4 ms·

There's something curiously American about Flowers for Algernon... our general popular culture tends to value physical achievement (the athlete) more than menta

There's something curiously American about Flowers for Algernon... our general popular culture tends to value physical achievement (the athlete) more than mental achievement (the nerd/geek). So here's the story of how the co-workers/peers of a mentally disabled individual, Charlie, (who they ridicule initially) react to the reversal of that disability (with suspicion and distrust) and then the re-imposition of that disability (with protective behavior, and a degree of guilt and shame). The whole story is really more illustrative of the co-worker's behavior & values than anything else. Other cultures seem to have a more balanced view (i.e. mental development and physical development should go hand-in-hand, and an either-or approach is considered unhealthy). American culture in contrast developed the stereotypes of 'dumb jock' and 'scrawny nerd' - Hollywood's fault, maybe?

taeric 4y ago
I'm curious. I've never seen anything to make me think other cultures are that different in this regard. Would be interested in learning more.
- frostburg 4y ago
  Well, terrible recent developments notwithstanding, Russians revere the authors of their literary canon. Arguing that a successful athlete is more important than Tolstoj or Pushkin would generally be ridiculed. Even here in Italy, despite an unhealthy national obsession with association football, if considering the whole body of society nobody is held in higher public regard than esteemed painters, poets, writers etc. (athletes are loved but not believed to be particularly bright).
  - taeric 4y ago
    That doesn't seem too off to USA. Famous authors are still respected. Most authors aren't. I also feel that modern authors aren't given the same treatment.
- solardev 4y ago
  In some East Asian cultures, there isn't really a concept for a "nerd" (or conversely, a "jock"). People just learn what they can, and exercise in whatever ways they can. It's recognized that there are different ability levels in both, but they're not considered opposite parts of a spectrum. If you try to translate "nerd" to Chinese, for example (https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4505 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4505), there isn't really a neat translation... one of the closer translations would be something akin to a "bookworm", but even in that meaning, it's more to describe someone who's deeply interested in a very esoteric topic (say, the springtime dietary preferences of Han dynasty peasants), rather than someone who's smart but socially and physically inept. If you just sit at home all day and study, people will tell you to get more exercise, but there's not really a term for that beyond "you should exercise more". It's not a taunt or a pejorative. It's just not assumed that these are exclusionary spheres of being; you are expected to gradually develop your mental, physical, emotional, and social skills altogether, and a lot of the cultural development is in finessing out when to use which skills, whether you're a warrior or politician or emperor.
  - taeric 4y ago
    I don't know. This feels like it is leaning too heavily on single words. Translate aunt, and see that that is similarly difficult. Still, I can't and don't reject the idea. Would love to see a comprehensive study. At a personal level, I don't remember these things in school, either. They were archetypes, but nobody was a solid archetype. Such that I find it hard to believe you don't see folks through some of these lenses.
    - solardev 4y ago
      Words (or in their case, characters & the concepts) partially define culture, though. If you don't have an easy word for something, whether it's a personality or a color, it's a foreign idea to you. Sure, someone can translate it for you and tell you what it means, but it's not the same as having it be a part of your culture. Someone can explain "tea time" to me, but as an American, it will always be a Britishism even though I understand the concepts of tea and gathering and hours. It's just not a part of my cultural existence. FWIW, anecdotally, I grew up in a culture much like what I described, and it wasn't until I moved to America that I learned what "nerd" meant. Nobody around me in childhood ever made that distinction. Similarly, I found it odd that Americans identified by musical genres in high school. But sure, these things would be fascinating thing to ethnographically!
narag 4y ago
That's, more or less, one of the first questions I asked in this site. Paul Graham answered with photos of the football team and the chess club. It seems there is a physical difference bigger than what I've observed in Spain and more on the side of athletes. I don't see that kind of massive teens over here in campuses.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  To be honest, a USA football team is as unfair a comparison as you can get — they need to be physically bulky to be good at the sport. Baseball or basketball players would be a more useful comparison.
dekhn 4y ago
Not exactly a direct response, but see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron which imho is the best statement for gifted education that I have ever seen. It anticipates the current situation better than any speculative fiction.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  Why do you think that? Exceptional people are highly valued in today's society... Examples don't even need to be mentioned.. we all know their names. Harrison Bergeron still seems to be firmly in the realm of science fiction.
  - Viliam1234 4y ago
    People hate intelligence, but they respect power more. Money is a form of power. So when the intelligent people get rich today, they are respected. But as kids, they are often bullied. The opposition to gifted education has the same source. If the gifted kids come from a rich family, they can get all the tutors they need anyway. And if they come from a poor family, screw them.
solardev 4y ago
One layer deeper, it was also illustrative of how the supposedly smarter people (the researchers and teacher) also reacted to his journey, and of who's "allowed" to be smart without being perceived as threatening. It's not as straightforward as just "jocks vs nerds", but how the scientists work with each other, how the teacher treats him vs the researchers, how the lab mouse is alternately thought of either disposable or a beloved pet, the many different degrees and directions of otherization between all the characters, etc. It's social commentary, sure, but a relatively nuanced one at that :) By my reading/IMHO, the isolation, loneliness, and insecurity/otherization of all the characters in the story were heavier than any overt comparison of athleticism vs intellectualism. American culture isn't just athletic, it's also quite shallow: everyone projects success and happiness but suffer deeper down and are afraid to introspect, share vulnerabilities, or form meaningful communities. The invisible individualism causes suffering both for the characters in the book and real people in our society. It's an interesting thing to think about, no? Hollywood these days doesn't celebrate raw martial athleticism as much anymore, but the rugged individualist hero (who's both smart and physically somewhat capable, like Marvel or DC heroes) is typically also socially dysfunctional and emotionally underdeveloped. The indie and foreign films are a lot better at capturing nuance... our blockbusters are mostly still just broken-men-blowing-things-up kinda deals.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  "American culture isn't just athletic, it's also quite shallow: everyone projects success and happiness but suffer deeper down and are afraid to introspect, share vulnerabilities, or form meaningful communities." There isn't just one American culture, there are many... with people not infrequently belonging to many subcultures. We should be wary of painting America (or any other country) with one broad brush.
  - solardev 4y ago
    Sure, but you can group and subdivide cultures however you like. There are subcultures within subcultures, yet at the same time there is a broadly American culture and maybe a broadly Western one, etc. Like species, there's no precise test for a unit of culture, it's just different zoom levels... each level of grouping or subdivision has its uses. Relative to other national identities I've had experience with, I believe that Americans in particular are quite obsessed with aesthetics, everything from hair color to deodorants to artificially aligning and whitening teeth, to identifying with musical subgenres as a method of personal belonging and appearance. If there is no American culture then there is no Americana, which I don't believe, and would be a great loss to the cultural richness of the modern era... everything from Blues to bluegrass to Blue's Clues to blue jeans. American culture has a richness that's hard to appreciate or even recognize these days, when it's so embroiled in modern culture wars, but it's definitely there and definitely distinct from, say, Japanese culture of the postwar years or 1800s France.
red_admiral 4y ago
> our general popular culture tends to value physical achievement (the athlete) more than mental achievement (the nerd/geek) Isn't that changing, possibly for the worse - don't you now need a college degree for almost anything above the lowest tiers?
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  I think there's been significant recent pushback on that trend, with more widespread recognition that skilled trades, vocational school, and non-college routes don't automatically imply second-class status (particularly considering the high costs and debt college grads get saddled with). However, as far as 'elite colleges', there is this unhealthy trend towards a more 19th-century British posh/prole divide in the educational system, but that's been going on for some time. That's not about quality of education so much as elite networking schemes and the creation of an American aristocracy.

