In today’s education system, students learn to analyse the sophisticated scriptures of Plato and complex articles of science. Though, as a result of this level of complexity, one may often observe a shallow absorption and understanding of the material. In his article “Hidden Intellectualism,” Gerald Graff shares his personal narrative, revealing the discrepancies of modern education and society’s narrow sense of what is considered “intellect.” Through his argument, he underlines both the faults of academia, as well as the limitations of studying a subject of non academic interest. Graff presents his history first in order to create a connection to his audience.
Utilizing his personal narrative, Graff introduces his own experience in school that the audience can relate to. Having grown up in a mixed community, he faced the dilemma of choosing to express himself as “book smart” or “street smart.” The audience is led to feel a sense of nostalgia, reminiscing on their own adolescence and of trying to fit in with others. Graff continues to exemplify his experience by describing the struggle that “came down to a choice between being physically tough and being verbal” (Graff 7). In childhood, people think more about their present rather than their future, a train of thought that made Graff consider the option of brawn over brain in the hopes to “impress the hoods” (7). His personal narrative therefore gives the audience a sense of relatability and nostalgia, both affecting them emotionally and establishing a sense of credibility in the author for sharing a generally communal experience. However, the personal narrative is also used to compare and contrast a subject of interest to the topic in question.
Throughout his whole experience, Graff’s overarching idea is the comparison of sports to school. He realizes the link between the two seemingly different focuses, pointing out that the intellectual skills used in the sports world were—if not more fortified—on par with that of the academic world. As a subject of interest for the author, sports became a much stronger teacher of intellectual skills than school, learning how to formulate arguments and analyze evidence. His revelation directs his audience to reconsider their current states of mind and wonder how effective their own educations were in developing such skills to be used in the world outside of school. Not only did he believe that sports created a stronger foundation for intellect, he also stated that it “[satisfies] the thirst for community” (Graff 12). He argues that a subject of interest is better at convening others than the isolated environment schoolwork creates. In summary, Graff uses a logical comparison in order to show the advantages of his idea over another. However, that is not to say that he does not understand the limitations of his argument; Graff admits that simply learning about a subject of interest would not boost one’s intellectual capabilities. Though it may help to better engage students, he recognizes that the point is to see the material “through academic eyes” (Graff 17). In this way, he both endorses his idea of learning with a personally compelling topic and considers the extent of its influence.
The usage of allusions throughout Graff’s article serves to exemplify the argument comparing types of intellect. He references the names Plato and Shakespeare, two famous figures of academic intellect. By mentioning these names, the audience may immediately grasp Graff’s definition of “book smarts” and therefore divide intellect into academic and non academic. One would associate the works of Plato and Shakespeare with the general idea of intellect, while a celebrity figure such as Marilyn Monroe would be accredited with other more non academic factors. Graff later mentions Marilyn Monroe’s marriage to the playwright Arthur Miller, describing it as “the symbolic triumph of geek over jock…” (8). The inclusion of this allusion works to both describe the time period he grew up in and, more importantly, provide an example of society’s preference to academic intelligence.
Throughout his argument, Graff utilizes a multitude of rhetorical strategies to uncover society’s faults in the perception of education to his audience. With the relatability of his personal narrative, the compelling comparison between school and sports, and the implementation of allusions, he influences his readers to realize the various forms in which intellect is found. Though he does make the distinction between “book smarts” and “street smarts,” Graff’s main purpose is rather to blur the division between the two and lead his audience to accept both intellects and the rest of the spectrum as formidable sources of wits. By broadening society’s way of thinking, the reality of an overall educated community that focuses on a myriad of subjects may come true.