one of"the famous few." However, I think any historian would agree
that studying the groups of people who rode the wave of Gutenberg’s invention is secondary in
understanding history to learning about the root historical cause of that wave. Generally
speaking, then, undue attention to the efforts and contributions of various groups tends to
obscure the cause-and-effect relationships with which the study of history is chiefly concerned.
Gutenberg is just one example of an historical pattern in which it is individuals who have
been ultimately responsible for the most significant developments in human history. Profound
scientific inventions and discoveries of the past are nearly all attributable not to forgettable
groups of people but to certain key individuals--for example, Copernicus, Newton, Edison,
Einstein, Curie, and of course Gutenberg. Moreover, when it comes to seminal sociopolitical
events, the speaker’s claim finds even less support from the historical record. Admittedly,
sweeping social changes and political reforms require the participation of large groups of
people. However, I would be hard-pressed to identify any watershed sociopolitical event
attributable to a leaderless group. History informs us that groups rally only when incited and
inspired by key individuals.
The speaker might claim that important long-term sociological trends are often instigated not
by key individuals but rather by the masses. I concede that gradual shifts in demography, in
cultural traditions and mores, and in societal attitudes and values can carry just as significant
an historical impact as the words and deeds of "the famous few." Yet, it seems that key
individuals almost invariably provide the initial spark for those trends. For instance, prevailing
attitudes about sexual morality stem from the ideas of key religious leaders; and a culture’s
prevailing values concerning human life are often rooted in the policies and prejudices of
political leaders. The speaker might also point out that history’s greatest architectural and
engineering feats--such as the Taj Mahal and the Great W~--- came about only thm~h the
efforts of large groups of workers. A~, however, it was the famous few--monarchs in these
cases whose whims and egos were the driving force behind these accomplishments.
To sum up, with few historical exceptions, history is shaped by key individuals, not by
nameless, faceless groups. It is the famous few that provide visions of the future, visions which