TOPIC: "Elitism" - Good? Bad? Neither?

This is a follow-up topic regarding the issue of "Elitism," that arose during the "Golden Fleece" thread:

truedungeon.com/component/option,com_kunena/Itemid,64/catid,5/func,view/id,129372/limit,12/limitstart,12/



My position is that "elitism" is not necessarily a "bad" thing. It's quite prevalent in most (if not all) societies. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was an inherent aspect to society/governance as well as individual psychology. Please let me explain:


#1. First off, let me remind you that the U.S. is more properly a republic, rather than a democracy. There are many obvious examples of an elite class with favored status.

- As a republic, our elected representatives (especially congressmen and senators) essentially form a separate social class consisting of the upper crust. There are certainly advantages that accrue as soon as you reach that position (i.e. incumbent advantages). But it could also be said that often only those in the upper class have the resources and/or connections to effectively run for office in the first place (i.e. most candidates come from similar socio-economic backgrounds). Of course there is at least more social mobility than the Roman Republic.

- We have the Cult of Celebrity, where celebrities get away with many things that normal people would easily be put in jail for.

- Generally speaking, money/status/power/influence come with special perks and privileges. If you have enough money/power/influence, normal laws don't necessarily apply to you. You can get presidential or governor pardons for crimes. There are political factors (i.e. the Lockerbie bomber getting released, Nazi war criminals getting pardons for help during the Cold War). Combined with the celebrity aspect, you have controversial figures like Mumia Abu-Jamal who has all sorts of political and celebrity support.

- Even if you look at the judicial system, money lets you buy better and more effective lawyers, which can be essential in a trial. If you're poor, you're stuck with a public defender, who is often over-worked.

- An extreme case of political influence are those with diplomatic immunity who are legally "above the law."


--> So I argue that elitism is quite prevalent in modern society, most obviously through socio-economics. Some people like to think that the world (or our society) is "fair" and everything is "equal" or "egalitarian." But wealth provides plenty of special privileges. I'm not saying that's "right" or "wrong." But it is the way things work.

Looking at it from a sociological perspective, special privileges tend to accrue to majority groups (or groups with the majority of the power). Being considered the mainstream or the norm, allows such privileged groups to often control the narrative.


In the U.S., you have:

- White privilege
- Male privilege
- Christian privilege
- Straight privilege


In Israel, there is Jewish privilege.

In the Middle East, there is Muslim privilege and Arab privilege. Depending on the country, Sunni or Shiite may be considered the "elite class."

In European countries in addition to the U.S. factors, you have special privileges for the "native" population (the "French" or "German", etc.). I use the term "native" loosely because anthropologically speaking, just about everyone migrated from somewhere. And certain denominations may have particular sway (Roman Catholic vs Anglican vs Orthodox).

India still has legacies of the caste system.

In Russia and China, ethnicity continues to be a major factor.

Many countries treat the "native population" quite poorly as second-class citizens. The U.S., Australia, even Japan, are all guilty of this.



Modern society has subtler forms of discrimination/elitism, as seen through heightism, weightism, and beauty/appearance discrimination.



--> So there are plenty of elite classes or sub-classes with special privileges. It seems inherent to most societies. It is often hard for those in the majority to realize the privileges they enjoy because they take them for granted.

From a psychological (individual) point of view, most people are somewhat elitist as well. Let's start with:


#1. The Individual

Most people think that they are special and/or better than everyone else.


#2. Loved ones & Family

Some will readily risk many, many other lives just for the sake of their one beloved. Most people believe that their children are super special. Or their family and genes are exemplary and need to be passed on. There's nothing "wrong" with this. It's human nature.


#3. Religion

My people/religion are the "chosen ones." My group is going to "heaven/nirvana/valhalla/whatever" while you infidels are going straight to "hell/hades/oblivion/whatever". Many, many religions are deeply entrenched in an elitist attitude where "believers" are accorded special privileges.


#4. Culture/Nationality

My way of life is the better (and "right") way. Classic imperialism. Comes up often in immigration/assimilation discussions or as tension between industrialized countries and developing nations.


#5. Other

I could continue but you probably get the point. You could find other groups/distinctions (professions, hobbies, physical characteristics, etc.) that also include judgments where Category X is "clearly superior" to everyone else.



If you really get into it, even "preferences" can often be hard to distinguish between discrimination, since it carries value-judgments on the worth of someone else.

For example, "I prefer blonde women," indicating that blondes are similar to an elite class. "I prefer tall men," which implies that tall men are worth more to society (and you) than short men.


--> Once again, there's not necessarily anything "wrong" with it. But most people will think that a particular subgroup (most often including them) is superior to all those not in that subgroup. Which is essentially a form of elitism.

