&quot;First of all I should say that I agree with davy&quot; - Norman Tebbit.

But I've never heard (with the exception of Tony Benn, who I think is the exception that proves the rule) anyone in that potential position using 'elitism' as a perjorative term in the way that it seems to have become.

From:

ksirafai.livejournal.com

What, then, constitutes an elite? There are a variety of different ways of judging the 'cream' of any society, and given a bit of juggling, most people will fit into one version or another.

Elitism, ambition, competition and cliqueing are all human features - flaws or benefits, dependant on the circumstances, but it mainly goes 'I want to be better than you to do X, Y, Z'.

The bad reputations elites then get are largely from those incapable of attaining the membership requirements and getting left out of all that social prestige...

From:

This is my thought also; I've heard it said that opera/ streamed education/ organisations like mensa/ etc are 'elitist'.
Someone said to me the other day that 'elitism' has 'universally negative' connotations. i don't hink it does - I think it's a word used by people who cannot get what they want to beat those who have it. I worry that it's a word that will become, like various sexual and racial words/descriptions, perjorative and negative through over-use by people who would let their jeasousy, fear, and hatred define their political and social beliefs.

From:

ksirafai.livejournal.com

No, elitism has universally impressive connotations on one level or another - it's generally thought to be something that's superior. If superiority is to be scorned (see any and all comments along the lines of 'global cultures' and 'equality and diversity') then yes, elitism is bad.

On the other hand, there _are_ people who are more intelligent, richer, luckier, prettier - call it what you will. And they will be envied and they will tend to find peers of a similar social standing and that's how our world works nowadays.

I'm not sure anyone ever lets anything but jealousy, fear and hatred define their feelings; I know, at least, it's hard to deny those motivations. Everyone's scared of everyone else, so wants to make sure that somewhere they're on top. This is, of course, a little harder when you're a 15-year-old single mother, or a shelf-stacker at Tescos.

From:

zenmeisterin.livejournal.com

I think it's too late to *start* worrying - it is already used widely as a descriptor with negative undertones.

It is also important to note the difference between Can be elite and Will be elite. Pretenders galore and those who renounce their claims for one reason or another.

From:

ukmonty.livejournal.com

David

I would post a proper answer but I am too busy scoffing foie gras and watching the peasants toil with the phesants.

So basically I acn not be fagged.

Pip pip

From:

sesquipedality.livejournal.com

Perhaps there is a confusion between elitism and nepotism or other forms of favouritism towards the "right sort". Or possibly there is elitism based on merit, and then elitism based on connections.

Is someone with all the requisite skills but not in possession of the necessary social connections part of an "elite"?

Or to look at it another way is it fair that about 50% of Oxbridge places go to people educated at public schools. One can certainly argue that more intelligent students are more likely to be found at public schools, but it seems dubious to me to claim that intelligence is so strongly correlated with worldly success.

It all comes back to how exactly one defines elitism.

From:

zenmeisterin.livejournal.com

Or, perhaps, with those who were once in the 'Elite' and became jaded and cynical at the attitudes of the Elite vs. the world and the World vs. the elite, they just got fed up of the attitudes of both those who want but don't have and those who do have and rub it in the faces of those tho don't. Told them all to go to hell, as it were.

I see it around me constantly. People who are on the one hand bitching and moaning about those who are in the 'elite' groups having everything yet at the same time being Proud of their ignorance, lack of *insert desired value here* and the very things that set them apart from those they 'wish' to be. People who have it and know it and become extremely snobbish about the fact; looking down on everyone else who doesn't measure up to their 'elite' standars, even if the person in question *is* just as 'elite' but in a different field.

Long, long ago gave up on Mensa and other such organisations because I found the attitudes bandied about by all sides annoyed me. (That and I have major fundamental issues with Mensa as 'intelligence' testing anyway.)

From:

sesquipedality.livejournal.com

Oh, but it is an intelligence test. If you're a member, you're obviously not smart enough.

From:

zenmeisterin.livejournal.com

*laughs* Very good point. Though most people I know who are still members seem to acknowledge the fact that it means and proves nothing yet continue to be members because they like the puzzles they get sent ;-)

From:

jonnyargles.livejournal.com

Elitism, by its nature, is exclusionist. It has as its origin the Calvinist idea of the Elect; those whom God has ordained from birth to be his chosen. It's the kind of belief that makes kings magically cure scrofula by exposing their ring, and purple be a colour reserved for royalty and the priesthood under pain of death.
If you mean that those blessed with an education and resources are envied, then I don't think you will find too many arguments. If you say that different pursuits have different social conventions that favour those brought up within them, then again I can't fault you - after all, Rex Harrison would have had just as many problems at a Dogfight as poor old Audrey had at the races.
"Go on, you huge canine; hasten the destruction of your opponent."
IF, however, you are implying that certain pursuits are beyond the reach of groups of people, and that these pursuits are somehow innately better, then you start to tread into uncomfortable territory. Some pigs are happy not to be Socrates, and Socrates ended up dying from Hemlock, whereas Saddlebottom went onto a decent career in the army.

From:

stealthracer.livejournal.com

Nothing to discuss. What you said was a statement of fact.

From: (Anonymous)

(This is Hilary, but I don't have an LJ.)
By a peculiar coincidence, David, last night, before you showed up with Monty, I was reading "Reginald in Russia" written in about ... oh, 1905 I'd guess, which opens with Reginald chatting to a Russian Princess. Who professes Socialist principles. (This was satire, but not, I think, complete fantasy).
There have been Tony Benns around for a long time!
Now I don't think anyone can argue that the Princess already belonged to an Elite which - nominally at any rate - she *was* prepared to denounce (at private salons).
However, I also don't suppose that she foresaw what the result of those denunciations would be, carried through to its logical conclusion, as happened a decade or so later on.
Perhaps the answer is that people are very good at performing a sort of doublethink, or are naturally drawn to the idea of belonging to an elite *within an elite*, Lewis's Inner Ring - a gang within a gang, Socialists within aristocrats, the only people who can rule the Future, according to their lights.
I've heard it said that upper-middle-class intellectuals, who already enjoy membership of several of Society's elites to begin with, are disproportionately drawn to terrorism and fringe revolutionary movements for that reason. Not from anti-elitism - from snobbery.

From:

Peodiphilia only has a bad reputation amongst those who do not fuck children.

What's your point?

From:

As I'm completely mystified by what you just said, I think I've more grounds for asking what your point is?

Kiddie fiddling? What's that got to do with anything?

From:

Just because those that do something find no problem with it does not make it an exceptable thing.

From:

But non- kiddie fiddlers rarely aspire to become one. I'm trying to explore the reasons people abhor elitism, which people do aspire to.

From:

If people don't want to be kiddy-fiddlers, where do all the new ones come from?

Besides, pretty much everyone is elitist in their own way. Hell, just look at the Cam.

From:

I'm not sure that's something people aspire to become; more descend, perhaps?

From:

What ever the symantics, you get the idea. :)

From:

And I don't think that you've missed the original point I was making so much as taken a detour via Glasgow to avoid it...

From:

Elitism only has a bad reputation amongst those who do not have either the wherewithal and/or the ambition to join said elite.

My reply was that that may be true however the people who want to be elite arn't going to think it's a bad thing and the people who don't probably don't want to for a reason, and it's probably not going to be because they think it's a super cool thing.

Saying that ANYTHING is only viewd as negitive by those who want to have nothing to do with it is, in my opinion, a pretty obvious thing to say, and that is how I read the above statement, so not really much to discuss.

My first comment was, to me at least, pretty much the same thing as yours. However, if you want to discuss the nature of Elitism and get into another dance of the red death discussion with J. then I don't think the original statement has a lot of relevence, perhaps something along the lines of 'Elitism is part of the natural order of things and is infact a benfit, rather than a detrement to sociaty.' might be what I was supposed to read.

Sorry if I read it wrong, I'm not at all leet I'm affraid. :)

From:

Okay, yes, I'll accept that. Or I should ahve removed the word 'ambition' from the initial phrase, as it is often those who aspire to the elite but simply don't have 'it' who'd most like to get rid of any elite. Tall poppy syndrome. Sound fair?

From:

Yup.

From:

ex-boog351.livejournal.com

Depends on what you define the elite as. If you define it as the group with the talent and the willingness to put in the graft to enter and / or remain in that group, then an elite is OK, as long as those are the only barriers to entry. However, in our (UK) society, they are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions. One can be born into the elite through the achievement of one's parents, or even one's ancestors' brown-nosing to a long-dead sovereign, and have all the advantages of money, contacts and superior education to stay there.

