Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elitism -- what's it to us?
Machiavel Journal ^ | Greg Nyquist

Posted on 05/23/2002 4:10:37 PM PDT by aconservaguy

ELITISM GOOD AND BAD AN EXAMINATION OF A PREJUDICE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not so very long ago I had a discussion with a gentleman in his late thirties who desired to be a teacher. I mentioned to him Jefferson's theory of the ideal system of education, which involved sending the best student from the twenty grade schools around the state to the university with the express intention, as Jefferson himself put it, of raking "twenty of the best geniusesfrom the rubbish annually." Needless to say, the aspiring teacher was shocked by this way of expressing the matter, and when I went on to confess sympathy for the great democrat's educational cogitations, he broke out with the indignant protestation, "But that's elitism!"

For those of us who are attune to contemporary developments in social valuation, this is indeed a very serious charge, and if I had been raised a catholic, I don't know how I would have prevented the reflex action of crossing myself upon hearing the dreaded syllables. One would almost think, judging by the shocked tones of horror in which the word is uttered, that elitism must be some terrible crime on par with sado-masochistic incest, child molestation, and torture by mutilation. In any case, it is certainly not something one would wish to be called. In fact, Alan Bloom, who has been accused plenty times enough of being endowed with this horrifying quality, worthy of the ninth circle of hell, opened up his speech at Harvard with the sinister salutation, "Fellow elitists!" But in the course of his speech, Bloom quickly assured his audience that it was only a sort of joke and that Harvardites were no more elitists than he himself was. I am aware that there are a few degenerates, especially among conservatives, who are not so horrified of elitism as they are suppose to be; but even conservatives generally like to keep their distance from the it. Elitism-poor thing!-has hardly a friend in the world.

Given this nearly universal disapprobation, it may not be entirely out of order to inquire what precisely elitism is. If elitism is really as bad as everyone seems to think, then it is best that we understand it in all its ramifications so that we can be certain to avoid being guilty of it ourselves.

I must confess that, prima facie, I cannot quite put my finger on what exactly people mean by their use of the word. Like most profane words, it seems to be expressive more of an inner rage or hatred than an outward quality or defect. So, in order to get a clearer idea of what this word might mean, I consulted the dictionary. Webster's provides us with three different senses in which the word can be taken:

1) the practice of rule by an elite 2) the belief in rule by an elite 3) the consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group

Although these definitions put some light upon the subject, there is still much that, at least to me, remains veiled in darkness, for I still am unable to figure out which sense of the word, if any, are people employing when they use the word elitism as a condemnatory ephitet. Is it the last sense, number three? If so, then I must admit that I do not see anything intrinsically evil or bad in being proud of belonging to some select or favored group. No one would say it was a terrible sin to be proud of having made the Olympic basketball team or of having been an honor student in high school. On the contrary, these achievements would be considered meritorious by all but intransigentally envious persons. Therefore, I think number three can be dismissed from consideration. That leaves us with one and two.

First, let us take a look at number one. Elitism is here defined as the practice of ruling by elites. On the surface, one could understand why people would consider this a bad thing. After all, democracy is the accepted form of political rule in this country, and anyone who believes that democracy does not represent, morally speaking, the highest form of government is, ipso facto, a bad person, end of argument. However, if by rule by elites we mean rule by the few, we must not be too hasty in condemning elitism on just these grounds, because in so doing we might not be merely condemning all oligarchic forms of government, but all forms of government whatsoever. Eighty years ago saw the publication of a modest book entitled, Dur Sozilogie des Parteiwesen in der modernen Demokratie, by the Robert Michels, a socialist who used his practical experience to write one of the most important books on politics of this century. Michels, in his book, asks the insidious little question, In what manner are democratic constitutions subject to tendencies inherent in social organization? After exhaustively examining the nature of organization and its relation to democracy, Michel concludes that leadership is indispensable to every organization including organized democratic government, because there must be a way of deciding questions which the group is not in a position, due to its ignorance, to decide. In any complex society, in any "extended order," as Hayek puts it, there must be a division of labor. If everyone had to do everything for themselves, civilization would be impossible. This is partly due to the fact that there are many indispensable spheres of economic and political action which require a great deal of time and effort (and sometimes even ability) to master. This is especially true of governing a nation. Even disregarding the problem of mere competence, it can be seen that the process of governing a country requires special learned skills. Legislation and implementation of law is an extremely complex process which the average person, occupied, as he is, with his own specialized occupation, simply does not have the time to master. And then there's the purely economic problem of having too many cooks in the kitchen: not everybody can play the role of the leader because very shortly the law of diminishing returns sets in until productivity reaches zero. Government, therefore, must be oligarchical, just as a ladies bridge club or basket-weaving union must also, to a certain extent, be oligarchal.

