Elitism

[Roger Hicks]

Jonathan Swift b. Dublin Nov 30 1667 d. Oct 19 1745. 'A modest proposal' pub. 1729.

I think Andy is being slightly harsh: you'd need to be very casual indeed not to realize that it was satirical.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Curt]

I don't know Roger. . . I think my University has a higher ranking than yours.

Curt

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Dear Wiggy,

No, but it WAS an Irishman.
A counter-hint: 2006 is not 1729.
This is something Celts too often forget. I speak as one.

Jones being somewhat of a Welsh surname, I can only concur.

My point being that your urging me to 'join the elite' implied that I was not already a member. Writing to denigrate the high-falutin' notions of a self-annointed class does not automatically make one a member of the hoi polloi.

But I sense my subtlety has missed its mark. Irony, where is thy sting?

 

[Andy K]

Interesting side point... a recent DNA survey of the population of Britain found Celtic DNA was not unique to 'the Celtic fringe' and that it was found throughout most of southern England.

 

[JBrunner]

Interesting side point... a recent DNA survey of the population of Britain found Celtic DNA was not unique to 'the Celtic fringe' and that it was found throughout most of southern England.

So then somebody got around a bit

 

[Wigwam Jones]

There seems to be a continuing misunderstanding here. The 'oblige' in 'noblesse oblige' is an obligation upon the nobleman to behave well to his inferiors; it is the very opposite of what you implied in your original post.

I was attempting to draw a parallel, but I see that I must simply spell it out.

A 'noble' sensing the obligation to render assistance to his 'inferiors' might be less than well-received when and if his 'inferiors' discovered in what regard he held them.

Likewise, an 'elite' on APUG or elsewhere might find in themselves a perceived obligation to share knowledge, to teach, to assist - and find their assistance introduced up their collective jaxies when the less-knowledgeable discover that they are being held in a similar regard.

Of course, that was said with a Swiftian tongue, also utterly lost on the breeze.

As for Wikipedia, well, I will muster all the scorn I can. A worthless trifle, by the ignorant, for the ignorant. Facts are not democratic. The meaning of words may be, but I'd even there I'd rather read a definition by someone who knows what he is talking about, and has the respect of his peers, than one by a fellow who has, in effect, wandered in off the street.

I will not turn on a light to read, unless an educated man has first vetted the condition of the bulb. I sit in the darkness, stupid, blind, and alone. But I have my principles.

My bookshelves are only populated with the writings of those whom I accept as peers - naturally the shelves are rather bare, but my intellectual integrity is sacrosanct.

A fellow told me that the paint on the bus stop bench was wet, but he appeared rather ignorant and certainly was not sporting a regimental tie, so I paid him no mind whatsoever. Do you like my new striped trousers?

And you say you have no knowledge of my point regarding the condescension which drips from your words!

 

[Andy K]

So then somebody got around a bit

It is more an indication that Gildas was mistaken and that there was no exodus of Celts ahead of the Anglo-Saxon colonisation of this island.

 

[JBrunner]

It is more an indication that Gildas was mistaken and that there was no exodus of Celts ahead of the Anglo-Saxon colonisation of this island.

My version is spicier, and will pull better ratings.

 

[c6h6o3]

The flower need not be rich: one should not confuse wealth with such things as social class, education, wit, charm or membership of any elite.

You and I agree more than I had at first thought upon reading your start of this thread.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't know Roger. . . I think my University has a higher ranking than yours.

Curt

Quite possibly, though the law school was apparently highly regarded. I still can't quite see what you're getting at.

Cheers,

R

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Wiggy,

On that occasion, dear boy, I wasn't dripping condescension. I was spraying it. But
I thought you said in a previous post you weren't attacking me?

Your shelves must indeed be bare if you rely on Wikipedia. Personally I'd prefer the Britannica or the Americana, but to each his own.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

You and I agree more than I had at first thought upon reading your start of this thread.

I am glad about that. Too many agree or disagree with what they want to think I said, not what I actually said.

I apologize if I am not always clear. I fear that some of it is down to the differences between English and American. Or perhaps Wilde was more accurate: 'two nations separated by a common language'.

More true in his day than ours, I supppose.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jd callow]

I have access to the full OED on line (one of the perks of having a wife who is a researcher), but I don't need to access it to know that elite, elitism and elitist are not going to have the same meaning nor will elite have just one.

I don't think I'd need to go to the UK to find that the colloquial meanings are going to be similar in both countries. Although, I would bet the meaning changes as you move through economic and or educational strata.

Off the top of my head
Elitism is the counter point to pluralism. It is where the few (the elite) rule the many.

Elitist might be a proponent of elitism or someone who feels they are or belong amongst the elite.

Elite is a fairly generic word to describe the better or rare segments of an organization, system or object.

Now I could be all wet on my definitions and these may not be most common and they are not the only definitions, but they are the ones I know. They are the definitions that were rolling around my head whilst I read this thread which makes me wonder what you (Roger and all) are talking about. Are you talking about a type of rule, the better bits or aspirations that may be deluded?

 

[Wigwam Jones]

On that occasion, dear boy, I wasn't dripping condescension. I was spraying it. But I thought you said in a previous post you weren't attacking me?

I said, "I am not suggesting that you do not work, sir, just to be clear."

Your shelves must indeed be bare if you rely on Wikipedia. Personally I'd prefer the Britannica or the Americana, but to each his own.

Whoever said I rely on Wikipedia? I use it, as I use any tool. Indeed, my bookshelves runneth over. And some of the pages aren't even colored in yet.

 

[c6h6o3]

Or perhaps Wilde was more accurate: 'two nations separated by a common language'.

That particular quote is attibuted to George Bernard Shaw. Wilde phrased it a little differently.

 

[Bob F.]

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

 

[Curt]

Roger, I just wanted to be an elitist for a little while, that's all.

Curt

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Twice today I've seen the term 'elitist' used as a term of disapprobation or even abuse.

This puzzles me. If I want to learn something, I want to learn from the best: the elite.

To be sure, if that elite doesn't want me, I may be less than enchanted with them, but from what I can see here on APUG, most of the people who have a lot of experience and knowledge are more than willing to share it with those who have less -- and indeed to learn from anyone, regardless of how humble or mighty the source of the information, in those areas where they are less knowledgeable. I don't see the 'elitism' that some deprecate.

Obviously to ask for examples of 'elitism' would be to invite a flame war, but I'd be interested in others' views on the very concept of what an elite is for, should be for and shouldn't be for.

Cheers,

Roger

Speaking personally (as always), I would define "elitism" as "a desire, usually based on illusion, to place oneself above others, to believe oneself to be superior to others, and to segregate others out of the particular area in which the elitist believes him/herself to occupy a superior position."

In other words, the main things on an elitist's mind are self-glorification and exclusion of others. For an artist, this is tantamount to imminent brain death. Again speaking purely personally, I have been taking pictures for over 50 years and know a hell of a lot about photography (knowledge stronger in some areas rather than others). I would, however, consider it a personal and creative disaster for myself if I ever thought I was a member of an "elite" and had lost the ability to respond to and learn from the work of others, even beginners and people who by conventional standards "don't know what they're doing." And, believe me, there are a frightening number of elitists and so-called gurus in photography who HAVE lost this ability.

Just - as the saying goes - my $0.02 worth!

Regards,

David

 

[jovo]

I think the notion of an elite went downhill rapidly with the circulation of C. Wright Mills' "The Power Elite". People who had no idea they were bottom feeders were suddenly, and rudely reminded.

"The power elite theory, in short, claims that a single elite, not a multiplicity of competing groups, decides the life-and-death issues for the nation as a whole, leaving relatively minor matters for the middle level and almost nothing for the common person. It thus paints a dark picture. Whereas pluralists are somewhat content with what they believe is a fair, if admittedly imperfect, system, the power elite school decries the grossly unequal and unjust distribution of power it finds everywhere."*

*H. T. Reynolds, PHD 1996

In the domains of art and culture, the average person couldn't care less if he has a say in those expressions. But when it comes to the future of the planet, well....to basically be told, outright, that one sucks algae from swamp scum is exceedingly unpalatable.

 

[jd callow]

John,
What Reynolds describes as the Power Elite is essentially what was taught in my HS govt classes as elitism along with pluralism and ultra pluralism.

Elite is not bad on its own. Elitist can be derogatory and I believe David's post covers it well. Aspirations of elitism is what may have pushed the GOP to go for GWB over John McCain (btw I'm not looking to start an argument). It is hard for me to use all three as interchangeably as has been done here.

 

[Donald Miller]

I have been watching this circle jerk all day. I find it really humorous and enlightening at the same time that this whole thread is an attempt by the originator to justify why he is appropriate in acknowledging himself as being an elite individual. In lieu of that, depending on the direction of the wind it seems, why he should not be termed as being elitist. I am not sure which side of the fence the originator will land on next.

The real issue here, it seems to me, is not a matter of definitions of words but one of behavior. This is a behavior that some here, including myself I might add, have observed and addressed. As I observe, there are a fair number of us here who have arrived at the same viewpoint. Our viewpoints are based in observable behavior.

The objective of this site is to have a community of like minded individuals. That would seem to mean a fellowship. A fellowship indicates a group of equals. I think it is damned arrogant to assume that I or anyone has anything worthwhile to teach another or that they need to be taught, for that matter.

We can have a group of equals. We can have differing strengths in our practice but we don't need to assume that our specific strengths place us in an elevated position to another person on this site.

 

[bjorke]

Twice today I've seen the term 'elitist' used as a term of disapprobation or even abuse.

Roger, I think you'll have to name names or people will just spew in circles about Noah Webster or how sensitive they are or whatever ever-more-tangential nonsense they can wander across.

What I love about all denouncements of elitism is that the speaker has, by their statement, declared themselves and their values to be of a superior sort -- in other words, they declare themselves as some more significant sort of elite.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Roger, I think you'll have to name names or people will just spew in circles about Noah Webster or how sensitive they are or whatever ever-more-tangential nonsense they can wander across.

What I love about all denouncements of elitism is that the speaker has, by their statement, declared themselves and their values to be of a superior sort -- in other words, they declare themselves as some more significant sort of elite.

And how about the people who denounce the people who denounce elitists? One thing's for sure, we're not going to get anywhere until we take all those sensitive and tangential people out and shoot them !

 

[DBP]

And how about the people who denounce the people who denounce elitists? One thing's for sure, we're not going to get anywhere until we take all those sensitive and tangential people out and shoot them !

But shoot them how? Color or black and white? MF, LF, or ULF? Printed how? What do we do with all the shots? Would we have to shoot them using a 7x17 camera, ISO 25 Ortho, and print as bromoils to properly capture the sensitivity? How do you handle the tangents, by using a normal lens?

 

[David H. Bebbington]

But shoot them how? Color or black and white? MF, LF, or ULF? Printed how? What do we do with all the shots? Would we have to shoot them using a 7x17 camera, ISO 25 Ortho, and print as bromoils to properly capture the sensitivity? How do you handle the tangents, by using a normal lens?

This is the eternal creative quandary which we elitists face! One thing we can be sure of - the results will be MUCH better than anyone else's pictures!