昨年度の議論を引き継ぐかたちで、オリンピックと反・

In the spring of 1968, historian Richard Hofstadter (1916-70), sociologist Daniel Bell (1919-2011), and sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein (1930-) faced the “Crisis at Columbia University.” The “crisis” started with the student occupation of several buildings and ended with the violent evacuation of them by officers of the New York City Police Department. The majority of faculty supported the student’s claims regarding institutional racism and ougoing dissatisflcation with the Vietnam War, but not many could easily accept the student’s militant tactics because they wondered if the student actions represented the anti-intellectualism in American life.

The Ad-Hoc Faculty Group, organized during the strike, played a significant role in the crisis. Consisting of mostly of younger faculty members, it became “the third force” to intervene in the negotiations between the students and the university. The group also placed itself within the confrontations between protesting students and counterdemonstrators as well as between the students and the police. Yet the group’s independent actions were accused of confusing and delaying the negotiation process by the university administration.

Richard Hofstadter believed that the university was a “special community for inquiry” and feared student’s violent actions on campus as “anti-intellectualism within the wall.” Hofstadter had been consistent with his “non-ideological” liberal stance toward the black liberation movement and the anti-Vietnam war cause during the sixties. When the movement came onto the campus, however, he was forced to make tough decisions: he was eager to understand student claims, but he eventually accepted the administration’s request to support the introduction of the police force onto the campus to restore the “special communitity.”

Daniel Bell and Immanuel Wallerstein showed contrasting reactions as sociologists. Both of them were members of the Ad-hoc Faculty Group, but neo-conservative Bell was very critical of the leaders at Columbia Students for a Democratic Society for their antiauthoritarian confrontational politics. In his writing, Bell ridiculed the stndents for leadirg “a revolution in a doll house” by imitating Mao in the post-industrial American society. He later argued that anti-authoritarianism of 1968 led to the anti-intellectualism in the Regan era. In contrast, Wallerstein was very sympathetic of the movements, especially of the African-American students, which he observed very closely during the strike. He believed that a certain tension between university and society was necessary because a university no longer existed as an isolated ivory tower in the society. Then he theorized the “antisystematic movements” in modern society, in which 1968 was “a rehearsal” for another wave of social change.

The intellectuals who faced the student strike at Columbia University in 1968 saw the change of relationship between university and society and the demise of the Cold War liberalism. However, their reactions were different because their beliefs in what should be conserved in the university and what should be challenged in the socieff did not coincide. In this sense, American universities in the late 1960s functioned as a contested ground for new social knowledge.

The subject of this thesis is concerning Emerson’s "Intellect". Emerson is as a writer who represents American Renaissance or American Romanticism, as a Leader of Transcendentalist, denied the ideal way of a conventional church and spread the thought of self-reliance.

Emerson can be interpreted as a phenomenon rather than the existing person. It is considered that it is not only located as a key person of American Renaissance but also the influence reaches even the present age writer in a literary history. In education, Emerson is located as Pioneer of the Progressive education movement in thought. Especially, he influenced Dewey’s educational philosophy.

However, the evaluation to the transcendentalism that Emerson belonged is not high at all in an American, educational history. The American transcendentalism is put in the category of "Antiintellectualism" in an American Intellectual history.

As a result, the following conclusions have been put out. That is, Emerson is evaluated when subordinating it to Dewey. Moreover, the transcendence principle is evaluated a romanticism element, and is non-intellectual or Anti-intellectual.

This thesis is an attempt to reconsider the evaluation to such a current Emerson evaluation. In this thesis, searching for the meaning of his intellect theory taking Emerson’s influence in an American Intellectual history like literature, thought, and the education, etc. into consideration, Additionally, the actuality of Emerson’s "Intellect" is clarified.

In conclusion, the following was clarified. First, Emerson’s〈Intellect〉was a means to get rid of mental rule from Old Continent by thought "self-reliance" when having seen in a macro viewpoint. Secondarily, in relations with the society Emerson’s〈Intellect〉was to have located as an important thing of democracy. Thirdly, the ideal way of ontology intellect that exceeded a modern and rationalism reason concept was shown in Emerson’s〈Intellect〉as a style of the idea prophesying. Therefore, the Emerson thought can be said that elements that are more intellectual than anti-intellectual elements were strong. Aspects of〈Intellect〉in Emerson gives powerful grounds that distinguish the Emerson thought from the "Antiintellectualism" in an American Intellectual history. And, his thought should be assumed that being the intellect principle rather than romanticism and be evaluated in history of American Education.

In today’s viewpoint of actuality, it is in giving the hint to keep the stance "Apart from others" though the industrialization progresses further than the age where Emerson lived, and it cooperates with others in the present age that shifted to the popular democracy society if the actuality of Emerson’s〈Intellect〉is derived from the above-mentioned point. Emerson protected democracy by advocating "Individual universality". In his thought, social construction was insisted on without degenerating into "Populism" based on the self-reliance.

Emerson explained the ideology of the self-reliance in "Young America" as transcendent "Reason" concept in an American society that was popularizing the 19th century from recluse’s standpoint, or from the transcendentalist with politics.