Michel's conclusions regarding the oligarchal nature of government-what he called "the iron law of oligarchy"-applies, of course (as hinted above), to all forms of organization, political or otherwise. This means that the first definition given to us by Webster's-namely, that elitism is the practice of rule by an elite-describes a fact. Now it would be entirely absurd for anyone to denounce a fact for being immoral. Only willed actions can be immoral; never facts. Consequently, if what is meant by the decriers and villifiers of elitism is the mere practice of rule by elites, then all we can say for such people is that they are beating their breasts to no purpose. To decry the practice of ruling by elites is as pointless and absurd as to decry the leopard for having spots. Both are facts over which human volition has no control. One might as well villify the earth for orbiting the sun than villify an organization for being ruled by an elite.

Hence we are left with the second definition-i.e., elitism is the belief in a rule by an elite. If this definition fails to explain what the villifiers of elitism mean when they use the word, then we must look elsewhere to find out what this occult quality consists of. Now on the face of things,defining elitism as the belief in rule by elites does not help me understand the concept. For we have found that all organizations are ruled by elites, and that that is a fact of the human condition. Now what could possibly be immoral about believing in such a fact? Here, however, it is important to make distinctions. Before, when I said that all organization involves the formation of a ruling elite, I was using the word elite in a broad sense, meaning "a select group of people"-or, in other words, just about any select group of people. But any dip into the dictionary will reveal that the word elite, just like its brother elitism, has several senses of meaning. Thus elite is defined, successively, as "representing the most choice or select," "the choice or best of anything considered collectively," "the highest class," and "a group of person exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger organization." Now it may very well be that those who oppose elitism merely oppose some specific variety of it; and, as I discovered over the course of my researches, this comes fairly close to the truth of the matter. But what precise variety of elitism do the villifiers of elitism actually oppose?

To answer this question we must examine some concrete examples. That would-be teacher whom I mentioned at the beginning of this essay found Jefferson's theory of elitism alarmingly elitist because, as he explained when I questioned him about it, he thought that, under such a system, the underprivelaged (i.e., people without money) would be at an egregious disadvantage. When I expressed to him that, on the contrary, this was not the case at all, that as a matter of fact, promotion in Jefferson's education system would be strictly based on merit, not on wealth, he retracted his charge of elitism, saying, "Oh, it would be a kind of meritocracy," implying that this would not be so terrible a thing. From this example we may gather that the root of the opposition to elitism in this country comes from the democratic philosophy that is so deeply entrenched in the American psyche. We believe in equal opportunity for all, and if we perceive the rules of the game as being tilted in favor of this or that group of people, we are quite naturally outraged.

It can easily be understood, therefore, why no one ever makes charges of elitism against professional sports teams when they cut from their rosters some slumping journeyman or agéd has-been. No one questions the fairness of the rules of the game in sports, and consequently no one questions the idea that only the best players should make the team and constitute what is, for all intents and purposes, an elite. It is in areas in which standards seem somewhat subjective and where there is a great deal of disagreement as to what constitutes true merit that one finds elitism used most often as a term of disparagement. In the world of art, for example, anyone who attempts to impose traditional standards in the critical judgement of a contemporary work of art is liable of coming under the charge of being an elitist. This is because aesthetics is a notoriously subjective discipline. Everyone has different standards of judgement, and any attempt to impose standards that clash with those of some select coterie of avant-garde artists is sure to be resented. For the imposition of standards-or, in other words, criticism-is by no means a benign activity. The critic who characterizes an artist's work as "nauseating trash" is not merely expressing a personal opinion; he is calling into question the artist's right to consider himself an artist. Imposition of standards is the means by which the critic attempts to create the rules of the game concerning who succeeds as an artist and who doesn't. The artist who complains of elitism does so because he feels his status as an artist threatened by the prevailing standards of criticism.

This much being understood we can finally put our finger on a definition of elitism which explains why so many people think it is a bad thing. The word elitism, as it is used in contemporary discourse, signifies any attempt to impose rules governing the selective process in certain areas of endeavor (e.g., culture, politics, etc.) which puts at a disadvantage some group (or groups) who would do better with a different set of rules.

