The WSJ has an article titled The Alienated ‘Knowledge Class’ Could Turn Violent, subtitled: Societies that exile their intellectuals risk turning them into revolutionaries. It happened in the 1970s.
The author cites the Weather Underground in the United States, the Red Army Faction in Germany, and the Red Brigades in Italy, and notes that many members of these organizations were highly educated, middle- or upper-middle-class young people. These weren’t the oppressed proletariat of Marxist theory, but the disillusioned children of privilege and university lecture halls. He goes on to assert that:
A similar dynamic could take root in the U.S. As the Trump administration downsizes public agencies, dismantles DEI programs and slashes academic research funding, it risks producing a new class of people who are highly educated but institutionally excluded. History suggests this group may become a source of unrest—and possibly violence.
He is certainly correct that highly educated people have played a leading part in many revolutionary and terrorist movements…he could also have cited the example of Russian revolutionaries between the mid-1800s and the early 1900s, and many of the terrorist leaders in today’s Middle East…not to mention the Khmer Rouge. And yes, it’s the educated (or at least credentialed) people who don’t obtain the positions to which they aspire, and that they think they deserve, who are most likely to become involved in such movements. Speaking of the causes of sedition in a kingdom, more than four hundred years ago, Francis Bacon said one such cause could arise when more are bred scholars, than preferments can take off. (extended quote) A modern translation of the preceding might be when more people get PhDs than have any hope of getting tenure.
Eric Hoffer, in the late 1950s or early 1960s, speaking about the ‘underdeveloped countries’, as they were then called, said:
Nothing is so unsettling to a social order as the presence of a mass of scribes without suitable employment and an acknowledged status…The explosive component in the contemporary scene is not the clamor of the masses but the self-righteous claims of a multitude of graduates from schools and universities. This army of scribes is clamoring for a society in which planning, regulation, and supervision are paramount and the prerogative of the educated. They hanker for the scribe’s golden age, for a return to something like the scribe-dominated societies of ancient Egypt, China, and the Europe of the Middle Ages. There is little doubt that the present trend in the new and renovated countries toward social regimentation stems partly from the need to create adequate employment for a large number of scribes…Obviously, a high ratio between the supervisory and the productive force spells economic inefficiency. Yet where social stability is an overriding need the economic waste involved in providing suitable positions for the educated might be an element of social efficiency.
It has often been stated that a social order is likely to be stable so long as it gives scope to talent. Actually, it is the ability to give scope to the untalented that is most vital in maintaining social stability…For there is a tendency in the untalented to divert their energies from their own development into the management, manipulation, and probably frustration of others. They want to police, instruct, guide, and meddle. In an adequate society, the untalented should be able to acquire a sense of usefulness and of growth without interfering with the development of talent around them. This requires, first, an abundance of opportunities for purposeful action and self-advancement. Secondly, a wide diffusion of technical and social skills so that people will be able to work and manage their affairs with a minimum of tutelage. The scribe mentality is best neutralized by canalizing energies into purposeful and useful pursuits, and by raising the cultural level of the whole population so as to blur the dividing line between the educated and the uneducated…We do not know enough to suit a social pattern to the realization of all the creative potentialities inherent in a population. But we do know that a scribe-dominated society is not optimal for the full unfolding of the creative mind.
(from The Ordeal of Change)
And in 2020, the Assistant Village Idiot linked an article from The Economist, titled Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?, and said:
People with advanced degrees who are not prospering are often deeply resentful, certain that something must be wrong with “The System”*. I have worked with them for years, MSWs who believe that in a just world they would be entitled to the salaries that other people with their number of years of education get. Other measurements, such as relative value to society, difficulty of the task, level of risk, and the like do not factor in…That they may have been lied to by the educational establishment or their upper-middle-class expectations (“For a good job, get a good education”), that they may have made poor economic decisions due to Following Their Dreams, or that they may have chosen one of the easiest of Master’s degrees to pursue does not occur to them. It is largely political, cultural, and attitude training.
In my post linking the above, Advanced Degrees and Deep Resentments, I said: I don’t like the title of the Economist piece…“Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?”…which confuses intelligence with credentialism, but I think the point about highly-degreed and resentful people is spot-on.
In the WSJ article, the author goes on to say:
Today, a similar form of status frustration is building. The postwar expansion of higher education has created a surplus of advanced degree holders. People with doctorates far outnumber tenure-track positions. Many members of the American intelligentsia face precarious employment, rising debt and declining institutional pathways. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s agenda has disproportionately harmed the “knowledge class”: policy analysts, researchers, educators and civil servants who once found stability in public institutions.
This is more than a mere bureaucratic shake-up. When large numbers of educated, politically engaged people lose access to institutional influence, they often seek alternatives. For now, most are channeling their frustration through protests, digital activism and ideological writing. But under certain conditions—state repression, widespread disillusionment or charismatic leadership—radicalism can escalate. We already see hints in environmental sabotage, anarchist organizing and violent clashes involving Antifa and far-right groups. These remain on the fringe, but so were the Weather Underground and the Red Army Faction in their early days.
President Trump’s policies could intensify this dynamic. By hollowing out state infrastructure and devaluing educational institutions, the administration risks creating a surplus of ideologically driven people with no outlet for their talents. Many are trained in critique, moral reasoning, and systems thinking—the very profile of earlier generations of radicals. Most won’t resort to violence, but history shows that a small, committed vanguard can inflict enormous damage.
and
The question is whether political leaders will mitigate or exacerbate the risks. Defunding and demonizing higher education may offer short-term political gains, but doing so carries long-term dangers. By targeting perceived left-wing strongholds, some on the political right may cultivate the very radicalism they fear.
This sound to me perilously close to blackmail…give these credentialed people their desired jobs, or they will destroy our society.