taeric 4y ago

I'm curious. I've never seen anything to make me think other cultures are that different in this regard. Would be interested in learning more.

frostburg 4y ago
Well, terrible recent developments notwithstanding, Russians revere the authors of their literary canon. Arguing that a successful athlete is more important than Tolstoj or Pushkin would generally be ridiculed. Even here in Italy, despite an unhealthy national obsession with association football, if considering the whole body of society nobody is held in higher public regard than esteemed painters, poets, writers etc. (athletes are loved but not believed to be particularly bright).
- taeric 4y ago
  That doesn't seem too off to USA. Famous authors are still respected. Most authors aren't. I also feel that modern authors aren't given the same treatment.
solardev 4y ago
In some East Asian cultures, there isn't really a concept for a "nerd" (or conversely, a "jock"). People just learn what they can, and exercise in whatever ways they can. It's recognized that there are different ability levels in both, but they're not considered opposite parts of a spectrum. If you try to translate "nerd" to Chinese, for example (https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4505 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4505), there isn't really a neat translation... one of the closer translations would be something akin to a "bookworm", but even in that meaning, it's more to describe someone who's deeply interested in a very esoteric topic (say, the springtime dietary preferences of Han dynasty peasants), rather than someone who's smart but socially and physically inept. If you just sit at home all day and study, people will tell you to get more exercise, but there's not really a term for that beyond "you should exercise more". It's not a taunt or a pejorative. It's just not assumed that these are exclusionary spheres of being; you are expected to gradually develop your mental, physical, emotional, and social skills altogether, and a lot of the cultural development is in finessing out when to use which skills, whether you're a warrior or politician or emperor.
- taeric 4y ago
  I don't know. This feels like it is leaning too heavily on single words. Translate aunt, and see that that is similarly difficult. Still, I can't and don't reject the idea. Would love to see a comprehensive study. At a personal level, I don't remember these things in school, either. They were archetypes, but nobody was a solid archetype. Such that I find it hard to believe you don't see folks through some of these lenses.
  - solardev 4y ago
    Words (or in their case, characters & the concepts) partially define culture, though. If you don't have an easy word for something, whether it's a personality or a color, it's a foreign idea to you. Sure, someone can translate it for you and tell you what it means, but it's not the same as having it be a part of your culture. Someone can explain "tea time" to me, but as an American, it will always be a Britishism even though I understand the concepts of tea and gathering and hours. It's just not a part of my cultural existence. FWIW, anecdotally, I grew up in a culture much like what I described, and it wasn't until I moved to America that I learned what "nerd" meant. Nobody around me in childhood ever made that distinction. Similarly, I found it odd that Americans identified by musical genres in high school. But sure, these things would be fascinating thing to ethnographically!

narag 4y ago

That's, more or less, one of the first questions I asked in this site. Paul Graham answered with photos of the football team and the chess club. It seems there is a physical difference bigger than what I've observed in Spain and more on the side of athletes. I don't see that kind of massive teens over here in campuses.

KerrAvon 4y ago
To be honest, a USA football team is as unfair a comparison as you can get — they need to be physically bulky to be good at the sport. Baseball or basketball players would be a more useful comparison.

dekhn 4y ago

Not exactly a direct response, but see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron which imho is the best statement for gifted education that I have ever seen. It anticipates the current situation better than any speculative fiction.

pmoriarty 4y ago
Why do you think that? Exceptional people are highly valued in today's society... Examples don't even need to be mentioned.. we all know their names. Harrison Bergeron still seems to be firmly in the realm of science fiction.
- Viliam1234 4y ago
  People hate intelligence, but they respect power more. Money is a form of power. So when the intelligent people get rich today, they are respected. But as kids, they are often bullied. The opposition to gifted education has the same source. If the gifted kids come from a rich family, they can get all the tutors they need anyway. And if they come from a poor family, screw them.

solardev 4y ago

One layer deeper, it was also illustrative of how the supposedly smarter people (the researchers and teacher) also reacted to his journey, and of who's "allowed" to be smart without being perceived as threatening. It's not as straightforward as just "jocks vs nerds", but how the scientists work with each other, how the teacher treats him vs the researchers, how the lab mouse is alternately thought of either disposable or a beloved pet, the many different degrees and directions of otherization between all the characters, etc. It's social commentary, sure, but a relatively nuanced one at that :) By my reading/IMHO, the isolation, loneliness, and insecurity/otherization of all the characters in the story were heavier than any overt comparison of athleticism vs intellectualism. American culture isn't just athletic, it's also quite shallow: everyone projects success and happiness but suffer deeper down and are afraid to introspect, share vulnerabilities, or form meaningful communities. The invisible individualism causes suffering both for the characters in the book and real people in our society. It's an interesting thing to think about, no? Hollywood these days doesn't celebrate raw martial athleticism as much anymore, but the rugged individualist hero (who's both smart and physically somewhat capable, like Marvel or DC heroes) is typically also socially dysfunctional and emotionally underdeveloped. The indie and foreign films are a lot better at capturing nuance... our blockbusters are mostly still just broken-men-blowing-things-up kinda deals.

pmoriarty 4y ago
"American culture isn't just athletic, it's also quite shallow: everyone projects success and happiness but suffer deeper down and are afraid to introspect, share vulnerabilities, or form meaningful communities." There isn't just one American culture, there are many... with people not infrequently belonging to many subcultures. We should be wary of painting America (or any other country) with one broad brush.
- solardev 4y ago
  Sure, but you can group and subdivide cultures however you like. There are subcultures within subcultures, yet at the same time there is a broadly American culture and maybe a broadly Western one, etc. Like species, there's no precise test for a unit of culture, it's just different zoom levels... each level of grouping or subdivision has its uses. Relative to other national identities I've had experience with, I believe that Americans in particular are quite obsessed with aesthetics, everything from hair color to deodorants to artificially aligning and whitening teeth, to identifying with musical subgenres as a method of personal belonging and appearance. If there is no American culture then there is no Americana, which I don't believe, and would be a great loss to the cultural richness of the modern era... everything from Blues to bluegrass to Blue's Clues to blue jeans. American culture has a richness that's hard to appreciate or even recognize these days, when it's so embroiled in modern culture wars, but it's definitely there and definitely distinct from, say, Japanese culture of the postwar years or 1800s France.

red_admiral 4y ago

> our general popular culture tends to value physical achievement (the athlete) more than mental achievement (the nerd/geek) Isn't that changing, possibly for the worse - don't you now need a college degree for almost anything above the lowest tiers?

photochemsyn 4y ago
I think there's been significant recent pushback on that trend, with more widespread recognition that skilled trades, vocational school, and non-college routes don't automatically imply second-class status (particularly considering the high costs and debt college grads get saddled with). However, as far as 'elite colleges', there is this unhealthy trend towards a more 19th-century British posh/prole divide in the educational system, but that's been going on for some time. That's not about quality of education so much as elite networking schemes and the creation of an American aristocracy.