A few things would be noticed about this definition from the start. First, many of those who use the word in its negative sense would claim that our definition does not come close to what they mean when they use it; and, as a sort of rebuttal, they might launch into a long spiel about Western Civilization and dead white males. My only reply to such protestations is that those people who are incapable of conceiving a particular case through an abstract category of denomination are congenitally incapable of understanding any abstract concept, let alone elitism, and would be much better off leaving intellectual subjects to those who can think.-Another aspect concerning this definition to note is that it makes of elitism an entirely relative category, free from any absolute moral significance. And in fact, the logic of our definition means that those who make the charge of elitism unwittingly implicate themselves in the very crime which they condemn, for to decry one set of rules implies allegiance to another. I realize that some will object, claiming that they are against all such rules. Unfortunately, such a viewpoint is entirely unfeasible. Elitism is a position that is forced on his whether we like it or not. It is imposed upon us by the very nature of the social interaction.

What makes elitism unavoidable in society is the problem of limited access. Not everyone can be a professional artist, or a senator, or the best student in his class. Some selective process must be at work. The question is only: which one? If we stubbornly refuse to admit this fact, nevertheless, some selective process will rise up on its own without any human assistance whatsoever. Those who, then, claim to be for no rules in the selective process at all are merely the unwitting supporters of that selective process which would arise if none was imposed under the auspices of human wisdom or folly.

Since some selective process must be at work, the real issue involved is not elitism verses democracy or egalitarianism or anything of that nature, but merely one brand of elitism verses another. Now, since elitism is so inextricably a part of the human condition, the question naturally arises, What type of elitism should we attempt to foster? Elitism arises f from the fact that, in any complex society, a division of labor is necessitated by economic forces. This is true of any type of advanced economy, regardless of whether it has a capitalistic, interventionist, or socialistic structure. In concrete terms, this division of labor requires that each participant in the society chooses a particular type of labor. No one can be a doctor, janitor, editor, garbage collector, and engineer all at the same time, since many types of labor require the entire devotion of an individuals faculties. No man can become a competent doctor if he is moonlighting as a full-time janitor and furniture mover.

It is quite true that there are all sorts of labor that do not require any great cultivation of skills. One does not have to study for years and years to become a grocery clerk or a cashier in a department store. But it just so happens that one of the most conspicuous differences between a primitive and an advanced civilization is the appearance in the latter of many professions which require years of preparatory training in order to attain competence. In certain professions-especially those in which the difference between success and failure is sharply demarcated-nobody who had failed to attain an adequate level of competence would be allowed to continue practicing his profession. A doctor who killed all his patients would be quickly driven out of medicine; a mechanic who could not repair a car's engine would soon lose his job; and a pitcher who could not throw strikes would find himself on waivers. The underlying premise behind all of this is that the ability to attain the ends to which this or that particular profession is devoted ought to determine who succeeds in that profession and who doesn't. In other words, the rules governing the selective process in the professions ought to be entirely predicated on merit. Such is the case generally in the professions of medicine, sports, engineering, and so on. These professions are dominated by a genuine elite. This is not necessarily the case in politics or culture. Politics involves the problem of governing society, and success in politics is in great part determined by how people think a society ought to be governed. Consequently, the rules of the selective process in regards to choosing leadership for a nation are inextricably would up with "moral" questions-that is, questions of interest. There are people who believe that any government which allows people to live on the streets without a roof over their heads is ipso facto a government characterized by immoral leadership, just as there are people who believe that a government which is merely a swollen redistribution bureaucracy exhibits irresponsible leadership. Questions of merit in leadership are therefore, at least on the surface, extremely tricky, being dependent in turn upon questions of morality. There is nothing more intrinsically subjective than questions of morality, unless it be questions of aesthetics. In either domain, we find a chaos of subjectivity.

This subjectivity provides us with an interesting dilemma. As we saw earlier, a selective process of some sort will appear in the spheres of politics and culture whether we want it to or not. These selective processes imply standards, and these standards in turn imply objectivity, even if it be but a relative and tenuous objectivity. And, strangely enough, despite the intrinsic subjectivity, we find an acknowledgement of objective standards even in culture and politics. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven; Michealangelo, da Vinci, and van Gogh; Aeschelus, Sophocles, and Shakespeare are almost universally regarded as pre-eminent in their respect fields of art, just as Washington, Lincoln, and Churchhill are almost universally considered as pre-eminent political leaders. There is, apparently, even in culture and politics, a slender thread of objectivity which can pull us out, if we are only very careful, of the mire of subjectivity.

