I'm Kind of Elitist

[Received]

I've been watching Fran Lebowitz interviews. She's marvelous, and maybe the wittiest person alive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRRw-aV0ntU

She says elsewhere that she's an elitist, because she believes that some people are just smarter and better at some things than others. And I think she's definitely on to something. In today's hyper-democratic age (where democracy is so strongly believed in at a time when it's so superficially practiced), we believe so much in egalitarianism that we've forgotten that this term has limits. All are equal before the law, but all are most definitely not equal, and all should definitely not be considered fair game for ruling just because a majority says so. "Should not" here is on the premise that one wants a society that is run in the best way.

Elitism here doesn't mean I'm better than you, but rather that I'm better than you at...And it seems the moment we make this comparison we can feel the tense reaction in the room. Nobody has any problem with saying such-and-such is brilliant, or smart, or really good at this or that. But the moment you say Jack is better than Jill, you've earned the badge of arrogance. It seems to me that even when someone is clearly being recognized as better than everyone else that it's inappropriate to mention that this person is better than everyone else at this thing he was rewarded for. I just don't quite get this, but I do a little.

I see this in people to the point that they're downright frustrated or even angry that someone could even think to point out that someone is better than another person at such-and-such a quality, and God help the person who would try to coolheadedly and factually say that he himself is better than someone else in something. Because that's the equivocation: "I'm better than you at X" means "I'm better than you." That's the terror to overegalitarian ears.

So I'm an elitist, at least a little bit. I think as an extension of this that our society is worse off if we stop playing the "everyone is equal at everything" game. We are all equal as basic persons with a right to exist and worth as human beings. But we are not all equal in terms of our talents and abilities, and I think it's only because we've equated the two that the latter is so distasteful to us. It seems to me that this sensitivity to treating everyone as if they were the same in this sense can't help but result in a contempt for being smarter or better in other ways, and so has a certain contempt for mastery and becoming better in the sense of self-overcoming. Being richer is another story; Lebowitz says that nobody has a problem with "elites" in terms of the rich, because everyone in America loves the rich. But the "elites" in terms of the smarter ones -- no, perish the thought, away with you. That's just elitist.

 

[Gottservant]

Yes, this definitely inspired me, thankyou.

It couldn't have inspired me, if it didn't have some truth to it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I've been watching Fran Lebowitz interviews. She's marvelous, and maybe the wittiest person alive:

Everyone loves the rich? So what were those OWSers actually saying then about the 1% " We love you so much"? Maybe everyone loves some kind of elite. Especially if they think they are one of them or will be one of them. Most of the elites that our society worships do end up being rich (politicians, actors, sports stars, con artists of varying kinds and in various fields) but it isn't the being rich part that most people love about them. The being rich is a symptom of being an elite. Funnily enough heirs an heiresses that never actually earned the money they have are often revered while those that did work their way up to amass a fortune in business, other than a tech business of course, are often seen as villains.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've been watching Fran Lebowitz interviews. She's marvelous, and maybe the wittiest person alive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRRw-aV0ntU

She says elsewhere that she's an elitist, because she believes that some people are just smarter and better at some things than others. And I think she's definitely on to something. In today's hyper-democratic age (where democracy is so strongly believed in at a time when it's so superficially practiced), we believe so much in egalitarianism that we've forgotten that this term has limits. All are equal before the law, but all are most definitely not equal, and all should definitely not be considered fair game for ruling just because a majority says so. "Should not" here is on the premise that one wants a society that is run in the best way.

Elitism here doesn't mean I'm better than you, but rather that I'm better than you at...And it seems the moment we make this comparison we can feel the tense reaction in the room. Nobody has any problem with saying such-and-such is brilliant, or smart, or really good at this or that. But the moment you say Jack is better than Jill, you've earned the badge of arrogance. It seems to me that even when someone is clearly being recognized as better than everyone else that it's inappropriate to mention that this person is better than everyone else at this thing he was rewarded for. I just don't quite get this, but I do a little.