Even if you have the talent, and are prepared to put in the work, if your face doesn't fit, or if you don't know the right people, you don't get to join. I think a number of studies have been done, and despite all our social progress, Britain's society is still as class-ridden as ever.

Of course, if by elitism, you don't mean society as a whole, then things may be slightly different. For example, in education, giving the brightest academic students the more tasking tuition makes sense - and the nobheads who think that we shouldn't segregate in this way are those who made my school life nice and easy - but that doesn't mean we should give up on the not-so-bright - rather investing resources in vocational training etc may be a good way forward. Ultimately everyone should have something to contribute to society given the opportunity - though of course there will always be a few scroungers.

So my answer is - elitism is fine in a meritocracy - and given we live in a more complex society we should find a balance with egaltaranism.

From:

rosamicula.livejournal.com

All an elite should be, as it is in France, is the group at the top of their field who are best at what they do. The saddest thing about British culture at the moment is the horror of 'elitism'. In education this effectively translates into a horror of excellence.

At the college where I worked in Cardiff, I was obliged to coach my two Oxbridge entrants on the quiet, for fear of making the other students feel 'less valued'.

When I headed an Eng Dept in a College in the East End the exorbitantly expensive consultants (brought in to pre-inspect the college before the real Ofsted inspection) trounced my approach and my lessons as marked by 'draconian discipline and public discussion/of marks and grades which has allowed a competitive, elitist ethos to develop.' Damn right - which is why grade averages in English went up 30% while I was there.

You say Even if you have the talent, and are prepared to put in the work, if your face doesn't fit, or if you don't know the right people, you don't get to join..

I'm proof that this isn't the case. No one's face could fit less than mine - mixed race, female, single parent family on benefits, council estate, criminal siblings - but got into grammar school (and had the option of an scholarship place at a top public school which I didn't take up) simply on the basis of academic merit. Blairites bleat on about widen access/participation in education and yet they and their predecessors destroyed the very system that made this possible.

The biggest difference between me and the teenagers I teach is that I grew up in a home full of books, and half of them have no books in their home at all (the kids brought up by the demented rules of orthodox Sharia law aren't allowed to have any book in the home but the Khoran - we have to provide them with lockers to keep their college books in).

The tragedy is that rather than developing an egalitarian system by encouraging excellence by rewarding hard work and genuine achievement we are now working in a system where all must have prizes, all must feel valued, and standards are 'raised' by widening the goal posts. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the change in the way the A level system has been wrecked and the marking standards lowered since Curriculum 2000 was introduced.

From:

ex-boog351.livejournal.com

Sorry for not getting back to you on this one sooner.

What you say about elitism in education is spot on, and I imagine the words elitism and egalitarianism in the teaching profession you are likely to land a very hot potato in the lap. I am frankly appalled at the PC nonsense spouted - it doesn't work in athletics or science or even the arts and the same is true in education. The point I did want to make though is that elitism in education shouldn't mean that the less academically gifted be abandoned - rather that resources should be used more efficiently such as through vocational training - refusing to acknowledge differences in ability actually works against this goal.

Just to be clear - my comment mainly referred to elitism in general and in society. It is often the case that there are glass ceilings for people in public life and politics - unless they are truly exceptional, whilst others get ahead by knowing the right people and having the right background. Other professions are different - and will tend to promote talent and ditch the dross - this is where elitism works better - the issue is not whether we should have elites, but rather how they are selected - and I wanted to say that the more meritocratic a system is, the more we should rely on and encourage elitism - the less so, the more egalitarianism is required.

So going back to education, I think it is fair to say that there are differences across the system - where families with money can send their kids to the best schools who give them the improved facilities and (perhaps?) a more elitist ethos (good thing - as discussed) that gives them more chance to access the best universities and the best jobs. Thus an equally talented kid in a state school has to work that bit harder against a system run by wooly hand-wringing lefties who don't like the fact he or she wants to do better than everyone else. It is here where I think an egalitarian approach would be most appropriate - to level up the playing field a bit by accounting for different standards people face - does that make sense?

From:

rosamicula.livejournal.com

It makes perfect sense. I think we are pretty much in agreement:)

The sad thing is that the way the system works now is that the weakest ones are written off with meaningless qualifications like GNVQs and Key Skills and the strongest ones have nothing to work for.