What is it, then, that makes artist or leader or statesman great? This is a question-unfortunately-that yields too complicated an answer for us to adequately consider here, but we can at least make several suggestions which might contain the seeds of a more fruitful answer. First, let us concentrate our attention upon the political side of the question. Perhaps if we were called upon to describe what makes a great leader great we would say something along the lines of, "A leader's greatness is predicated on his ability to govern a society so that its members are more successful in their struggle for existence, both when taken individually and collectively, than the people of other countries." What is most important to realize is that a leader's greatness cannot be based upon mere sentimentality. A man is not a great leader because he is a nice person or because he likes animals or sheds tears over the homeless. A man is a great leader when he makes tough decisions which are in the people's long-range interests and carries them to a successful conclusion.

Now that we have at least some conception, however feeble, of greatness in leadership, we can proceed to restate, in more explicit terms, what has become, almost by default as it were, one the principle theses of this essay: namely, that since elitism in politics is our common fate, then it behooves us to try as hard as we can to make sure that the elites in politics are really the very best men for their respective positions in government. In other words, we should desire in politics-as we should desire in all other spheres of human action-that those who are elites in form (i.e., who hold the top rank in any sphere of human action) ought to be elites in substance (i.e., ought to be real, not sham, elites) as well.

Having reached this conclusion in politics, I do not think it would surprise anyone that a similar conclusion is to be found in the realm of culture. Though it is a fact that questions of aesthetics are laced with subjectivity, yet nevertheless there does exist, if not a philosophically objective basis, then a pragmatically objective basis to aesthetic criticism. Art is not an end in itself, and those who have asserted the contrary are guilty of gross hyperbole. The purpose of art-and here we consider only serious art-is to select those aspects of experience which are rich in emotional significance. Human nature lives immersed in a sea of passion. The essence of life itself is passion, for without passion life could hardly exist. Now in the course of everyday life, these passions are not always a welcome addition to the soul's entourage. This is because the passions of everyday life always have a material basis. They are full of material implications, including disease, pain, and annihilation. This is not true, however, of the passions induced by a work of art. Such passions are entirely free from any material implications. And just as the psyche finds pure satisfaction in the muscular exertion of sport, in like manner does it find the passions induced even by tragedies and the like to be profoundly uplifting, despite finding the passions resulting from the tragedies of real life deplorable in the extreme. In any case, to experience passions free from material implications appears to be one of the most deeply satisfying experience that the psyche can undergo.

Now it is a common fact that certain works of art are able to induce these states of deep and profound passion more satisfactorily than other works of art. Here we have the objective basis of aesthetics. And from this objective basis we can conclude that there are such things as objective standards in art which in turn yield judgements of good or band art and good and bad artists.

From the determination of good and bad artists it is but a short step to the determination of good and bad cultural elitism. Elitism, as we have been constantly repeating, is an inherent part of human condition. In many areas of professional human endeavor the competition is fierce, and only so many people can carve out successful careers for themselves. Not everyone who wishes to be a congressman can be one; nor can everyone who wishes to be a professional composer satisfy his ambition. The only question in so far as the problem of elitism is concerned is whether or not those who succeed and take up positions as the leading elites in their respective professions deserve their eminent positions. If they do in fact deserve to be elites, if they are, in effect, "genuine" elites, then we have on our hands an instance of "good" elitism, and there is absolutely no reason to get all indignant about it. If, on the other hand, those who occupy the most eminent and powerful positions in their professions do not deserve to be where they are, if they have unfairly supplanted those who do and, consequently, make up, not a genuine elite, but a sham one, then this is an instance of bad elitism.

I will leave it to the reader to decide to what degree are political and cultural leads constitute a good or bad elite. My main point is simply that if your elite is bad, whether in politics or in culture (or, for that matter, in any endeavor of high importance), then you will wind up having a rotten politics or a rotten culre, as they case may be. Elitism is, if you will, a necessary evil. We really ought to make the best of it, if we possibly can.


TOPICS: Philosophy
KEYWORDS: conservatism; elitism; order

1 posted on 05/23/2002 4:10:37 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
ramblarama
2 posted on 05/23/2002 5:19:28 PM PDT by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
Every liberal is an elitest thug.
3 posted on 05/23/2002 5:39:11 PM PDT by moyden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billybudd
Hehe no kidding. I can some that up in three lines:

What do Liberals mean by "elitism"?
They mean any system where smart guys or more qualified gals get the job for that reason
What jerks they are for such a dumb view.

Being right and being long-winded seem to go well together. ^_^

4 posted on 05/23/2002 5:44:57 PM PDT by Tomalak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tomalak
Hear! hear! for the long-winded part.
5 posted on 05/23/2002 7:41:10 PM PDT by honeymagnolia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: billybudd
LOL
6 posted on 05/24/2002 12:15:09 AM PDT by brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson