The accusation of elitism has a mind-numbing effect on any conversation. Perhaps this is because we use the term ‘elite’ with two distinct senses, one as a mere description with a mild hint of approval (“Usain Bolt is an elite athlete”), and the other heavily tinged with evaluative emotions: resentment, envy, anger, and fear of our own inadequacy. In this mode the term indicates all our uneasy and contradictory responses to the experience of class.
We might think a charge of elitism would stem only from a specific accusation that a person with talents or accomplishments above the norm has expressed, in words or demonstrative actions, arrogance toward those purportedly beneath her. It suggests a lack of graciousness and humility particularly unseemly in a person of such accomplishment (from whom we expect, whether fairly or not, a well-developed moral character sensitive to others’ feelings and limitations).
Such a charge is slippery, however; it is difficult not to slide between the two senses of ‘elite’. Many people, wrapped up in unexamined fears and resentments, can easily be brought (by a careless journalist or a calculating demagogue) to think that a person who is elite in the purely descriptive sense must automatically be an elitist – that is, someone who puts on superior airs and thinks and behaves condescendingly toward others – whether she is or not. And once leveled, the charge is virtually unanswerable, because any discussion of it sophisticated enough to tease apart the muddled senses will look, well, elitist, at least to those already immersed in the emotional stew of the accusation itself, which plays on any underlying anti-intellectualism it can find.
Accusations of elitism are, for these reasons, perennially fraught and difficult to debunk. It’s a bit like trying to show that you’re not in denial; once the accusation has been leveled, you’re trapped, whether you’re Socrates or Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Just right. I especially like your analysis of the dangers of responding in a nuanced way to such a charge.
This just in from Katha Pollitt: "I want the people running the country to be smarter and wiser and more judicious and more knowledgeable than I am. If that's elitism, count me in."
I'm wondering where we have seen Socrates trapped in the defense against elitism. I think there were also analogous situations where Socrates was accused of being sophist-like and therefore not trustworthy, thus rendering him incapable of giving a trustworthy defense. The dilemma here is more closely related to that of disproving denial.
Being elitist bears no importance to one's abilities or merits. It is a merely a description of personality that would cause nothing more than disdain. In the cause of being sophist-like and untrustworthy, the consequences carry over to other matters. Usain Bolt can run fast whether or not he is elitist about it, but does Socrates speak truth if he is deceitful? If Obama is elitist, it will make no difference about his intellectual capacity and ability to lead this (very elitist) nation. Does being called elitist then really matter?
It is of course not fun to be called elitist. I often try to talk with other students about classes, and they sometimes get defensive and hint that I am just trying to seem smart, when in reality I am just interested in the subject matter. I have found it impossible to prove to them the contrary, so I simply give up until I find other students who are willing to engage in intellectual conversation or go post on Skeptiblog.
Post a Comment