I see this in people to the point that they're downright frustrated or even angry that someone could even think to point out that someone is better than another person at such-and-such a quality, and God help the person who would try to coolheadedly and factually say that he himself is better than someone else in something. Because that's the equivocation: "I'm better than you at X" means "I'm better than you." That's the terror to overegalitarian ears.

So I'm an elitist, at least a little bit. I think as an extension of this that our society is worse off if we stop playing the "everyone is equal at everything" game. We are all equal as basic persons with a right to exist and worth as human beings. But we are not all equal in terms of our talents and abilities, and I think it's only because we've equated the two that the latter is so distasteful to us. It seems to me that this sensitivity to treating everyone as if they were the same in this sense can't help but result in a contempt for being smarter or better in other ways, and so has a certain contempt for mastery and becoming better in the sense of self-overcoming. Being richer is another story; Lebowitz says that nobody has a problem with "elites" in terms of the rich, because everyone in America loves the rich. But the "elites" in terms of the smarter ones -- no, perish the thought, away with you. That's just elitist.

I certainly don't think everyone in the U.S. loves the rich lol. That's over-simplifying things a bit. A couple of concepts that the U.S. has latched onto and accepted as part of the "identity", if you will, of this nation are individualism and capitalism. IThese two concepts became tied to our notion of "freedom" very early on because of the type of society we lived in back in the colonial days. A colonial system that wasn't very far from a feudal system meant the same things for most people in this nation. It meant you weren't going to be wealthy, and you weren't likely to change your lot in life (upward mobility).

So along come capitalism and with it individualism...and they deliver the hope of increasing your wealth and changing your lot...."the American dream". So what do the very rich represent? That very same American dream....so much money your life becomes an expression of individualism. You can do whatever you want, whenever you want, and you aren't beholden to anyone. We don't really like the rich...we like what they represent.

As for elitism....I think she's right. It never ceases to amaze me how many people who discuss, for example, politics think they could perform the job of most politicians far better than the politicians can. Yet when you ask these same people for solutions to the problems they complain about...they have none or worse, their solution is so dumb it's far more dangerous than the problem they want to solve. You see the same attitude often in the realm of science. Forget what thousands of brilliant people who study these things for a living think. .it doesn't match the truism that I believe because I "heard it somewhere".

In short, people tend to believe what they want to.

 

[roman2819]

I've been watching Fran Lebowitz interviews. She's marvelous, and maybe the wittiest person alive:
......
She says elsewhere that she's an elitist, because she believes that some people are just smarter and better at some things than others. And I think she's definitely on to something. In today's hyper-democratic age (where democracy is so strongly believed in at a time when it's so superficially practiced), we believe so much in egalitarianism that we've forgotten that this term has limits. ...
So I'm an elitist, at least a little bit. I think as an extension of this that our society is worse off if we stop playing the "everyone is equal at everything" game.
.....
Being richer is another story; Lebowitz says that nobody has a problem with "elites" in terms of the rich, because everyone in America loves the rich. But the "elites" in terms of the smarter ones -- no, perish the thought, away with you. That's just elitist.

May I know if this is a recent interview? The way I heard her refer to Reagan and Clinton sounds like interview was quite some time back. Anyway I don't stay in USA but I had lived in Canada before (but not many years now), and still keep a tab on USA politics and economic scenes, plus some social stuff. But not being in USA means I don't understand in much detail the things she delved into. So only a few things she said i could relate.

As she mentioned couple of presidents, I wonder if senior Bush had been re-elected in 1992, would quite a few things in USA and worldlwide - politically and economically- might have played out differently, until TODAY. Of course senior Bush wasn't perfect president, but Clinton and 2 later ones weren't either, and there was a limit to what senior Bush can do for the economy back then. Sure, Clinton was immensely interested in economics, but his ways and policies did lead to the Lehman crash, directly or indirectly. Politically, the state of the world could be different now too if senior Bush got a second term.

But that's just a thought about what could have been ... we cannot go back in time. Onward humanity goes ... until God's Kingdom is established ... thats for sure.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Typical christian. The three most valued things, all idols. Looks, wealth and intelligence. (my guess at the values you admire, because they are typical of our day and age).

 

[Inkfingers]

Yes, I know for a fact that I am an "elitist" because I recognise that there is a difference between right and wrong, and between good taste and bad taste....all of which goes down like a lead balloon in modern "democratic" society where you have to pander to the vanity of the mob.

 

[single eye]

Inkfingers writes, "Democracy is impossible with a dishonest and ignorant electorate". this is such an unfair and judgemental statement. The u.s. is a constitutional republic, which means we elect representatives to conduct the business of government for us. When you vote for a rep. do you expect them to vote their conscience, or do you expect them to vote with the majority of their constituents? This difference in expectations is neither dishonest or ignorant but is the cause of a great deal of confusion.

 

[Inkfingers]

Inkfingers writes, "Democracy is impossible with a dishonest and ignorant electorate".

Well, that's my sig rather than my post, but yes what I say is true; dishonesty and ignorance in the electorate are the bane of democracy. An ignorant and dishonest electorate will choose foolishly and badly, undermining the foundational purposes of any society.

For a democracy to work, the electorate must be both honest and knowledgable. Take that away and you build on sand.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Acknowledging difference isnt elitism, in my experience. Elitism is rather the gloating idea that only the elite have real worth. Dignity is innate, from consciousness, rather than talent or money.

 

[single eye]

Ink, you oversimplify the complicated and ignore other, and possibly more important issues. Calling the u.s. a democracy is in itself deceptive as we are not, nor have we ever been by any stretch of the imagination, a democracy. Don't you get it? We are a constitutional republic. If you do not understand the difference between the two are you just being dishonest and ignorant?

 

[Inkfingers]

Ink, you oversimplify the complicated and ignore other, and possibly more important issues. Calling the u.s. a democracy is in itself deceptive as we are not, nor have we ever been by any stretch of the imagination, a democracy. Don't you get it? We are a constitutional republic. If you do not understand the difference between the two are you just being dishonest and ignorant?

I didn't call anywhere in particular a democracy.

 

[quatona]

She says elsewhere that she's an elitist, because she believes that some people are just smarter and better at some things than others. And I think she's definitely on to something. In today's hyper-democratic age (where democracy is so strongly believed in at a time when it's so superficially practiced), we believe so much in egalitarianism that we've forgotten that this term has limits. All are equal before the law, but all are most definitely not equal, and all should definitely not be considered fair game for ruling just because a majority says so. "Should not" here is on the premise that one wants a society that is run in the best way.

Elitism here doesn't mean I'm better than you, but rather that I'm better than you at...And it seems the moment we make this comparison we can feel the tense reaction in the room. Nobody has any problem with saying such-and-such is brilliant, or smart, or really good at this or that. But the moment you say Jack is better than Jill, you've earned the badge of arrogance. It seems to me that even when someone is clearly being recognized as better than everyone else that it's inappropriate to mention that this person is better than everyone else at this thing he was rewarded for. I just don't quite get this, but I do a little.

I see this in people to the point that they're downright frustrated or even angry that someone could even think to point out that someone is better than another person at such-and-such a quality, and God help the person who would try to coolheadedly and factually say that he himself is better than someone else in something. Because that's the equivocation: "I'm better than you at X" means "I'm better than you." That's the terror to overegalitarian ears.

So I'm an elitist, at least a little bit. I think as an extension of this that our society is worse off if we stop playing the "everyone is equal at everything" game. We are all equal as basic persons with a right to exist and worth as human beings. But we are not all equal in terms of our talents and abilities, and I think it's only because we've equated the two that the latter is so distasteful to us. It seems to me that this sensitivity to treating everyone as if they were the same in this sense can't help but result in a contempt for being smarter or better in other ways, and so has a certain contempt for mastery and becoming better in the sense of self-overcoming. Being richer is another story; Lebowitz says that nobody has a problem with "elites" in terms of the rich, because everyone in America loves the rich. But the "elites" in terms of the smarter ones -- no, perish the thought, away with you. That's just elitist.

First off, I don´t think that "elitist" is the common term for people who recognize, acknowledge and mention differences in skills.

Secondly, I have never been called an "elitist" for pointing out the skillfulness or intelligence of a person. I mean, there are plenty of tests for measuring the skills and intelligence of persons, and they are frequently used for various purposes. So comparing skills and intelligence doesn´t seem to have the bad rep you make it out to have.

Thirdly, whether this acknowledgement results in "elitism" depends largely on the implications you give it: "I am more intelligent than you, therefore...".

 

[Gottservant]

Elitism that pronounces itself more than equal, is foolish; but elitism that renegs its responsibility to be greater, is "disabled" (selah)

I can't use the correct word here because of filters.

 

[variant]

Acknowledging difference isnt elitism, in my experience. Elitism is rather the gloating idea that only the elite have real worth. Dignity is innate, from consciousness, rather than talent or money.

Yes there is quite a difference between favoring meritocracy and elitism.

Elitism often takes the flavor of aristocracy, and most people that truly succeed were both gifted and started out ahead.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thanks.

I think that intelligence, looks and money are all what would be called "instrumental" or "extrinsic" value. When people regard them as supreme, its no wonder people dont really care for one another. due to delusive imagination, we "become" tools, means, instruments, rather than regarded as ends worthy of select treatment.

Rather than the the truth: because we are all special a priori - not because of merit and meritocracy - but because of their inhering sanctiy (we ought not be violated, and this means care is necessary rather than a sign of weakness).

Such is the cause of the mess were in, to some degree. Delusive imaginaiton. People will moan about the objectification of woman, but really were all in the same boat because were treated as objects of mere and only economic, aesthetic or intellectual value. You either "got it" or you ain't. Of course theyre not bad things, but they dont ground a properly humanistic respect for life IMO.

 

[Received]

Typical christian. The three most valued things, all idols. Looks, wealth and intelligence. (my guess at the values you admire, because they are typical of our day and age).

I only value the third, actually, and really I see it so little that I barely know what it's like to value it. Golly, TYPICAL GrowingSmaller...

And my statement about everyone loving the rich is hyperbole.

 

[bhsmte]

She says elsewhere that she's an elitist, because she believes that some people are just smarter and better at some things than others. And I think she's definitely on to something.

Anyone who denies the above, is denying reality.

 

[Tree of Life]

I think that what you're saying is basically right and in line with Scripture, but there are a few others things worth saying at the same time.

1. (To agree with what you've already said) God gives varied graces to people at varying amounts. Some are given more gifts and graces than others. (1 Peter 4:10)

2. The reason that God gifts anyone with anything is for the benefit of the common-wealth. (1 Corinthians 12:7)

3. Every gift is from God and so whoever is gifted should use their gift with humility, thankfulness, and love. (1 Corinthians 4:7)

4. To whom much is given, much is required. (Luke 12:48)

5. The rich (figuratively speaking) should use their gifts to build up the poor (figuratively speaking). (1 Corinthians 12:25, 1 Timothy 6:17-19)

6. All gifts, once they've served their purpose, will pass away and we will no longer have them. Only faith, hope, and love remain. So we should prefer these "eternal" gifts to temporary ones. (1 Corinthians 13:8-13)

7. Those who are less gifted are actually blessed because it's easier for them to see their need for Christ. (Matthew 5:3, Luke 6:20)

 

[Star Adept]

An elitist is arrogance turned into a clique.