Why is elitism bad?

[wuushew]

Often liberals are accused of being elitists on this board. Somehow this is something to be ashamed of or avoided. I ask why, a majority of the important issues of our time including economics,foreign policy and law are all areas where emotion and knee-jerk reactions should take a back seat to knowledge and understanding.

For all the name calling of "bleeding heart liberals" liberals at least on this board have a great hunger for understanding the tiny details and nuances of any given issue. Instead of building solidarity like simplistic right-wing talking points this effort oftens leads to criticism of our own candidates and elected officals(which I view as a healthy thing).

Leftist elitism is based on knowledge and wisedom which logically should be the basis for making important decisions. The rationale for not bringing up the taboo subject of elitism seems to stem from the fact that it will emotionally upset the "great unwashed masses".

Elitism is the belief that an elite - or small body of expert persons - are the only people whose views on a matter are to be taken seriously. The views of the majority of people who do not belong to the elite are worthless because they are deemed ignorant or incompetent.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism

The term 'elitist' is often used rather vaguely as a criticism of political and cultural attitudes thought to encourage the exclusion of large numbers of people from decision-making.


In a related link the main obstacles to elitism as linked to by wikipeida is anti-intellectualism. Three prominent entries under this topic are religion,corporatism and populism. I see many bad outcomes stemming from these three factors in today's political landscape and I would ask are those who opposed to elitism out of soley a pragmatic realization that we must pander to the fools.

Prevalence
Anti-intellectualism is found in every nation on earth, but has become associated in particular with the United States of America. It existed in the US before the nation itself; the New England Puritan writer John Cotton wrote in 1642 that "The more learned and witty you bee, the more fit to act for Satan will you bee." In 1843, Bayard R. Hall wrote of frontier Indiana, that "(w)e always preferred an ignorant bad man to a talented one, and hence attempts were usually made to ruin the moral character of a smart candidate; since unhappily smartness and wickedness were supposed to be generally coupled, and incompetence and goodness." Anti-intellectual folklore values the self-reliant and "self-made man," schooled by society and by experience, over the intellectual whose learning was acquired through books and formal study.

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

[HFishbine]

1. Why

should I tell you of all people?

[bryant69]

2. This is America

I mean I know what you are saying, and maybe you have a point, but the United States was founded on the principle that all men are created equal. If elitism is good, why have a democracy? Why not a meritocracy where one earns the right to run things by excelling? Why have universal free speech? Why allow inferiors to speak at all? I mean it's fun to debate all of those questions, but in practical terms, the decision has been made. This is America and elitism is seen as negative here and probably always will be.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Selwynn]

3. If I sound elitist its because I am in fact elite. :D

[Selwynn]

4. Ok, I'm an elitist, but ....

...I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up. :)

(stole that one... hehe)

[AP]

5. Huh? All I want from America is a meritocracy...

...in which a lot of different ideas compete and the best onese rise to the top after an informed, democratic process. I.e., I want an America which is just about the opposite of what he seem to be getting.

I don't want any idea or person getting a leg up just because they're part of some kind of elite.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. Who decides who is elite?

As long as I do, I fully support elitism!

[Scott Lee]

7. Keep voting with the elite - and the GOP will keep winning

This is because the "populism" the GOP practices is different than the style envisioned by Howard Dean.

The intellectual scrutiny attributed to liberal thought modes is an admirable thing - up to and until it starts alienating the "masses", without striving to educate and enlighten. At that point you can go to bed at night with the comfort of knowing your candidate will have all 20 votes of the elite, as the other party takes the election.

Whatever yanks your chain, as the saying goes.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

8. a discussion of the elite

is not complete without a discussion of the 1% who possess the wealth of this country. ELite is less an attitude or stance, and more of an economic class.

[AP]

10. complaining about elites is the equivalent of saying...

...don't look at the man behind the curtain who has all the wealth and political power.

[Cleita]

9. If educated Democrats don't realize that elitism is a

problem whether real or percieved, they will never win back those votes that were lost to red states. I am working on a post about this very thing.

[Kamika]

11. It's bad because it practicly demotes uneducated ppl to children

Elitism is really bad.. It makes people angry and against the elite out of pure spite..

See i dont have a college education I work hard as hell and I make more money then anyone I know (WITH a college education), and im probably smarter too.

Are they supposed to say that just because they got a diploma they are supposed to know better then me??

Elitism sucks and so does anyone who thinks that ppl who got more education are worth more then the others.

[arendt]

26. Try looking from the other side

My wife is a psychologist, and she gets paid less than
a secretary. Plus, she gets no respect. The HMOs have
20 year old bean counters looking at everything she does.
Everyone thinks they are qualified to diagnose and cure
mental problems, because they watched Frazer. Witness the
long list of "therapists", "spiritual counselors",
"career coaches", etc. of people with no degrees, no
oversight, and often, no scruples. My wife is regulated
out the wazoo. She has to earn CE credits, pay license
fees. She went to school for five years to get the degree.
Why is it elitist to grant her the right to use her knowledge
in a public debate? Do we tell generals they are elitist when
they comment on military matters on CNN? Why the double
standard? Could it be bias? Naaah.

Me, I'm just another out of work techie. You know the old
joke that goes: it takes five people to start a company...
but when the company goes under, the Treasurer gets the
cash, the Attorney gets the patents, the CEO gets a new
job, and the engineer gets the shaft.

You admit that you make more money. Well, I won't argue
with you. I know lots of techies who are losing the competition
to their brother the electrician. I know plenty of engineers
who are ready to throw in the towel and open a small store.

My point is, if all the people who know how the tech works
decide they aren't getting any respect, aren't we going to
have a John Galt moment.

From where I sit, I see a lot of people that don't have a
clue how much they depend on tech they don't understand.
Then they have the nerve to sneer at the people who invented
all the crap the couch potatoes demand works cheaply and perfectly.

The engineers don't get paid like CEOs. They take their
worth in life from their achievements. To call them "elitist"
is to attack them for their contribution to society. But,
God help any college grad who says even the most dimwitted laboring
man might be misinformed. Double standard.

I don't know how to deal with this whole "ignorant and
proud of it" attitude. I wouldn't dare quote Richard
Hofstaeder on the anti-intellectualism of American culture.
That would be elitist. </sarcasm>

arendt

[Kamika]

27. ignorant and proud sucks !

But thats not what im talking about.

I mean all those people that goes around saying how uneducated ppl are just sheep etc.

I understand your dilemma and yah it sucks that I should make more as a hostess in my familys restaurant then people like you, and I admit that.

But If you on the other hand would argue that you SHOULD make more money or get more respect just "because" of your education that's when you become elitist.

I have great respect for anyone who goes through college, especially engineers and doctors.. but I refuse to think they are worth more, or are smarter then me, and same thing, I refuse to think ppl who didnt graduate HS or make less money then me are somehow worth less or aren't as intelligent as I am.

btw ppl that are "Ignorant and proud" should get lobotomized.

[arendt]

31. Don't confuse people with their skill set

> But If you on the other hand would argue that you SHOULD make more
> money or get more respect just "because" of your education that's
> when you become elitist

I think you have to be more specific here, or you have a strawman
argument.

I'm talking about science, engineering, and medicine. These are
tangible skills. Who are you referring to?

If you don't pay people some premium to undertake years of extra
schooling and a ferocious age-attrition of their skills, then
no one will go into these lines of work. Its simple economics.

> I refuse to think they are worth more, or are smarter then me, and
> same thing, I refuse to think ppl who didnt graduate HS or make
> less money then me are somehow worth less or aren't as intelligent
> as I am.

Why is everything personalized? The point is that a specialist
might be more qualified to discuss a certain subject. That doesn't
speak to anyone's "worth" as a human. But, it does speak to our
survival as a society. Do you think that knowledge is imparted
at birth? You have to apply yourself. It's not just knowing a
fact or ten, its knowing how they relate to each other and the
world, and how to use them. Call that "smart" or call
it "knowledgable", you can even call the person with those skills
a "drone" or a "grind", but do not denigrate the skills. The
skills are why we are on the internet having this exchange.

arendt

[JackRiddler]

12. If this thread makes little sense...

it's because most of those writing in it aren't bothering to define their terms.

(Syntactical Elitist)

[camero]

13. I was listening to the radio once during Bush I

On this very same topic. The man ( can't remember his name) said that our elites are the very best that America has to offer and the Dems should hold them up proudly.

They are the source of our ingenuity and economic vitality.

Repubs are really elitist because they are snobbish. They are the ones who supposedly know what is best for us.

[iangb]

14. OK, so elitism is good......

...'We lost because the electorate didn't understand the issues' may make you feel better during '05-'08.

You win elections by understanding the voters.

[TrogL]

15. President Bartlett said it best

"There's nothing wrong with listening to smart people".

[Cleita]

16. I always listen to smart people.

It's the ones who think they are smart that lose me.

[robbedvoter]

17. Elitism - a think tank word, like PC, or bleeding heart. Striving for

excellence is great - and also, respecting everyone regardless of status is equally great (Big Dog's source of success, charisma).
"elitism" as concocted by the RV-ers implies: "they think they are better than you". Pretty much the way Dana Millbank applied it to Gore, then showed his bias and stupidity even further by saying "while bush doesn't give you this feeling, although he probably is" (better than Millbank).

[BiggJawn]

18. Because we're supposed to be the "Big Tent" all-accepting folk...

Unless you eat meat, or own a gun, or like to hunt, or drive a huge truck, yada, yada, yada.....
Ironic, yes?