You picked an ideal day to reply - A level result day.

From:

I would say that evidence indicates I have both.

However, mutally-masturbatory introspective back-slapping groups of penis-compensating soulless idiots are not my scene.

"Oh, I say, Julian, look how much better we are than those plebians! Their great-grandfathers never killed forty-eight unarmed tribesmen in one day!"

From: (Anonymous)

(Hilary again)
But if a belief that one is better than other people ("plebeians") leads one to set oneself high personal standards - if you believe that you owe it to your ancestors to display heroism, self-sacrifice, acts of charity and public service, does it matter if the rationale for your belief is an unpopular or unfashionable one?

From:

I am all in favour of people striving for greatness, for whatever reason, really.

It's where elites start to try to prevent others from striving for greatness that my issues start with them.

From:

You're missing the entire point of the question...

What about using public money to subsidise 'elitist' opera?
What about streamed education as being 'elitist'?

And "mutally-masturbatory introspective back-slapping groups of penis-compensating soulless idiots are not my scene."? C'mon, Joe. You're involved in student politics. There's no social grouping which is a better exemplar of what you say isn't your scene than the cliques which rule student unions up and down the land.

From:

I don't actually even have an issue with private education, much less streamed education -- having attended an independent school, it'd be rather hypocritical of me. That's not to say that I wouldn't much rather the standard of teaching be improved in all schools, thus getting rid of the need to have independent/private/public schools in the first place.

I think my point is that there are several types of elite. As I said to Hilary, I am all in favour of people striving for greatness -- and in their being helped to achieve it. However, many elites seem to have as a prime agenda item the pushing-down of others, to preserve their elite status.

And what you say is certainly true of the NUS and its petty factionalism. My own experience of intra-Guild politics is much different to the careerist-centric one you're talking about. I'm certainly not denying that such people exist within that sphere, but the current downturn in student unions' profits etc. make them a lot less "sexy."

From:

This is why I dont' understand you being a lefty - the historical record demonstrates unequivocally that left wing forms of government actively prevent any of the citizenry gaining greatness, whilst right wing ones at least encourage peopel to try - even if they fail they had the opportunity to do so in the first place. Surely your belief in this case is libertarian, like mine?

As a question, purely as an arbitary thought experiment: which would you prefer - a world where everyone had $100, or a world where everyone had $1000, except for one person, who had $1,000,000?

Obviously I'd prefer the second, because everyone is better off even if there are greater degrees of social inequality, but I'd be interested to know you opinion, and why?

From:

Everyone is better in the second world than the first. And, of course, that one person splitting $999,000 between six billion people would hardly make any difference at all.

That said, captalism's track record is not that "a rising tide lifts all ships" -- more that "a rising tide lifts the expensive ships and drowns the poor people in dinghys, yachts and schooners."

From:

Someone once asked George Orwell why he abondoned his socialist beliefs later in life, and he replied: "Someone asked me where I'd rather live - Sovciet Russia, or the United States. I didn't even have to think about my answer."

You can argue, and truthfully, that capitalism has some victims. However, I can argue , and truthfully, that socialism has many many more as a proportion of the population (i.e. everyone who isn't a member of the party, for starters). And that's why I'm against it, plain and simple.

From:

For sure, in terms of luxury etc., the US wins every time. That's called "selling out."

And modern capitalism as an excuse for imperialism has many more flavours of victim than merely financial ones.

From:

For sure, in terms of luxury etc., the US wins every time. That's called "selling out."

And in terms of individual freedom, liberty, happiness, and opportunity...
If I have to sell out to be happy, have freedom of speech and association, a vote which means something*, and the opportunity to better myself and my family through hard work, ingenuity, and a little bit of luck, then I'll sell out any day of the week.

And modern capitalism as an excuse for imperialism has many more flavours of victim than merely financial ones.

Well, as the options I'm being presented with are everyone being a victim, or some people maybe being victims, I know which I'll go for. Obviously I'd like to live in a world with no voctims at all, but I dont' believe that's possible. As soon as a workable solution is postulated, I'll be first in the queue.
Possibly the development of nanite manufacturing and home fusion power might do it. I don't know.

*I already know what you're planning to say to this, so don't bother. You know exactly what I mean by this statement so don't try hijacking it.

From: