What's Wrong With Elitism

[Ritterin Sophia]

I hear shrill morons screeching the word 'elitist' all the damn time, what's wrong with elitism? Why is it necessarily a bad thing? The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of elitist is thus: The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

As far as I can see such a definition does not preclude an elitist from being meritocratic. Yet, the average person seems to think that the 'elite' can't be blue-collar, working men.

Obviously this is tied in with the upcoming American Primaries and General Election, so why American's on average so fascinated with having a leader they can sit down and have a beer with rather than an asshole who runs the country competently?

Despite being born and raised in this country, this particular aspect of the average American's psyche perplexes me the most.

[Darth Wong]

There are two kinds of elites: people who are born into wealth and people who have better education than regular people. The first kind of elite is basically useless. The second kind of elite is not only useful, but quite frankly should have their opinions (particularly in their respective areas of expertise) elevated above those of regular people, because those opinions have more research behind them. Critics of elitism make a lot of hay by smearing the two kinds of elitism together.

The opposite of elitism is populism, and populism run amok has led to stupidities like high school students passing judgment on the validity of scientific theories in fields where they don't even have enough knowledge to pass a first-year mid-term.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

Well, the general idea of the word is more important than the factual definition sadly.

And the general mental context of elitist is very negative. Conjuring images of a corrupt aristocracy ruling with fear through a station they were born into rather than merit.

There're a lot of words with a neutral definition, but a positive or negative implication in the minds of the unwashed masses.

[Nephtys]

American perceptions of elitism are twofold. 'Bad' Elitism of course, is not viewed well. This is stuff like hereditary fortunes, title, families of power, etc. or complete and public disdain for 'lesser' people without wealth/power/etc or other such things that are not their fault.. Understandable really, why this form is clearly socially unacceptable these days for most people.

However, 'Good' elitism (by my view) is also attacked. People who have accomplished things, such as self-starters, scientists, engineers, entrepeneurs, highly educated individuals and so on are 'elitist'. But why shouldn't they be a higher class? If someone has had the vision (and luck) to create some sort of thriving business, why should they be socially viewed as 'elitist' for it, unless they do something by deliberate action that is particularly egregious?

It's America's overly simplistic version of equality. The stupid version is 'Everyone is equal.', which too many people subscribe to. It means that drunk truck driver who was a caller on Rush Limbaugh is 'equal' to a four time nobel prize winning professor who donates to charity. Saying that it means 'equal opportunity' and 'all men are created equal', doesn't have much of an effect.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

The sad thing about America is not only are the different types of elitism conflated, when they're not, the preference is usually reversed. People who have outrageous wealth and social status because they have good looks or were born to a wealthy family are looked up to more than those who have achieved through superior education and personal dedication (although the latter is held up as an example of mythical American rugged individualism, as long as they didn't have too much schooling). Probably because as long as they don't act as though they know better, they're less threatening to personal self image of the less well off.

Also, non meritocratic elite people are less likely to advise massive structural changes to the status quo than someone who has worked their way through intense study; why should they when it benefits them so well ? And the average person doesn't really understand how much better the wealthiest are getting it than the working classes. As much as people complain, unless it is made apparent to them how fundamentally flawed and unbearable to them their social system is, they would rather live under relative injustice than face a threat to the comfort of their experience and their ideological mental box.

[Nephtys]

I see the following as this case for a lot of bottom America on their view of elitism, based on what observations I've made at least.

They see Aristocratic Rich Person, who inherited most of it, or had earned their super rich status after being already in the top 1%, which naturally gives them a head start.

Lower/Lower-Middle class youth/youngperson figures they can't get any of that. So naturally they consign themselves to the life that they have. In some cases, feeling bitter about it (so I've seen through experience with some).

Meanwhile, if middle-class person who's pulling up the social ladder, or lower-class 'success story' comes by, tells them to go to college for a meaningful degree for somesuch to solve their problem, they get angry and see this remark when referring to the first class of elite. They say 'Oh, it's easy for you to say, you don't know what I've been through', like if referring to how one can't pick who their parents are. This statement meanwhile, is by no means a rebuttal of why one can't increase the quality of their life by education and so on. Naturally, upbringing plays a very major role in this. But in the end, individuals must be accountable for their own actions.

How else does one explain it to people who feel personally insulted at the 'elitist' who tells them to go to school or get better work when they complain about the system, yet feel no such anger towards a Paris Hilton or somesuch?

[Stuart Mackey]

Probably one view depends on nation of origin. I have found here in NZ that an 'elitist' tends to be someone who thinks that the rules dont apply to them when its, say a security guard or policeman telling them to do something, because they are a qualified 'X' or have a degree in 'Y' or are a successful businessperson etc, and dont recognise the expertice of someone with a qualification or job they veiw as being of less social worth or techinical merit.
A giant appeal to their own authority, in other words.

These individuals veiw others with 'lesser' qualifications, as less than something on their shoe, and feel that others opinions are less valid despite the subject being not their area of expertise or the evidence on the table, so to speak, so elitist is probably the wrong word.

I think that what get up peoples nose is classism rather than elitism per-se, and perhaps people dont get the distinction.

[Rye]

Elitism can be meritocratic, and it's pretty well known on here that that is a popular idea. I don't see any real issues with that form of elitism in a lot of things. Lots of people would probably associate it with philosophies laid out by Nietzsche (correctly) and fascism (half-correctly, fascist states did venerate the overachievers, then mixed it with racism, nationalism, etc) as well as the bourgeois as Mike pointed out.

Elitism in practise rarely turns out to be strictly meritocratic on large scales. Science for instance arguably is (sometimes, the media fucks the public perception of this up with the cult of celebrity), but most of the time, it turns out that the "elite" praised in an elitist system usually comprise the wealthy and powerful primarily. Indeed, even in a meritocratic system, these people will usually get the best educations and the resources to use those educations ahead of everyone else. Elitism in the US, however, is primarly a system of race, class and wealth. Rupert Murdoch, for instance, clearly a part of the US' elite, newscorp and similar media empires run a large percentage of the media and public perception thereof.

As an aside, I saw a Chomsky documentary called "manufacturing consent" recently, and while a bit OTT in my opinion, it did show the discrepancy in what's reported in the New York Times and London Times. Now, the NYT is considered liberal, going by Ann Coulter's violently murderous hatred of it, but even they were the stooges of the elite "agenda setters" when it came to East Timor reporting. They had a fraction of the London Times' article, and their reporting of the similar atrocities in Cambodia, that the US govt was interested in (and the US wasn't selling weapons to, unlike the profitable war in East Timor), the reporting of atrocities was many times as voluminous.

The appeal of demagogy and populism is that the elite are just like you, only more wealthy. In the US this is probably true to some extent. And everyone has the right to get rich (so long as those damn liberals stop stealing all your money), so you can hypothetically become elite with the right rich white guy looking out for your interests and not looking down on you because you never finished high school. In American elitism, financial power equates to merit and power (or perhaps because of having all that power due to wealth). "Bling" rappers and RnBers and republicans basically sell the same ideology of wealth-based elitism in different packages.

[Zixinus]

The attack on elitism is somewhat the popular misconception that there is no real social classes. That someone who got to the top is somehow not deserving to it, while you the hard-working average Joe/Jane could be just as good given the right circumstances.

People don't like feeling powerless, and the idea that they have to rely on an elite to make their decisions. If the intellectual elite is right about something and you are not supposed to argue with them, then you can feel that you aren't really making your own decisions. And the average person is feels threatened by that.

So they damn the academic elite, damn the (usually) curropt politicians and rather choose people they can feel sympathic to.

It's a power-thing really.

Personally, I do not think of myself of elitist: I don't prefer vet's view about pet care over the store's owner because the vet has a doctorite in biology. But because the vet simply has far more knowledge then the store owner not just about pet care, but about how the pet "works". And if necesary, the vet can give a good argument againts and of the store's owner's because of his/her knowledge.

Obviously this is tied in with the upcoming American Primaries and General Election, so why American's on average so fascinated with having a leader they can sit down and have a beer with rather than an asshole who runs the country competently?

Because they don't actually want someone competent: they want someone nice. Or charismatic. They don't vote for a the most experienced and certified person for the job: they vote for the person that looks best for the job. Or who's riding on whatever party they favour.

Really, ask a couple average voters whether they would vote for someone they don't like?

[Ziggy Stardust]

The second kind of elite is not only useful, but quite frankly should have their opinions (particularly in their respective areas of expertise) elevated above those of regular people, because those opinions have more research behind them.

