“Youngsters may have at best a vague and contradictory sense of what a nerd might be, but whether being called one means that you are unstylish, unhygienic, a teacher's pet, or a budding genius, the concept carries at its core the stigma of being a reject.”
Nerds
David Anderegg
Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 256 pages, $24.95
That America’s technology future might depend on the preferences and prejudices of middle-schoolers is a frightening thought. It also appears counterintuitive, at least to the policy experts who try to redress the diminution of science literacy among Americans, as well as our declining number of graduates in math and science relative to other nations. In the face of growing competition from India and China, remedies most often discussed include improved teacher training, tax incentives, scholarships, and financial resources for advanced programs. None of which means anything to seventh graders faced with the stark dichotomy between being “cool” and being a “nerd.”
David Anderegg
Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 256 pages, $24.95
That America’s technology future might depend on the preferences and prejudices of middle-schoolers is a frightening thought. It also appears counterintuitive, at least to the policy experts who try to redress the diminution of science literacy among Americans, as well as our declining number of graduates in math and science relative to other nations. In the face of growing competition from India and China, remedies most often discussed include improved teacher training, tax incentives, scholarships, and financial resources for advanced programs. None of which means anything to seventh graders faced with the stark dichotomy between being “cool” and being a “nerd.”
In Nerds, David Anderegg, a psychology professor at Bennington College as well as a child therapist in private practice, sees in the seemingly trivial experience of preadolescent name-calling serious implications for individuals as well as for our economy at large. He argues that the programs to promote science education preferred by policy wonks close the barn door long after the horses have fled. By the time kids reach fifth or sixth grade, he says, millions of promising students have already made an attitudinal shift away from the rigorous study necessary for a career in science or engineering. As they mature and broaden their perspectives, even those who rediscover scientific interests are, as a result, years behind in terms of preparation compared to their peers in other countries.
To explain this phenomenon, Anderegg takes us into the minds of pre-teens. For adults or even high school kids, the nerd stigma can be a joke; “geek chic” actually enhances the image of certain performers such as Tina Fey or Moby. But according to Anderegg, nerd stereotyping among youngsters often creates identify crisis well ahead of identity formation. He shows us how their limited knowledge of the world, anxieties about puberty, and assault by a barrage of negative media images make academic excellence—especially excellence in science—appear self-destructive. For 10-year-olds already anxious about the hormonal forces about to overtake them, suddenly finding themselves labeled “nerd” supercharges every insecurity about social acceptance and the coming of sexuality. Youngsters may have at best a vague and contradictory sense of what a nerd might be, but whether being called one means that you are unstylish, unhygienic, a teacher’s pet, or a budding genius, the concept carries at its core the stigma of being a reject in the mating game. As far as the child knows, nerdiness—like acne or menarche—might be one of those things that just happens, and who can argue if the other kids say you fit the description? The only safe course is to ditch the eyeglasses, start wearing a different kind of jeans, and above all disavow any interest in math, science, or technology.
Anderegg sees the “nerd” problem played out within a larger “metaphorical entailment,” by which he means the bifurcation of learning into a domain that is “hard” and a domain that is “warm and soft.” The implication is that being interested in “hard” subjects is somehow inhuman and unnatural. Drawing on his own clinical practice, he cites example after example of seemingly well-educated parents expressing prejudices against kids who work hard in school, and especially those who “really love getting the right answer,” remarking that their “own ‘normal’” kids are unfairly disadvantaged, especially in math and science, because “after all…they aren’t nerds.”
Anderegg locates this flight from excellence in the larger cultural strain first explored by Richard Hofstadter in his book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. The preference for the man of action over the man of reflection appears in classic American contests ranging from Brom van Brunt vs. Ichabod Crane, to Andrew Jackson vs. John Quincy Adams, to George W. Bush vs. Al Gore.
The dichotomy today between jocks and nerds, regular guys and geeks, has been amplified not only by thousands of hours of television programming, but also by very real social tensions. Increasingly, economic success depends less on brawn and more on brains—specifically the kind of technical brainpower nerds are disparaged for displaying. According to Anderegg, the most anti-nerd kids often have parents who openly express their own anxieties about being displaced by technology and by the technologically adept. That anxiety takes the form of hostility toward the “pencil neck geeks” who increasingly are the winners in the economic game. Because “everyone knows” that the nerds will grow up and make millions in biotech or software one of these days, anti-nerd bias persists as one of the few prejudices that can be voiced openly without fear of social censure.
Nerds are even assigned to their own pathology—Asperger’s Syndrome—as well as the aspersion that they are often the kind of socially awkward teens who wind up killing their parents or their classmates. All of which adds up to misery for countless youngsters for whom the nerd label can mean anguish, denial of the true self, or even suicide.
The brief, prescriptive part of Nerds is largely a reframing of the descriptive part. To help kids, Anderegg suggests trying to introduce them to helpful subcultures (science camp) and promising role models (older tutors who are athletic and socially skilled as well as smart). To help the culture, he urges journalists to cut out the lazy characterizations, and for each of us to mind our metaphors, eschewing the hard/soft dichotomy. He asks us to love our inner salesman a little less, to love our inner nerd a little more, and to add nerd stereotyping to the list of behaviors deserving social sanctions.
The primary omission in his analysis is the issue of social class. While kids in the big middle might be tormented for their intellectual leanings, children at elite—often private—schools are pressured to excel as never before. Whether or not that top tier, combined with immigration, can provide us with the scientists we need, such a widening class divide does not auger well for public support for scientific innovation. Overall, Anderegg faults a culture in which adults, in a self-destructive effort to align themselves with youth, embrace an idea of rebellion that includes contempt for doing your homework.