Before we can talk further, let's define the term. Elitism is basically the idea that a certain subset of the total population is considered to be significantly better due to their: skills, ideas, birthright, etc. The key word here is “considered”. We have to define what the criteria for being elite are, or conversely perhaps we have to find out what they self-define as the proper criteria for being the “elite”. The answer to this question defines how each flavor of elitism comes into its own.
I'm going to define the flavors by which criteria each group considers to make them elite. I'm also going to narrow thee discussion to intellectual elitism because I really don't care about elitism in sports or any such form. I'll go over the three most popular forms of elitism (at least in the US): cultural / nationalist, leftist, libertarian.
The majority of intelligent
people (as least that I know) fall into the last two categories, but
I'll go over all of them.
Cultural:
This is very common among
republicans, neoconservatives and “blue dog” democrats. In a
nutshell, people who espouse this view believe in “American
exceptionalism” meaning that they think our culture is superior to
all others. They are usually religious and very attached to tradition
and the status quo. Their philosophy shows itself in the idea of
nation-building in the model of George Bush who thought we needed to
spread this philosophy. These people believe that being as close to
the American ideal (as they define it) is the criteria by which to
judge the elite. This system in its most extreme form gives rise to
nationalist parties like the Nazis whose elite defined themselves as
the “master
race”. Its more benign forms resemble post-WWII
America with the ideals of cultural conformity and “keeping up
with the Joneses”.
Leftist:
This is very common amongst the intelligentsia in the United States and around the world. They generally place the highest emphasis on social justice – which is usually defined by how narrow the gap is in standards of living for each class. This system defines its elites by their commitment to social equality. This system in its most extreme form gives rise to totalitarian-communism like that of Soviet Union. A more benign form would be that of French social-democracy with the ideals of social equality and distributist policy.
Libertarian:
These views are quite common in a few subcultures: finance, internet and startups. They place high emphasis on individualism, private property, and equality of rights. The elite are defined by implicit meritocracy (i.e. succeeding in their goals). This system in its most extreme form would be anarcho-capitalism, however this has never been sustained in practice. In more benign forms, this philosophy was well exemplified in the period after the American Revolution and to a certain extent in the early American Western expansion.
Flavors reviewed:
Cultural elitists seem to have the least amount of support for their views. All data goes against their idea that America (or whatever culture of your choice) has the right answers of how to run a society. Having a strong culture does help in many circumstances such as winning a war (think WWII and its affect on post-war America). Philosophies that can be disproven in application should be discarded.
This leaves us with last two that aren't empirically disprovable. I'd think the proper measure is to see if the elites in each group are are consistent with their underlying philosophy.
Leftist philosophies have their roots in populism, and they espouse equality for all and the end of social class. I think in practice it seems that they often end up with a rigid two class system. Extreme cases like the USSR have their politburo where the elite reside with a far higher standard of living than the masses. If we look again at European-style social democracy, we see a similar pattern of increased income equality with a loss of social mobility. If you look at European stock indexes, you'll see that most of the companies have been listed for the past 50 years – unlike the US which changes far more rapidly.
Libertarian elitists also
have their roots in populism. If you read Thomas Jefferson, you'll
see that he was both very libertarian and also very populist.
However, I think Ayn Rand's libertarianism, “Objectivism”, is quite
elitist. Read “Atlas Shrugged” - you'll see the capitalist elite
portrayed as heroes. Pure capitalism seems to always lead to income
inequality, however these elites embrace this.
I'll let you decide which is best...
Nick,
Good post. I agree that cultural elitists have the least amount of support for their views; I might even say that cultural elitism has the greatest potential for harm, being based on the idea that the in-group is not only superior for ideological reasons (which might be changed through dialogue) but for inherent racial or cultural ones. Think, for example, how American cultural imperialists might look down on minority subculture, even if that subculture is composed entirely of American citizens. In this sense, cultural imperialism extends beyond even the normal bounds of unrestrained patriotism—another irrational loyalty that I generally view as a bad thing. So, I think your link to the “most extreme form” of a nationalist party (Nazi) is valid. The in-group consists of people who share both a racial/cultural heritage AND a unifying set of opinions about propagating that culture. Neither of these are (or could be) up for discussion; in contrast, I think it’s possible to be a committed Leftist or Libertarian and still engage in open conversation. While not all can or do, that recognition that your elitism is based on ideas alone—and hopefully ideas that are open to change over time—is a safety net that cultural imperialism is willfully blind to.
Posted by: jon tennent | August 03, 2009 at 09:37 AM
Jon, thanks for the post.
Yea, I'm with you on the last two being more defendable and generally safer because they're based on ideas alone. However, the types of elitism can be blended too. The Nazis were cultural and leftist elitists. It's funny when people refer to the Nazi's as "right wing" because of their facism, however they took control of most corporate entities too in a weird blend of nationalization and corporatism. Leftist ideology can be pretty dangerous with cultural elitism especially. Both are very easy for the poor to latch on to - making it doubly effective.
Posted by: Nick Pinkston | August 03, 2009 at 05:10 PM