There's an old Vonnegut story about a society so egalitarian it tied sandbags to its ballet dancers -- a silly take on egalitarian. If being egalitarian requires suppressing skill and knowledge, it's nonsense. The real issue isn't whether some people are better at something. Almost everyone is better than most other people at something.
Real egalitarianism is when we share generously from our abilities, and treat others as worthy of it -- the exact opposite of holding back and treating others as incapable of receiving the best we have to offer, hiding our light, pretending to more stupidity that we have in order to not offend, to blend in, to avoid being call "elitist."
Harrison Beregeron. To quote the wiki: " In the year 2081, the United States Constitution dictates that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. This is due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments. Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, and her agents enforce the equality laws by forcing citizens to wear "handicaps" such as ugly masks for those who are too beautiful, earpiece radios for the intelligent that broadcast irritating noises meant to disrupt thoughts, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic."
Re: Big words. I find them particularly important to express nuance. Often there is only one, maybe two truly succinct words or phrases to convey something complex or one is reduced talking a round-about paragraph nibbling at the edges circuitously, often not getting at the center. I also appreciate those exacting words from others.
I have been called elitist by my MAGA family for caring about concise communication, perhaps it's my past profession (air traffic control) that compels me to be pithy even now.
I really enjoy your essays. I find I have to corral them in my inbox to be in a proper mind space to read them as most I just blow through, connecting the dots and moving on. These I have to digest. Thank you.
Define elitism. Is it a should or an is or both? Is the question, is one elitist if one thinks that there should be a specialized class who are by rights the established oracles in their fields of endeavor, and thus should be in charge in those fields, because they are in fact superior therein, as Socrates argued in the Crito?
If that’s the question, then I do not believe one is an elitist if one restricts one’s “elitism” to appropriate arenas and does not unwarrantedly exceed the boundaries thereof (as Socrates also tried to do in the Crito, by implying that political judgment in democratic hands should be ignored as of no importance because the people don’t know how to run and guide society).
I do not think that that is what is typically meant by the term elitism. As a pejorative it refers to the expert’s sense of a fundamental moral superiority, in the broadest possible sense, over others by virtue of the expert’s expertise, skill, or attributes, as the case may be, and that, by virtue of this alleged superiority, they are entitled to a higher general social status and more of life’s good things than others. This is the bad elitism, and it calls for relentless and everlasting ridicule - the kind Kurt Vonnegut fingered when he commented on the use of the semicolon: it’s what a writer uses to demonstrate he has been to college.
I think you’re the first type of elitist, not the second.
Knowledge is power. Those who fear the intellectual elitist know they can’t compete, so they disparage or shame them. I’ll take Knowledge for $100, Alex!
I completely missed the funny in this piece & tend to do that a lot when viewing films. It’s often a later take or two that I’m able to layer in the humor. I recognize this as a deficiency of sorts & ponder on the source and the fix. Maybe meditation is the fix. The source is surely far more convoluted. Here, possibly, if you are the elite, it comes off corny, being the opposite of elite, and there’s the funny. I leave you in peace.
I think the subtext of what I wrote Marcie, is that the word "elitist" has been dragged through some degree of ideological mud. It is not a bad thing to be smart. We should all try to be smarter. This essay is an intervention and a statement, that perhaps intellectual culture in 2025 needs to drop the pretense and practice some more self confidence, in this age of anti-intellectualism and performative genuflection playing substitute for morality.
You write, “Your mind is a beautiful space. All of our minds.” I fully agree. The space itself is mysterious and beautiful. But what we put into it – and what eventually comes out – is another matter, not always as beautiful as the place itself.
Morality? That’s a long standing issue for me. I’ve come to consider myself amoral. If a person or complex of individuals need be taught a list of them and worse coerced to follow them within a particular societal setting, then what good are they serving? Morals smell of religious dogma and ostensibly of control. I understand the prescribing of ethics to be a necessary requirement of professionals serving others. And, naming your values serves to define your image and refine your actions. Still I find morality a stickler. Maybe because it too often serves as a masking of yourself to others and the mirror. A person knows when another is acting obligatorally (I prefer how this made-up word stands in for ‘acting out of obligation’) and not genuinely. And who wants that? “Your friends treat you like a guest” kind of thing. Well enough already, Marcie. I’m a bit humored in this moment that I’ve likely got at nothing in this bit. Such is the story of my life.
Marcie, I think you are definitely NOT amoral. One of the key phrases in your reply was “prescribing of ethics,” IMHO. Your comment comes across as having a very moral base. You’ve just been exposed to too many people, as have most of us, who take somme prescribed ethics, hold them up as universally necessary, and yet don’t live up to them personally. All societies have shared morés, at least. One hopes that democratic societies realize that not all members share all of any member’s preferred morés. Too many of our society’s members seem NOT to understand that.
Thank you Phil, for taking the time to appreciate & correct my attempt at reasoning out the issue of my own morality. You are right on all points. I’m not amoral by the on-line definition. (so many fun synonyms for immoral) Still, morals as opposed to values are prescribed by others. This right. That wrong. Quick to judge you. Eager to box you in with a preconceived label. Write you off. Then you know they never saw you in the first place. Good Riddance to them. It’s slim pickings outside my door. Substack is an Oasis in comparison to my once wrought relationships. That’s actually sad, I know. Carry on my wayward [self], there’ll be peace when you are done…”.
You are quite welcome, Marcie. Many of us, including me, are struggling with living a life we can take some pride in and some enjoyment from. I think Mike is one of us and his writings clarify many aspects of our struggles.
As a lifelong word nerd, I pronounce you “not elitist”. Live life to the fullest and use the big words!
There's an old Vonnegut story about a society so egalitarian it tied sandbags to its ballet dancers -- a silly take on egalitarian. If being egalitarian requires suppressing skill and knowledge, it's nonsense. The real issue isn't whether some people are better at something. Almost everyone is better than most other people at something.
Real egalitarianism is when we share generously from our abilities, and treat others as worthy of it -- the exact opposite of holding back and treating others as incapable of receiving the best we have to offer, hiding our light, pretending to more stupidity that we have in order to not offend, to blend in, to avoid being call "elitist."
Harrison Beregeron. To quote the wiki: " In the year 2081, the United States Constitution dictates that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. This is due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments. Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, and her agents enforce the equality laws by forcing citizens to wear "handicaps" such as ugly masks for those who are too beautiful, earpiece radios for the intelligent that broadcast irritating noises meant to disrupt thoughts, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic."
Re: Big words. I find them particularly important to express nuance. Often there is only one, maybe two truly succinct words or phrases to convey something complex or one is reduced talking a round-about paragraph nibbling at the edges circuitously, often not getting at the center. I also appreciate those exacting words from others.
I have been called elitist by my MAGA family for caring about concise communication, perhaps it's my past profession (air traffic control) that compels me to be pithy even now.
I really enjoy your essays. I find I have to corral them in my inbox to be in a proper mind space to read them as most I just blow through, connecting the dots and moving on. These I have to digest. Thank you.
Define elitism. Is it a should or an is or both? Is the question, is one elitist if one thinks that there should be a specialized class who are by rights the established oracles in their fields of endeavor, and thus should be in charge in those fields, because they are in fact superior therein, as Socrates argued in the Crito?
If that’s the question, then I do not believe one is an elitist if one restricts one’s “elitism” to appropriate arenas and does not unwarrantedly exceed the boundaries thereof (as Socrates also tried to do in the Crito, by implying that political judgment in democratic hands should be ignored as of no importance because the people don’t know how to run and guide society).
I do not think that that is what is typically meant by the term elitism. As a pejorative it refers to the expert’s sense of a fundamental moral superiority, in the broadest possible sense, over others by virtue of the expert’s expertise, skill, or attributes, as the case may be, and that, by virtue of this alleged superiority, they are entitled to a higher general social status and more of life’s good things than others. This is the bad elitism, and it calls for relentless and everlasting ridicule - the kind Kurt Vonnegut fingered when he commented on the use of the semicolon: it’s what a writer uses to demonstrate he has been to college.
I think you’re the first type of elitist, not the second.
That was really funny and just elitist enough to be hella interesting. Keep it up.
Knowledge is power. Those who fear the intellectual elitist know they can’t compete, so they disparage or shame them. I’ll take Knowledge for $100, Alex!
I completely missed the funny in this piece & tend to do that a lot when viewing films. It’s often a later take or two that I’m able to layer in the humor. I recognize this as a deficiency of sorts & ponder on the source and the fix. Maybe meditation is the fix. The source is surely far more convoluted. Here, possibly, if you are the elite, it comes off corny, being the opposite of elite, and there’s the funny. I leave you in peace.
I think the subtext of what I wrote Marcie, is that the word "elitist" has been dragged through some degree of ideological mud. It is not a bad thing to be smart. We should all try to be smarter. This essay is an intervention and a statement, that perhaps intellectual culture in 2025 needs to drop the pretense and practice some more self confidence, in this age of anti-intellectualism and performative genuflection playing substitute for morality.
You write, “Your mind is a beautiful space. All of our minds.” I fully agree. The space itself is mysterious and beautiful. But what we put into it – and what eventually comes out – is another matter, not always as beautiful as the place itself.
Garbage in, Garbage out
Morality? That’s a long standing issue for me. I’ve come to consider myself amoral. If a person or complex of individuals need be taught a list of them and worse coerced to follow them within a particular societal setting, then what good are they serving? Morals smell of religious dogma and ostensibly of control. I understand the prescribing of ethics to be a necessary requirement of professionals serving others. And, naming your values serves to define your image and refine your actions. Still I find morality a stickler. Maybe because it too often serves as a masking of yourself to others and the mirror. A person knows when another is acting obligatorally (I prefer how this made-up word stands in for ‘acting out of obligation’) and not genuinely. And who wants that? “Your friends treat you like a guest” kind of thing. Well enough already, Marcie. I’m a bit humored in this moment that I’ve likely got at nothing in this bit. Such is the story of my life.
Marcie, I think you are definitely NOT amoral. One of the key phrases in your reply was “prescribing of ethics,” IMHO. Your comment comes across as having a very moral base. You’ve just been exposed to too many people, as have most of us, who take somme prescribed ethics, hold them up as universally necessary, and yet don’t live up to them personally. All societies have shared morés, at least. One hopes that democratic societies realize that not all members share all of any member’s preferred morés. Too many of our society’s members seem NOT to understand that.
Thank you Phil, for taking the time to appreciate & correct my attempt at reasoning out the issue of my own morality. You are right on all points. I’m not amoral by the on-line definition. (so many fun synonyms for immoral) Still, morals as opposed to values are prescribed by others. This right. That wrong. Quick to judge you. Eager to box you in with a preconceived label. Write you off. Then you know they never saw you in the first place. Good Riddance to them. It’s slim pickings outside my door. Substack is an Oasis in comparison to my once wrought relationships. That’s actually sad, I know. Carry on my wayward [self], there’ll be peace when you are done…”.
Thanks again Phil. I feel less muddled.
Morality is my friend.
You are quite welcome, Marcie. Many of us, including me, are struggling with living a life we can take some pride in and some enjoyment from. I think Mike is one of us and his writings clarify many aspects of our struggles.
Good for you pushing back. No more dumbing down to the lowest common denominator
I believe in words.
https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism/intellectual-elitist-7e92e2ceee1
Muddybog, Thank you for the link. I found that both interesting and corrobative of Mike’s thoughts here.
Philosophy should be taught at the high school level but also a smattering in lower grades worked into core curriculum.