This article examines the nature and reproduction of ‘institutional idiocy’, seen as a form of collective cognitive incapacity generated by cultural conditions. It shows idiocy to be active in numerous paths, wearing different clothes and taking dissimilar forms, spreading to the extent that it dominates communities. An empirically driven framework is established for idiocy-dominated communities – communities with access to futile education and fruitless technology. It demonstrates how idiocy-dominated communities disguise and protect their shared idiocy and handle non-idiotic minorities. It (...) explains that idiocy-intense communities are not necessarily chaotic and arbitrarily organised, entailing ‘formulas of life’, ‘identity politics’ and ‘schools of thought’. It describes that a whole community can thoroughly adapt to life without critical thinking, living in an illusion. Whereas previous works have scrutinised individual idiocy, this research goes beyond this to inspect institutional idiocy by presenting idiocy as a system (and ‘ideology’) that constitutes the foundation of groups. While such notions as technocracy and epistocracy detail the domination of cognitive maturity, this article goes in another direction by recording the domination of cognitive immaturity (idiocracy). It avoids thinking about idiocy binarily (idiocy versus intelligence), viewing it as a question of not intellect but behaviour, culture and ‘being-with’. (shrink)

In their debate about whether Cultural Studies is helpful for understanding public ignorance, Chris Wisniewski and Mark Fenster view ignorance as inevitably plaguing the public in mass democratic society; and they see “the public” as an abstract entity. However, Pierre Bourdieu's sociology rightly contests these positions. A thorough investigation of the concrete social conditions of political ignorance reveals that ignorance is unevenly dispersed throughout social space and that its relevance depends on social position, such as that of the advantaged and (...) disadvantaged. Such a comprehensive approach to public ignorance is required for advancing political participation among the least advantaged. (shrink)

In their debate about whether Cultural Studies is helpful for understanding public ignorance, Chris Wisniewski and Mark Fenster view ignorance as inevitably plaguing the public in mass democratic society; and they see ?the public? as an abstract entity. However, Pierre Bourdieu's sociology rightly contests these positions. A thorough investigation of the concrete social conditions of political ignorance reveals that ignorance is unevenly dispersed throughout social space and that its relevance depends on social position, such as that of the advantaged and (...) disadvantaged. Such a comprehensive approach to public ignorance is required for advancing political participation among the least advantaged. (shrink)

In the ongoing debate about the impact that studies of public ignorance should have on the study of culture, Mark Fenster and Bret Chandler assume that wider political participation must be our goal, because, to them, political ignorance is a culturally imposed, and therefore removable, obstacle—as if, without the baleful influence of culture, political participants would be well informed. Culture is indeed a primary influence on people's political opinions, so political scientists should indeed study the role it plays in the (...) formation of political beliefs. But such studies should begin with ignorance as people's default position, and should refrain from assuming that the source of ignorance is cultural domination or manipulation. (shrink)