Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
Implied by notion "democracy is good", to which most lend their approval, is the equally questionable notion that "elitism is bad". A search of "elitism" online will reveal it as, almost exclusively, an objection propelled by people on all sides at people on all sides of the political landscape. A similar search on Ricochet will unearth the same, that is, an overwhelmingly negative estimate of it.
Of course, I've since looked up the definition of elitism and found the following entry on Wikipedia:
"Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite — a select group of people with intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern."
Doesn't sound all that bad to me.
I'm thinking the most popular retort to this would assert that the many intrusions into our various affairs by politicians all betray a sinister, elitist mentality. In response, I'd emphasize the possible distinctions within elitism. Keynesians conceive of a social order where the objectives of full employment and price stability are pursued by technocrats with the (blunt) instruments of fiscal and monetary policy. There's never a dearth of socialists who believe that the major factors of production can and should be administered by calculating, enumerating central planners. Likewise, genuine liberals desire to see the factors of production governed by untrammeled capitalists and distributed via markets. In the former examples, the controlling elite is primarily an academic one, whereas in the latter, the controlling elite is an entrepreneurial one. Either way, people more credentialed then you in some respect - an elite - are in charge.
Now if someone says that's not what they mean by "elitism" I'd ask why? Why has the word "elitism" become the moniker of choice when I think "arrogance" would be a better charge against the political class?
- Comment (86)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
The repugnance of elitism is in the final part of the given definition: "...or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern."
The difference between your "untrammeled capitalists" and the aforementioned elite is the market process.
The market selects based on true merit based on results. And the market winners aren't granted any power to "govern", they continue to compete in the market.
On the other hand, the bad kind of elitism has no method to determine true merit, so typically falls back upon academic credentialism or cronyism. These people are given true governmental power and inflict damage on the rest of us.
Nov '10
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
The problem comes about when an elite in a particular field is charged with making decisions beyond his core competencies.
May '10
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
Mark Wilson: The repugnance of elitism...
On the other hand, the bad kind of elitism...
So, do you oppose elitism per se or do you recognize discrepant elitisms?
May '10
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
It seems that the (classical) liberal conception of elitism supports a process by which the above is minimized. The market process, to which Mark refers, allocates capital, and thereby economic power, in accordance with performance in the satisfaction of consumer demand. The elite in a market society are those who produce the best for the most. This is why I don't reject "elitism".
Edited on Sep 6, 2011 at 1:31amMay '10
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
Michael Labeit
Mark Wilson: The repugnance of elitism...
On the other hand, the bad kind of elitism...
So, do you oppose elitism per se or do you recognize discrepant elitisms? · Sep 6 at 1:20am
The market system you described is not elitism. Decisions are made independently by all participants in a distributed manner, utilizing local and personal knowledge, not expertise or special training.
May '10
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
Mark Wilson
Michael Labeit
Mark Wilson: The repugnance of elitism...
On the other hand, the bad kind of elitism...
So, do you oppose elitism per se or do you recognize discrepant elitisms?
The market system you described is not elitism. Decisions are made independently by all participants in a distributed manner, utilizing local and personal knowledge, not expertise or special training.
Sure it is. The market determines who governs what amount of financial capital in accordance with their intellect, skills, experience, etc., which are all roughly measured by the profits earned from previous endeavors to satisfy consumer demand. According to the market, the views on to which undertakings financial capital should be allocated and in what quantities - those views that receive the most weight are those of the capitalists - persons of significant "intellect, wealth, specialized training [and] experience", along with other attributes. The way the market operates contradicts nothing within the Wikipedia definition of elitism that I cite. The market may be characterized by decentralized decision making, but that does not preclude the creation of an elite class of entrepreneurial capitalists, to say the least.
Nov '10
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
Elitism is a system in which intellect, wealth, or experience itself is rewarded, but the possession of these often does not coincide with performance. The market, on the other hand, rewards performance regardless of intellect, etc.
May '10
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
Sam Walton and the word "elite" do not, in my mind, go together. Yet, Mr. Walton revolutionized a certain segment of the US and global markets, through his understanding of the people he served and hard work. I do not see him as "governing" as such, but serving, yes. The company he has left behind surely has much pull with governing officials and much sway over the vendors that supply it. It is a governing influence on the market in that sense. Is Sam Walton part of the elite?
Oct '10
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
I think it's a class thing. If our elite were drawn from all segments of society (as they were post-WWII), we would be much happier with them, I think. The problem is they come mostly from upper-middle-class and upper-class families, who have too little contact with the rest of society to make good public policy (Charles Murry writes about this a lot).
Jun '10
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
The previous posters have one a great job of explaining elitism. In your Wiki definition the phrase "or other distinctive attributes" is an interesting one. So many characteristics can fall under this category, including work ethic, horse sense, and an open mind. But those characteristics are missing from the elites of today. They lack empathy and humility and self awareness, showing contempt, or at the very least condescension, toward entire segments of society.
Remember that snooty anchorwoman, who pounced on the politician criticizing Obama's economic policies, with the question, "Do you have a degree in economics?" That's the perfect example of elitism in action. His common sense, reasonable opinion was being shot down because she (wrongly) assumed he didn't have "credentials" and was not part of the elite annointed who can send their pronouncements down to the little people. It's extremely paternalistic in nature.
Feb '11
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
Any society has, and must have, elites. We want our airliners to be flow by excellent pilots, our medical research to be done by excellent scientists, our businesses to be run by excellent executives..and everyone, with the exception of the utopian socialists, wants these elite individuals to be appropriately rewarded.
The problem is this: Heretofore in American society there have been multiple ladders of success. An attempt is now being made to consolidate all of these ladders into one single ladder, with access tightly controlled via educational credentials.