One other issue briefly brought up in the thread is the concept of being selfish. I would also posit that most people are "selfish" and that it's not necessarily a bad thing. I think there are very, very few true acts of altruism. Acts that appear generous often have subtler, less direct, and possibly subconscious motivations behind them.

- Some people do "nice" things because of reputation and/or for P.R. purposes. They want others to think favorably of them, so that's a major reason.

- This one's a bit subtler but quite common I think. I'd argue that lots of people do "nice" things because it makes them feel good (not necessarily because it helps other people). The reward portion of their brain lights up when they perform the act. Maybe they feel better about themselves or it reinforces a particular self-image. The fact that it helps someone else is actually peripheral.

- On the religious side, you have people who act "charitably" because they think it will buy their way into heaven/elysian fields/tian/whatever or keep you out of hell/neraka/heart eaten by Ammit/whatever. If a dying man donates $1 billion to charity to atone for his sins (and hopefully gets him into heaven), that's not altruism. If a religion coerces a woman to do "good" things to stay out of the underworld then that's not really altruistic either. Similarly, those who believe in karma might choose to do something "good" because they expect something good to happen to them as a result (in this life or the next).

- It's a complicated issue, but many forms of "altruism" may simply be a result of "selfishness with an expanded concept of the self".

A. It's easy to simply start with self as self

B. Family and loved ones often form an integral part of self-identity as well. An identical twin shares the same DNA. Your significant other is your soulmate and your "other half." Your family shares much of your DNA, so any altruism could simply due to Kin Selection mechanisms at work (you don't personally survive, but a good portion of your genes lives on through your relatives).

C. Religion, nationality, and/or other ideals could become such integral parts of your self-identity that they become part of your "self."

D. For those with particular goals or beliefs on how the world should be, "altruistic" acts may actually just be furthering personal goals.

E. Especially in more homogeneous populations, people may like to think that they are helping "someone like them." Essentially they are kind of projecting themselves and are essentially helping further their own cause (or conception of how the world should be). Similarly, you'll see that people are often less interested in helping if the other people are completely different than than are.


- On a related note, oftentimes people have a vested interest in a particular cause. Women are more likely to get breast cancer. Men are more concerned about testicular cancer, or hair loss, or color blindness, or hemophilia. Commonly, you'll have individuals supporting research for a very rare disease because they have hereditary risk factors. Is that actually "altruism?" Or is the knowledge that you (and your family) is at high risk mean that donating for a cure actually works for your own self-interest in case you (or your family) ends up getting the disease?



My point is the "selfishness" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Depending on how you view the term, it can be seen as an inherent part of most human behavior.

speaking from experience or observations, elitism is a cold hard fact of life. no matter what it goes to...jews in isreal, white and male in america, whatever one perceives as an unfair advantage or suspect someone of feeling superior, some are quick to scream elitism.

i'm going to make a guess here: would elitism mean someone is feeling/thinking they are entitled or superior to others? if so, how does anyone know what is in a persons head?

i would like to spend time with folks and form an opinion from interaction. now i may not always agree or understand their logic, but this is what makes the world interesting. people are different.

in my head I am better then everyone..I RULE

Here is my addition to this new opening of True Arena and what a BS in Linguistics and MS in Communication Sciences and Disorders and most of a PhD in Communication Science and Disorders has taught me on this subject:

elite originates from 18th century French meaning 'selection choice' which came from elire meaning 'to elect' which is a variant of the Latin eligere.

See, that's why I don't mind spending a lot on tokens. That little tidbit cost me $80,000. And I bet none of you could have found it by looking in a book or in the Oxford English Dictionary.

I believe that post alone is a good example of elitism.

EN 429 wrote: Here is my addition to this new opening of True Arena and what a BS in Linguistics and MS in Communication Sciences and Disorders and most of a PhD in Communication Science and Disorders has taught me on this subject:

elite originates from 18th century French meaning 'selection choice' which came from elire meaning 'to elect' which is a variant of the Latin eligere.

See, that's why I don't mind spending a lot on tokens. That little tidbit cost me $80,000. And I bet none of you could find it by looking in a book or in the Oxford English Dictionary.

why would we need to look in a book..you just put it right here..it is not like i need to read it twice

No one would ever argue that Elitism isn't prevalant in society. However, to be elitist isn't in any way acceptable. When you have an elitist attitude, nobody likes you, especially if you aren't actually Elite. A bad attitude is still a bad attitude no matter the reason for it. People don't like people who think they are better then other people.

Oh and En I love it, I too knew the root of the word, which a Master's in English will also get you at a cost of 40 grand, which is half as much as you lol... Of course it's only half way to my PhD, so I guess you are ciiker then me

We need to specify that elitism is different from being elite. I want an elite brain surgeon, not necessarily an elitist one. That said, I wouldn't hold it against an elite to behave as one. I myself am a quiet elitist

An interesting text on the subject is Andrew Keen's "The Cult of the Amateur."