The rising prominence and exploitation of anti-intellectualism
Anti-intellectualism is becoming increasingly politically charged, and its polarizing consequences are as apparent as ever
In a climate where professional knowledge is dismissed as elitist and critical information is weaponized for political gain, experts believe that the consequences of anti-intellectualism are becoming increasingly apparent.
“Anti-intellectualism is becoming more prominent, it’s becoming more politically charged,” said Eric Merkley, PhD candidate and assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto.
Merkley remarked how studies show that people with anti-intellectual predispositions are moving towards the political right, whereas those who are more trusting of experts are moving towards the political left. According to Merkley, this trend is generating a unique polarization of trust that is especially noticeable in the U.S., with Canada not far behind.
This dissent for experts and scientific knowledge, Merkley suggested, is often exploited for self-interest and profit-based motives.
A 2017 study by Matthew Motta explored how powerful political figures sometimes employ anti-intellectual rhetoric to discourage people from trusting experts on matters of scientific consensus. The study found that this is often achieved through a performative sympathy for the average citizen in hopes of gaining their trust and loyalty.
For instance, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada Pierre Poilievre often claims to understand the struggles of everyday Canadians, only to promote policies that would, as the Canadian Union of Public Employees states, “shift the power from consumers, small businesses and workers to big corporations.”
Indeed, the CBC reported that, in his first speech after ascending to the party’s leadership, Poilievre claimed that he could sympathize with the plight of struggling Canadians due to his “humble origins.”
Concern for political corruption in the U.S. materialized during the Progressive Era in the early 20th century, resulting in a form of anti-intellectualism labelled by sociologist Daniel Rigney as “populist anti-elitism.” This refers to a resentment and distrust of elites and the establishments that enable their power.
“People were worried about corrupt politicians, corrupt political elites, machine politics, there was strong pushback against this, and those ideas affected Canada as well,” Merkley said. “A lot of people turned to experts, turned to civil servants, as an alternative to the corruption of politics.”
Merkley explained that, during this era, populists saw the value of experts as a force against the corruption of partisan politics. This directly contrasts contemporary populism, which sees academic authority in a similar light to political actors.
“Over the course of the 20th century, you had rapidly growing governments, and the need for technocratic expertise became all the more essential,” Merkley said. “And because of that, in the public’s mind, there became a sort of fusion between government elites and experts.”
Among these distrusted experts, journalists have also experienced being deemed—and subsequently dismissed—as elites.
CBC News reporter Brodie Fenlon remarked in a 2021 article that an increasing number of Canadians are losing trust in journalism. As indicated by a 2021 survey of 1,500 Canadians conducted by communications firm Edelman, 49 per cent of surveyed Canadians agreed that journalists are deliberately trying to mislead the public through misinformation or exaggerations.
According to Eric Buzzetti, associate professor of political science at Concordia University, there is a suspicion within the population that the actions of experts are not driven by knowledge or understanding, but rather by political preferences masqueraded as expertise.
Alongside the sentiment that experts are ideological, Buzzetti believes that hostility to expertise is rooted in a perceived narrow-mindedness that is especially apparent in higher education.
“There’s a sense that the university is a place where not enough ideas can be honestly debated and discussed,” he said. “People who are so quick to discard certain views as simply beyond the pale hurt themselves by operating on a very narrow basis of understanding.”
Professor of philosophy at San José State University Karin Brown wrote for the American Association of University Professors that educational institutions often prioritize bureaucratic metrics that undermine the professional autonomy of academic faculty to standardize learning and amplify profit.
“Reducing education and learning to a few goals that can be quantified basically turns education into a kind of factory,” Brown told The Link. “It’s actually getting closer and closer to dogma, and dogma is antithetical, at least to liberal arts education, as the whole point is to think and to create, not to follow and accept.”
Brown considers outcome-based education to be anti-intellectual, remarking that a focus on process as opposed to assessment trains the mind to think and question, rather than follow blindly.
She suspects this to be increasingly uncompromising, emphasizing “how valuable it is to teach people to think for themselves and never accept anything without questioning.”
This is especially significant in debunking misinformation. For example, a 2025 survey of over 3,700 Canadians conducted by the Canadian Medical Association found an increase in health misinformation due to a heightened reliance on social media as a news source.
The consequences of health misinformation can be seen in the declining childhood vaccination rates among Canadians. Physician Dr. Alykhan Abdulla said to The Globe and Mail that he believes social media is at fault for the exacerbation of false or misleading information that sways understandings of health and medicine.
Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer, warns that measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases have re-emerged, particularly among unvaccinated children.
In a 2021 study on anti-intellectualism and public response to COVID-19, Merkley observed that the biggest factor that shaped people’s perceptions of the threat of COVID-19 “boiled down to how much they trust doctors, scientists, and experts.”
The study determined a positive association between anti-intellectualism and misperceptions of the risks of COVID-19. As such, distrust in science and experts, Merkley noted, poses alarming and increasingly apparent risks to public health.
This article originally appeared in Volume 45, Issue 11, published March 18, 2025.