Mar '11
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
The negative reaction to the Elites, I think, stems from the insecurities of the non-Elites. Easier to knock Elites down a peg than to climb a peg oneself.
Jan '11
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
I have a friend who went to Harvard. His family was a lot wealthier than mine. I went to St. Joe's in Philly. As part of our studies, we both studied Plato. Turns out, in fact, we both had the same textbook.
The school he attended places him in the national elite. If we ever happened to compete for the same job, his school would likely give him an edge.
Should his arguments on Plato be preferred to mine?
If so, why?
Feb '11
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
Peter Drucker, 1969:
"One thing (a modern society) therefore cannot afford in education is the “elite institution” which has a monopoly on social standing, on prestige, and on the command positions in society and economy. Oxford and Cambridge are important reasons for the English brain drain. A main reason for the the technology gap is the Grande Ecole such as the Ecole Polytechnique or the Ecole Normale…
By contrast, one of the strengths of American education is the resistance to any elite monopoly. To be sure, we have institutions that enjoy (deservedly or not) high standing and prestige. But we do not, fortunately, discriminate against the men who receive their training elsewhere. The engineer whose degree is from North Idaho A and M does not regard himself as “inferior” or as “not really an engineer.”…
The Harvard Law School might like to be a Grande Ecole and to claim for its graduates a preferential position. But American society has never been willing to accept this claim.
…It is almost impossible to explain to a European that the strength of American higher education lies in this absence of schools for leaders and schools for followers."
Lots has changed since then.
Aug '11
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
America rejected elitism when it rejected the British Monarchy. Ours is a country where "all men are created equal." We distrust credentials. Sure, a fine education is likely evidence of intelligence, but we also know that smart people can have some pretty crackpot ideas. In fact, smart people often have the tools of rhetoric, pursuasion, erudition, to promote their ideas and give them purchase in the public square. So we are right to be suspect of the elite.
In America, we trust in our Constitution and in the common sense of all citizens. Elitists find these constraints frustratiing and would like to bypass them. Both inhibit the implementation of their ideas.
Good luck with that.
Aug '10
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
Not that Michael needs any help with his point - but it seems to me he is drawing a distinction between "elite" and "arrogant."
When we're sick, we all want an accomplished doctor to care for us. When we are at war, we want the best combat troops to defend us. When we go the movies, we want to see the most talented actors. But I don't want an arrogant doctor, an arrogant 4-star general, or an arrogant actor running the country. A little humility is in order when you're the Leader of the Free World.
Unfortunately, right now, we have an humility-free college professor making decisions affecting everyone of us and our children's children.
Hopefully, that will no longer be the case, come 2013.
Mar '11
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
KC Mulville: I have a friend who went to Harvard. His family was a lot wealthier than mine. I went to St. Joe's in Philly. As part of our studies, we both studied Plato. Turns out, in fact, we both had the same textbook.
The school he attended places him in the national elite. If we ever happened to compete for the same job, his school would likely give him an edge.
Should his arguments on Plato be preferred to mine?
If so, why? · Sep 6 at 7:26am
Yes... "To the victor..."
BUT... Inherent in the American system in a fluidity of class. Harvard gives a leg up but does not guarantee elite status. So as he must work to keep his status you must work to unseat him.
Dec '10
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
I think the positive or negative connotation of the word elite is based entirely on the historical performance of the group being labeled elite. If I say "elite politicians" there is a sever negative connotation based on the past poor performance of those with that label, however if I say "elite athlete" the is a strong positive connotation based that group's past performance. Likewise if I say members of Seal Team 6 are part of an "elite fighting force", there is no connotation other than the highest praise.
Elite is only bad when applied to ruling class, social/political experts, politicians, and other groups who historically have proven undeserving of the term.
Edited on Sep 6, 2011 at 8:14amJun '10
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
Ah, the vagaries of our language.
It is true that the term "elitism" has become a synonym for "arrogance" in political discourse today. For those of us on the right, it's the "elitism" of the Ivy League left; for the left, it's the elitism of the "rich plutocrats" who won't pay their fair share (never mind that many are leftists).
The fact is, however, that in many disciplines there is an elite based on merit. Warren Buffett (squishy, cynical lefty that he is) is one of the greatest investors in American history. Paul Rahe knows far more about Montesquieu (and other political philosophers) than I ever will. John Taylor and Tom Sowell are among the "elite" economists. They earned it by study, hard work, and performance. These are meritocratic elites.
Where I get off the bus is when we define an elite by the schools they attended or by their condescending attitude toward the usually accurate common sense of regular people. My late father, eleventh grade education, was an elite common sense purveyor.
There is no governing elite in America. And it certainly isn't granted by an Ivy League education ( Exhibit A: Ronald Reagan).
May '10
Re: Why Exactly Do We Oppose Elitism?
Choosing the best and the brightest among us has always been a part of our representative democracy - but what is new is that the way that the parties have narrowed the criteria tighter and tighter. We have changed our definition of elite.
For example, during the last two years of the Carter Administration 48 members of the House and seven members of the Senate had no education beyond their high school diploma. But those people represented a lot of real world experience. Today, 93% of the Congress holds at least a Bachelor’s Degree. You would think that that would be a good thing but it depends on what they were taught, wouldn’t it? And of those who hold degrees in Congress 19% went through seven of the eight Ivy League Schools. (Harvard and Yale can claim two-thirds of those.)
But that's only the elected ones. How much of the bureaucracy is run by the well connected alums of this narrow band of academia? The Yale Club in DC boasts 10,000 members alone. The Harvard Club of Washington provides member details only to other members (which I, obviously, do not qualify for).
Edited on Sep 6, 2011 at 8:21am