[QC]

19. wuushew, think of those rare but annoying posters here

who condescend to others, treat them like idiots, and in all ways act as though they know better and anyone who disagrees with them should just shut up.

Think of how they make you feel. Are you particularly keen on listening to such people? Do you respect them?

That's why elitism is a lousy political strategy.

[wickerwoman]

23. But on the other hand,

you have posters who are simply wrong and belligerant in their wrongness who latch on to any multi-syllabic word to accuse you of being an "elitist" rather than a.) taking the time and trouble to understand your point or b.) having the respect for your opinion to ask you to clarify it.

It's a problem either way, but I see it misdiagnosed more often than not on this board.

People come here from very different backgrounds with different rhetorical traditions and different concepts of what constitutes an argument. I agree it's totally out of order to tell another poster to shut up but at the same time some people _are_ simply factually in error and rather than admit it will latch on to "elitism" or some other imaginary way you have it in for them rather than re-examine their own positions. I've seen claims of elitism used defensively to make people who are winning arguments shut up far more often than I've seen actual examples of it.

[Hammie]

20. Bush

Bush's ascent to the presidency can be primarily attributed to his membership in the political elite.

Don't make the mistake of thinking you get to pick who is the elite.

[wuushew]

21. Bush is the perfect paradox

He is dumber than most Americans but belongs to a powerful and secretive aristocracy.


I should have emphasized my oringinal post as focusing on intellectual elitism which is not always dependent on wealth or station. After all Clinton and Clark were both Rhodes scholars.

[maggrwaggr]

22. because everybody votes.

not just "elites".

And you asked what is wrong with "elitism"?

Your "tism" should speak for itself.

there's nothing wrong with people who are smart and educated and competent to run things. But that's not "elitism".

"Elitism" is the belief that you're better than others because of your superior intellect/education/wealth/looks.

The republicans are the worst practicioners of "elitism" that I've ever seen. But they're good at convincing average Joe's that they're actually the party for them.

There should always be "elites" . But they shouldn't practice "elitism". Nobody should.

[QC]

25. Nicely said!

As an academic, I know a lot of venal, self-absorbed careerists with highly elite educational credentials. I also know that my grandfather, who dropped out of high school to help support his family and worked for the sanitation department for decades was a man of much higher character than they.

So I am not inclined to argue that a superior (read "more expensive") education makes for superior character.

[Mikimouse]

29. Enthusiastically seconded!

n/t

[wickerwoman]

33. I absolutely agree that an expensive education

doesn't make one right, but at the same time there is nothing inherently ennobling about blue collar labor either (which is the other great myth.)

I've worked both ends of the great divide- factory labor and academia and I met a hell of a lot more Pat Buchanan supporters in the factories and retail jobs. People tend to romanticize that kind of labor as part of a generalized anti-intellectual trend when in fact many people work in factories because they dropped out of high school and hate reading and thinking and resent anyone who doesn't.

At least in academia you have some responsibility for backing up your opinions. You are trained to look for, listen to, and consider many possible answers, know how to research and verify sources, and have better reading comprehension. (I taught comp for years and have seen what passes for reading comprehension among 18 year old college freshman- it scares the shit out of me to think what passes for it among the majority of the non-college educated.)

Is academia the only way to learn these things? Absolutely not. But I think the values and "rules" of academic discourse are crucial to any serious discussion of issues and I admit that I have difficulty taking seriously someone who won't play by them. I will listen to them, of course, but am I really supposed to be persuaded by "Well that's my opinion and it's a valuable as yours" nevermind how much evidence is presented to show that person A's opinion is ignorant?

I am not an elitist- I don't believe that certain types of people are inherently better than certain other types of people. I do believe, however, that certain types of arguments are inherently better than others and I get a bit annoyed at being accused of being an elitist because of it.

/end rant/

[QC]

36. You raise interesting points.

I agree that "there is nothing inherently ennobling about blue collar labor." In fact, it is more often than not soul-destroying drudgery. So I do have some respect for someone who manages to carry on despite it, make a living, raise a family successfully, and all the rest. That does, I think, indicate some character. But no, I don't think it necessarily imparts wisdom.

So, while I am, like you, unwilling to argue that manual labor is superior, neither am I willing to join in the common attitude here that proles are icky.

As for teaching comp and being stunned and maybe even a bit frightened by what you see, I'm with you there. I often wonder what is being studied in high school now, because it surely isn't critical reading and thinking. It's discouraging sometimes, but the really cool thing about this job, which I truly love, is that we have an opportunity to do something about that. While I do not try to indoctrinate my students, I do push them to back up their arguments with facts, because, like you, I have little patience with the notion that something must be true because someone "feels" that it is.