I agree with you that people who are versed in a particular field (for example: a zoologist) have more say than lay people when it comes to discussions regarding that field (ex. zoology). But it's moronic to assume that just because a person has had more education in that field, they are more capable of being a politician or a leader of some kind.

My roommate knows a lot more than me about math and physics and those subjects, does that mean his political opinions hold more weight than mine?

[Darth Wong]

The second kind of elite is not only useful, but quite frankly should have their opinions (particularly in their respective areas of expertise) elevated above those of regular people, because those opinions have more research behind them.

I agree with you that people who are versed in a particular field (for example: a zoologist) have more say than lay people when it comes to discussions regarding that field (ex. zoology). But it's moronic to assume that just because a person has had more education in that field, they are more capable of being a politician or a leader of some kind.
My roommate knows a lot more than me about math and physics and those subjects, does that mean his political opinions hold more weight than mine?

It means he has better established logical reasoning faculties than you do. I suppose if you're the type of person who thinks logic has little to do with good national policy, you might be offended to think that this has anything to do with the likelihood of his judgment being better than yours on politics.

Of course, this is all about likelihood, hence preferences between groups. Individual comparisons like this are inherently flawed because variability can produce anomalous results in such small-sample comparisons.

[ray245]

There is a bad thing about intellectual elitism as well, it's when the elite fail to connect with the average joe interest.

When they are starting to get more and more isolated from the majority of the people.

Take for example, a person studying in a private or elite school often starts to develop a concept that just because they are from the elite school, they are better in everything compared to a student from a public school. Then some of them started to think that once you fail to make it to a elite or top secondary school, you sort of don't deserve to get into the top university and etc.

[Sarevok]

There is a bad thing about intellectual elitism as well, it's when the elite fail to connect with the average joe interest.

When they are starting to get more and more isolated from the majority of the people.

Take for example, a person studying in a private or elite school often starts to develop a concept that just because they are from the elite school, they are better in everything compared to a student from a public school. Then some of them started to think that once you fail to make it to a elite or top secondary school, you sort of don't deserve to get into the top university and etc.

That depends on the type of school really, If by "elite" you mean playgrounds for kids of the rich families in the city it holds no value whatsoever. However some schools are genuinely very demanding academically. Like for example if someone here from a military cadet school claimed to be superior to a public school student I would believe him. Cadets are accepted on basis of academics and not who their parents are. They simply some of the brightest kids of their age in the country. If they act elitist they have the right to.

[ray245]

There is a bad thing about intellectual elitism as well, it's when the elite fail to connect with the average joe interest.

When they are starting to get more and more isolated from the majority of the people.

Take for example, a person studying in a private or elite school often starts to develop a concept that just because they are from the elite school, they are better in everything compared to a student from a public school. Then some of them started to think that once you fail to make it to a elite or top secondary school, you sort of don't deserve to get into the top university and etc.

That depends on the type of school really, If by "elite" you mean playgrounds for kids of the rich families in the city it holds no value whatsoever. However some schools are genuinely very demanding academically. Like for example if someone here from a military cadet school claimed to be superior to a public school student I would believe him. Cadets are accepted on basis of academics and not who their parents are. They simply some of the brightest kids of their age in the country. If they act elitist they have the right to.

In singapore, elite equal to being able to do well in their studies and etc.

And all the private schools here are elite in a sense that they will only accept the top few percent of the students from primary school throught the national exams. Those that cannot afford a more expensive school fees, will usually (if not all the time) get scholarship or money aid program from the government.

So, money isn't a real issue for a person to get into a elite and private school. It's academic results.



The problem here however, is not about a person having the right to claim he or she is smarter than a person from public school.

It is the fact that they will start to look down at you simply because you are from a public school, EVEN if you can get into the top few university with students from elite secondary school or junior college.

You get what I mean? They are looking down at people just because others are late boomer in their academic studies. To some of them, if you cannot make it to the elite or top 10 secondary schools after your primary school national exams, you don't deserve to go into a top junior college, even if you do well enough to do so.



Elite in a sense that somehow, you must be in a elite school ALL the way for you to be accepted as a elite.

So for some people, your top university degree, honors and etc don't mean much just because you are from a public school.