The ‘E’ Word
A mentor of mine, one Professor Robert Gaebel, used to say that there was nothing wrong with elitism; in fact, elitism is a good thing. It means that you’re good at something and you know it. It means that you have either earned or been given some great talent or wealth and that you separate yourselves ideologically from those who haven’t. It is a method of identifying the strengths of the individual and measuring them against society. Elitism is the recognition of a benchmark, and has little to do with looking down your nose at someone.
Elitism is conceptually distinct from the way the word is being portrayed in the media these days. The ‘E’ word is being used to show some kind of intellectual haughtiness, convey a connotation of conceit and disgust toward the lower classes, when we already have words for those ideas: haughty, conceited, and disgusted. According to Wikipedia, elitisim is
the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.
There is nothing particularly bad about this concept. What it means is that not everyone is fit to govern the greater populace. The general view is that special experience or training, or a motivated sense of purpose is necessary to take up a leadership role. Not everyone has these traits, and not everyone wants them. The idea of elitism is surrounded with self-improvement for the general benefit of everyone. An elitist aims to use her position or skill to constructively participate in society.
Wiki also offers an alternative definition, one that I think I like to apply to myself:
Elitism may also refer to situations in which an elite individual assumes special privileges and responsibilities in the hope that this arrangement will benefit humanity.
This seems to be the exact purpose that Barack Obama had in mind when he went to law school, and it should be the drive of every educated person to give back to society, become a social engineer and not a parasite. Adding a negative connotation to ‘elitism,’ in my opinion, destroys the credibility of the speaker. John McCain and Hillary Clinton use it like a dirty word, even though they, themselves, are elitists, by their own definition. No one should point fingers when their goals are the same. It’s counter-productive.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:05 am
So how do you feel about the dirty word “liberal”?
April 15th, 2008 at 11:48 am
The word “liberal” doesn’t really have any meaning. It applies (haha) too liberally to too many ideas. Since it’s a pretty broad idea, you could say that almost anyone is liberal. Even John McCain.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Well that wasn’t nearly as much fun as I thought it would be
April 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Don’t worry, I’ll elaborate later.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I completely agree. I hope that one day only ELITE people will rule this county. If they aren’t better than Joe America, why don’t we just elect Joe and pay him in Bud Light… helluva lot cheaper.
Ironically (or perhaps, just fittingly) the people who take the bait on Clinton’s bash of the “elite” comment are the very people who surely are not and never will be among the elite. They make the distinction between normal & elite possible.
It’s wrong to think that any one person deserves more “rights” than anyone else –we all need food, security, health care — but, frankly, some people are better and deserve certain privileges. Most elite people have earned their status.
I’ll admit it — Barack Obama is better than I.