As for accusations of elitism, I get those from time to time for arguing that some literary works are superior to others. It's a bullshit argument often used as a way to avoid the effort of constructing a real one.

But I do not think that that is the sort of elitism that some of us here object to. What gets me is the blanket denunciations of entire classes of people. I expect that sort of thing from reactionaries, but not from enlightened liberals.

[Rich Hunt]

39. that's an elitist argument

I grew up in a working-class environment as well, only to attend an "elite" university. I have no idea what you're talking about - none of it rings true with me. I am too familiar with your kind - familiar enough that sometimes I truly regret having attended college at all.

doesn't make one right, but at the same time there is nothing inherently ennobling about blue collar labor either (which is the other great myth.)

Who said there was something "ennobling" about it? Probably some liberal intellectuals. A lot of working-class people are proud, though, that they weren't born with a sense of entitlement. Growing up with few expectations does give you a perspective that you can't get if you grew up expecting to go to college and get a well-paying job.

I've worked both ends of the great divide- factory labor and academia and I met a hell of a lot more Pat Buchanan supporters in the factories and retail jobs. People tend to romanticize that kind of labor as part of a generalized anti-intellectual trend when in fact many people work in factories because they dropped out of high school and hate reading and thinking and resent anyone who doesn't.

Now that IS elitist garbage. When you see your parents work their butts off, only to get laid off, it discourages you. Low-income people don't trust the educational system for good reasons.

If one truly wants to not be an elitist, one must look beyond these cliched explanations for why people drop out of school.

Education is tied to social "worth". At the risk of sounding like an elitist, perhaps you should read some Bourdieu. Or maybe you should just rent a copy of "My Fair Lady". I think working-class people recognize this instinctively, and don't like feeling coerced into being someone they're not.

Also, it's not that people don't "think". It's that they don't think in a way that is easily translated into academese. Where I grew up, it was much more acceptable for people to openly disagree about politics - that sure wasn't the case in academia, or corporate America for that matter.

At least in academia you have some responsibility for backing up your opinions. You are trained to look for, listen to, and consider many possible answers, know how to research and verify sources, and have better reading comprehension.

Where is this taught? In Ph.D. programs, perhaps, but certainly not in the sort of careerist curricula that prevail in universities. Again, what you write does not ring true for me AT ALL. I've seen no evidence that people with college degrees think with any less conformity than high-school dropouts.

(I taught comp for years and have seen what passes for reading comprehension among 18 year old college freshman- it scares the shit out of me to think what passes for it among the majority of the non-college educated.)

Is academia the only way to learn these things? Absolutely not. But I think the values and "rules" of academic discourse are crucial to any serious discussion of issues and I admit that I have difficulty taking seriously someone who won't play by them.

How are people who haven't attended universities supposed to know what "the rules" are?

I will listen to them, of course, but am I really supposed to be persuaded by "Well that's my opinion and it's a valuable as yours" nevermind how much evidence is presented to show that person A's opinion is ignorant?

Once again, you do not decode what people are saying to you. Perhaps what they are really saying is, "I have given this much thought, but I am intimidated by you, and feel that this discussion is a contest in which I am being judged, and so I opt out."

I am not an elitist- I don't believe that certain types of people are inherently better than certain other types of people. I do believe, however, that certain types of arguments are inherently better than others and I get a bit annoyed at being accused of being an elitist because of it.

Elitism is not what you consciously believe. It is what comes out between the lines, and it is how you act towards people. You haven't tried very hard to understand people, and it's hard to read your comments as anything but elitist.

Your elitism comes from the fact that you are blind to this tendency in your own class, while it appears that you go looking for it in others.

It is because of attitudes like these that I chose to not pursue a career in academia. The fact that I can play that "game" is good enough for me, but I won't stoop to playing it to please those who have appointed themselves judges. I've worked my butt off to educate myself - I spend hours and hours reading and writing each week, but I'll be damned if I do it just to please someone else. The "game" has nothing to do with seeking truth, in my experience - it's about upholding a social code for the betterment of some people's collective self-esteem.

Please tell me - do you think it's realistic for everyone to go to college and teach composition? Who will put your widgets and gidgets together?

I still work in academia, at an institution with a lot of blue-collar students, and I hear remarks all the time from composition teachers who express frustration without trying to understand their students. Anyone who does that should not be teaching - teaching should reflect social gifts as well as academic attainment.

I severed a friendship because an English professor friend of mine had this same attitude - "my students don't want to learn! I guess blue-collar kids really do hate learning."

I'm proof that this is not true. I also understand why blue-collar people who do go on to higher education usually end up in the creative fields, where they have to compromise their culture and their expressive styles less.

:grr:

[wickerwoman]

40. You know almost nothing about me

and yet are willing to comment on "my kind"? And accuse me of elitism in the smae breath? LMAO.

I'm also from a working class background about half a generation removed from shanty Irish and I worked my own way through college in the factories and crappy retail jobs I was describing in my other post. So your implication that I don't understand the mentality of the noble working classes is nonsense. My point was in response to a post that seemed to argue that academic knowledge has little worth compared with someone's grandfather who was wiser than academics they knew. And my goal was to fill in the picture with my experience in order to show that even though individual people without college educations may continue to value knowledge and truth there are whole boatloads of them that don't. And I know this for a fact because, again, I worked with them year after year after year. And I've read Bourdieu and seen My Fair Lady and read Pygmalion. What's your point? I know that there are a number of reasons why people are distrustful of academia but I also know that a.) some of those people are simply hateful, lazy, selfish and stupid- are you arguing that they aren't? I have dozens of Pat Buchanan voters I'd love to introduce you to and b.) some of those people know so little about academia as to constitute a kind of elitism in and of itself. And you are simply validating their prejudices because they are poor and ignorant which I find a distasteful breed of condescension which enables all kinds of social ills.
I don't see the connection between seeing your parents laid off and learning to hate knowledge (and what I saw among my co-workers was an active hatred of the life of the mind in favor of self-interest.) OK, maybe not seeing a direct connection between survival and philosophy is understandable when you're living paycheck to paycheck but you're ignoring the process by which this lack of interest becomes hatred and jealousy of those who do have the motivation to pursue these interests.
Again, my comments were not inclusive of all working class people. I was merely pointing out that in my experience, it is dangerous and condescending to romanticize this kind of work. It's shitty and soul crushing and I have tremendous respect for those who do it and come out of it with an interest in other things. But in my experience, this is not the case for a lot of people (and it's not their fault- it's the demands of modern productivity). And I'm sorry if I sound overly defensive on this issue but it does annoy me to have my line of work attacked, resented and devalued in favor of manual labor as if there was something inherently soul-enhancing about it.
I taught freshman English comp for years and have read literally thousands of essays by 17-19 year olds. The fact is that a clear majority of these kids come out of high school with absolutely no idea how to read something as simple as a New York Times editorial. Many of them have never read a book cover to cover. They do not read whole paragraphs- they read the first sentence until they don't understand a word and then skim over the rest. They are incapable of recognizing irony in texts. They are incapable of recognizing the author's position in relation to other authors he or she is quoting. They have not been taught how to ask questions about what they read or challenge the authors in any meaningful way. They couldn't recognize a glaring logical fallacy if it bit them in the ass. And these are the ones who are accepted to colleges. I can't speak for all colleges, but at my college we failed them until they could do those things. So yes, the average college educated adult has better reading and critical thinking skills than the average non-college educated adult. It's the whole reason colleges exist- and you are massively overgeneralizing to describe them as degree factories.
You don't need to go to college to understand the rules of academic discourse but you do need to be actively interested and reading logic, philosophy, politics and rhetoric. And most people I used to work with would laugh in my face if I suggested they read anything but romance novels in their spare time.
I have been in those discussions where people say "Well, my opinion is as good as yours" and I was patient and non-judgemental and cited study after study and having exhausted all of their arguments they simply did not want to admit that they could be wrong. So they shut down thinking all together. They hadn't given it much thought and they were called on it and were embarrassed so they shut down. I speak fluent "normal person" as well as "academese" and go out of my way not avoid jargon and try to communicate but there are people who simply cannot accept that they are wrong about something and you will never convince me either that I should respect that kind of close-mindedness or that I am elitist for not being able to do so.
And FYI, I'm not an academic either nor am I as frustrated with my students as perhaps came across in my last post. I love my job and am thrilled when I am able to help students open up to the world of critical thinking. But the fact is that most of them come to me unable to do this and it is frightening to think of the millions with the same problem who I will never be able to see and help. That is the source of my frustration.
I never argued that academia is the only place where critical thought occurs or even that it is the primary place. My point is that academia exists to teach the skills that promote critical thought. I'm sorry if this isn't true in your experience, but it is in mine.
I'm not in the mood to look up individual cases of these discussions (and anyway, I don't have access to the search function) and this is a discussion that suffers in the abstract. Suffice it to say that you know nothing about my background, social class or experience and are misreading my ability and willingness to understand multiple points of view. I do not accept that having an unromanticized view of the working classes or an enabling and condescending tolerance for those who hate and resent intellectuals makes me an elitist.

[QC]

45. Watch out for the straw men.

My point was in response to a post that seemed to argue that academic knowledge has little worth compared with someone's grandfather who was wiser than academics they knew.

My post argued no such thing. It did argue that academic credentials in themselves are no certain indicator of character or moral worth.

If I believed that academic knowledge was of little worth, would I have racked up more than $100k of debt to get my degrees? Would I have lived like a monk on graduate instructor's stipends all these years? Would I be staying up nights working on a dissertation in addition to teaching and working another job if I believed that knowledge was hogwash?

You are well within your rights to defend yourself, but you are not within your rights to misrepresent my position in order to do it.

[Rich Hunt]

47. elitism is about power

b.) some of those people know so little about academia as to constitute a kind of elitism in and of itself. And you are simply validating their prejudices because they are poor and ignorant which I find a distasteful breed of condescension which enables all kinds of social ills.

It's not a "prejudice". How can you be prejudiced about something you don't know, can't know, and probably cannot have access to?

Elitism is about power. If you don't have the resources to make it into academia, I don't see how you can be "elitist" about it.

I'm not validating anyone's "prejudices". I identify more with people of my class. You don't lose your identity because you've got an education. I understand exactly what they're thinking. You talk about lower-class people as if they inscrutable aliens.

[Newcastle]

42. If I might interject here.

I am an academic with a lot of letters behind my name AND I come from a blue collar background - first generation to go to college, and all that. I don't think there's anything inherently blue collar in the fact that college students today don't know much of anything and don't seem to want to know much of anything, but I can tell you it is a fact that intellectual pursuits are not paramount in the U.S. today. I taught at a wealthy university and now teach at a blue collar university, and the wealthy one was probably worse. It's a fact of our culture, not one particular class within that culture. Look at who gets voted into office. George Bush? Arnold Schwarzenegger? What happened to the Adlai Stevensons? I don't think it's elitist at all to want the people in your culture to be more educated and to want them to want to be more educated. Working class people used to struggle for the opportunity to get an education. Now being smart or knowledgable is shunned as something useless. This is a cultural problem, but it is a real problem. High tech jobs are being shipped to India and China because U.S. companies are finding the workforce in those countries more educated and, thus, more readily trained. This is reaching the proportions of a crisis. It's not about elitism. It's about survival. We won't survive as a culture as long as being a dunce is the in thing.

[QC]

46. Excellent points!

I am also a blue-collar academic, and I have also spent years teaching the children of the affluent.

Many (not most) have the same attitude toward learning that George W. Bush has, and for the same reason--they know that they were set at birth and thus don't really need to know much or strive for anything. They can booze it up for a few years, make a 2.0, and then go work for Daddy.

This is not true of all of my wealthy students, of course, but it is a common attitude. Likewise, I have taught blue-collar students who thought learning was for suckers and just wanted to get the diploma with as little effort as possible.

As you point out, no particular class has the monopoly on anti-intellectualism. It is a cultural problem, one that has always been prominent in American life and seems to be getting worse.

[Mairead]

48. "This is a cultural problem, but it is a real problem." Hear hear!

I disagree with the reason you give for jobs being shipped abroad, though...I think that's very adequately explained by money, not educational standards (after all, a great many of those Asian new hires were trained at US universities).

I think that education is deprecated in part because of a sort of cultural memory: during the postwar years of strong unions and US, as opposed to transnational capitalist, hegemony, someone with a HS diploma -the standard credential at the time- could do very well. That's far from the case, now, and growing steadily worse, but as Chomsky reminds us, there is a relentless promoting of the trimodal existence of work, television, and sleep as a 'full life'.

[Cocoa]

24. because it's inaccurate

the people on DU that think they are smarter than the general population are actually stupider. It's not good for them to keep operating under their misconception.

[wuushew]

28. DUers ARE smarter then the general population

I have printed out literally hundreds of pages of interviews,essays and government reports on a variety of subjects. Everytime I refute bullshit my data ends up in my friend's wastepaper basket.

As long as people willfully choose ignorance I AM better then them.

[Cocoa]

32. DU is awesome

but it's not smarter than the general population. In spelling, it's almost definitely worse than the general population.

[quaker bill]

34. Some here are not great typists and proof readers

I also think you overestimate capabilities the general population in this regard.

[Karenina]

37. Pssst...Wuushew...

(...than they). ;-)

[wuushew]

44. I have seen worse

[Karenina]

51. LOVE IT!!!

That site is FANTASTICALLY FUNNY!!!

[buddhamama]

30. elitism has been running this country since day one

the white rich educated Guys have controlled and manipulated.
the common citizen is just too stupid to understand the complicated issues therefore 'we' have to do their thinking for them. 'we' know what's best for them... it is exactly this sort of thinking that propaganda is based on.
elitism has no place in a democracy.

[Nikia]

35. But economic elitism is alright?

The conservatives bash intellectual elitism while upholding economic elitism.
Those people that make the most money and own the most deserve their money more than the working class. The rich will use their tax break to create more jobs. Obviously the rich know what is best. This is just one of several related issues of how they uphold economic elitism.
While I can see how intellectual elitism can alienate some people, more Americans have an opportunity to rise above their birth to intellectual elitism than economic elitism. Economic elitism is more restirctive. We all have the opportunity to be educated, if not through college (which can, in fact, be obtained by most intelligent students who apply themselves in school regardless of income), at least through books and other sources of information.
Of all the other criteria that we use to judge a person, I don't know why some people are so threatened by education or intellignece. People seem less threatened by money, looks, or athletic abilities. People will say about an educated person "I bet she thinks that she's better than us because she has a college diploma." whereas they don't say "I bet she thinks that she's better than us because she's so pretty."
I really don't look down on people with less education or less intelligence. I have learned that working at my factory, not that I didn't know that before, just not as well. All people have worth. I still am more offended by those who would look down on all of them because they make less than $11.00/hour rather than those who would look down on certain individuals there who are ignorant and prefer to be that way.
Duers, regardless of education and intelligence, are at least not willfully ignorant. By the quality of the majority of the posts, I still think that Duers are above average in intelligence. That does not mean that we are above average in worth as people. I don't care about spelling. I try to make sure mine isn't horrible but my main focus is getting my message across so I don't worry if a few words are spelled wrong. I also don't mean to imply that this is an above average post.

[xchrom]

38. ''elitism'' when falling out of a repukes mouth

is a myth.
they are capitalizing on mr and mrs 6 paks antipathy, hate, and mistrust of academia outside of bob jones university.
it's like saying camille pagllia is on the same intellectual par as lani guenier or margaret mead.
''elitism'' is just another word elevated to bigoted hyperbole by the right -- it plays on fear -- like all bigot mongering does.

[Newcastle]

41. I don't think

we should be elitist in the sense of thinking there are some people who should make decisions and other people who should simply obey. I do think you've hit on a real problem in the U.S., though. Intelligence and knowledge are grossly undervalued, to the point of making people shun education and wear their ignorance as a badge of honor. It's sort of a reverse elitism. What we should do is work for a higher level of education, a more enlightened political discourse. We have to raise the lowest common denominator before it sinks us all.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. Elitism is bad because

... well, I'm too elite to bother telling you, and you wouldn't be smart enough to understand if I did.

[undergroundpanther]

49. elite har

To me I am a damn good artist,but there are alot of artists much better than me at what I do.I do well to observe and learn all I can from them.Why because my art gives me satisfaction and I like doing it,and I want to get better at it because I admire the meduim.Because I am different today I must develop myself to be fuller into who I am now. And who I am changes moment by moment because I know a stable consistient self identity,is just an illusion.I mean I could lose functioning of my eyes,my hands or my kiln could go up and I would have to adapt or change how I relate to my art ambitions..I may have to learn something new.

Now,I hate doing lawn work,but people who find joy in it have nothing but slack jawed admiration from me.Why? Because they can do something I can't stand doing and they even put art into it.
Now is the lawn guy better than me as a human being? NO he isn't better than me and I ain't better than him. Until you factor in character and integrity than it may change or not..
Integrity and character,and the ability to communicate and get along with others has nothing to do with what a person DOES with thier time to put food on a table,or how many degrees he's got or who thinks he's a genius..WE are deeper than appearances,than our careers,deeper than achievenments,deeper than our present personalities. Who knows how deep we are? Nobody does.

I can't trim bushes straight and he can't sculpt in metal.Oh well I am still in awe of his differences from me.And I enjoy that.Life would suck if everyone was like me.People with strong character tend to not have overweening egos or feel the world must recognize them or imitate them for being different or persuing thier own different interests or having thier own priorities.
I know can't be all things.I accept it,I am limited,and I cannot know-it-all- or experince-it-all,or master everything there is to master.I can choose to do what I want,learn all I can if I want to..I can control how I respond,to what this world tosses my way,and that is it.Life unfolds it's own way whether I am aware of it or not,or whether I want it to or not.
This is reality.Reality treats all humans the same way basically.We live,we struggle,we create,we die.
Howcome so many so called elitists and anti-intellectual people can't get their hearts around the concept of DIFFERENT and EQUAL?

Different and equal isn't an elitist stance,because the EGO has nothing to flatter itself with because difference has nothing to do with better or worth more than other.Different and equal gives an ambitious narcissist no psychological'tools' to jockey with 'lessers'for power-over them in this perspective. It also puts holes in the idea of ownership.So People don't refer to it, maybe because of the way selfish-serving elitism plays out in the real world and they are cowards. Claims of elitism serve to stroke the narcissistic -world owes me - ambitious egos.Also in cultures elitism fosters internecine competition between different people for stupid reasons and it breeds it's own arrogance and rebellious ignorance.It divides and shatters clarity of perception in everyone by raising everyones defenses on all sides.Elitism has nothing to do with anyone achieving something real in life. DIFFERENT admits that some people are better than others are at some things and it isn't because they are somehow better human beings,or worth more than others are as people ,or have some kind of moral integrity because of this talent in what they do..Different is more accurate to discribe this because when people are allowed to be different from ME this is when the talents they haveare visible to ME and vice versa.A Difference has no moral implications,no pretense to a certain kind of character or an implied fantasy of superiority or worth like"elitism" has.

Equal means we are Equal.
Death will reduce each of us to nothing.It will stop our ambitions cold and it will silence our thoughts,and it will make the most prized of people moulder like a a homeless non achiever. Time erases memory.Books crumble to dust like civilizations do.
A severe sickness can make us stop and disentangle from what we are doing,and change us by making us see what really matters.
Everyone has no control over what this world is,or over the events that happen to them, like where they are born,to what parents,ect.We can't control the functions of our own bodies,(we try and sometimes suceed however).WE grow up assuming there is some PURPOSE for our existance and we spend our life making one up as we go along assuming THAT is our purpose.What if your actual purpose for existing can't be boxed into profit,career or acedemia?What if there is none?
What if what you think is so important today is totally wrong tomorrow? This happens to the greatest of thinkers who think they've figured it all out all the time.They become different because change happens. .Sometimes choices are forced by circumstances clashing with your inner integrity.And your character changes.Sometimes we make choices because we can.And who am I to say someone else's choice is wortyh nothing because it's not the choice I would make.I'm not them and I'm not out to dominate..


Everyone alive has needs and vunerabilities.
Everyone alive deals with uncertainty,existentialism,fantasy vs reality,pain,failure,sucess,ect.And this shapes who they think they are.Everyone alive has been through life course altering experinces and eventually everyone has to risk changing who they think they are and alter thier inner worldveiws to encompass these experinces and they become different.Because who we are isn't who we think we are.
WE are equal because none of us are constant or the same,we change moment by moment.A well respected P.hd.,can turn his back on his career and trim bushes artistically,a worker can go to college and become a P.hd.and do amazing things for medicine.It's because of choice this stuff happens.And everyone makes them and each are valid considering that purpose only looks like purpose because we are making it up with our choices as we go along.

Only when the means for a person to make changes are deliberately dammed up ,blocked by red tape,hindered by power structures, or income games,or controlled by selfish ego ridden people's self serving judgementalism skewing things in thier own favor,looking for hegemony while deluded by superiority fantasies ,are changes in other people and changes in culture is limited.And that is how elites want it.They need hoops and hurdles to control who joins thier ranks because they know without admitting it we are all equal..Elitism is about EGO, HEGEMONY and POWER.Dominantion,internecince competition,and enforced conformity, egos in power-over,without reason is poison to anyone's sense of self discovery,learning,differences and dynamic inter-creation.
When creation and learning is allowed to be inter-dynamic,sharing and ego is out of it. It becomes driven by exploration and discovery for the sake of itself rather than ego or profit.Elitists can't stand discoveries made for curiousity's sake.Instead curiosity is wasted and forced to conform to prove a point for some elitist's agenda or grant.

If everyone voluntarily,equally had all the oppurtunites to learn what they wanted to learn,to the fullest most different potentials they are,and there was no pressure in these places of learning to conform,obey authority, or to produce products for the wealthy,or get a 'nice paying 'job and suck up to acedemia,parents,social expectations, and submit to acedemias unwritten agendas and the demands of the agendas of funders of studies to skew information or lie, what would we become,what would we discover?
Would it make learning a deep self discovery/life discovery/reality discovery process more than a a way of arming yourself with bullshit cedentials for a social competition game with the winners getting to call themselves elites and get perks for themselves?
Does education give intellegence or does it just open more doors for change and self knowlege than some non-collegate person or not?

We are the same in respects to our human condition.
We are different because we change all the time.
Humans love to flatter themselves.We make each other chronically insecure.Our hubris and egotism can get noxious and blinding,whether educated or not,if our character and integrity is undeveloped. College can't teach a person how to express character,love,self-esteem,
courage,autonomy or empathy.Degrees can't buy more honesty or character in a person.Real wisdom isn't created automatically when you have a few letters after your name.
Nor is this integrity within created from suffering through soul crushing labor and self denial or poverty.Elitism and anti-elitism evades this fact of life and choices.

All people are different and they do different things different ways at different times together,interdependantly.And sometimes it has nothing to do with us.
We as a species have no grande purpose beyond making it up as we go along really.We have demonstrated a collective power to shape the world itself,yet we squander what is for power over it ,squelching out differences we won't understand that might threaten our little ego or sense of 'mastery'or this ignorant secure blind bliss.

[Karenina]

50. You GO, Undergroundpanther

:bounce: