I want to continue with my review of the different
orientations Americans have held concerning equality. These orientations reflect varying support
levels of equality from out and out disdain to total allegiance. In the last posting, I explained what I am
calling genetic elitism; that is, an elitism that basically considers any
attempts at establishing equality as a fool’s errand. For those who espouse this orientation, human
talents and skills are genetically determined and therefore an aristocracy
based on family lineage is in order.
Such beliefs lead to a caste system in which social positioning is and,
it is felt, should be inherited.
The second orientation is what I call earned elitism. I pointed out earlier
that the ideas of genetic elitism were attacked by prominent Americans almost
from the start of our nation's history.
I believe that the frontier experience had much to do with the distaste
for such thinking. Unfortunately, for
the sake of democracy, the ideal of elitism, perhaps under a different guise,
was not seen to be so disagreeable. The
orientation that was most prominently supported was earned elitism. This orientation promotes what Thomas
Jefferson called a natural aristocracy and has a lot of scholarly support,
either as a good way to run a society or as a condition that is simply
inevitable. This is not to say that that
support is free from challenge.
People who
espouse earned elitism believe that individuals who enjoy superior human assets
(generally talents or skills deemed beneficial) do so because of their efforts
and hard work. Some are naturally
disposed to exert the necessary effort to become more talented and those
talents should be allowed and encouraged to emerge. If this takes place, they will naturally be
recognized by their fellow citizens.
Their superiority generally entitles them to above normal consideration
in society in the form of status, wealth, material possessions, etc. This might
and usually does, if allowed to materialize, include political privileges. This
general entitlement is not based on those “gifted” purchasing the advantages,
but instead owed them because of their superior, acknowledged position in
society. The central belief of this
orientation is that societies are run by the elites, and that's simply the way
things are.
A good introduction to this view is the
textbook, The Irony of Democracy: An
Uncommon Introduction to American Politics, by Thomas R. Dye, Harmon
Ziegler, and a more recent author than was originally included in its first
publication, Louis Schubert. This book
has at least fifteen editions and is used by some college professors as an
introductory text in American government courses.[1] While elitist ideas can be traced all the way
back at least to Plato, Vilfredo Pareto (The
Mind and Society, 1916) and Gaetano Mosca (The Ruling Class, 1896) wrote influential theoretical books
espousing elitist views and are considered the fathers of elitism. Despite the fact that Mosca argued that
elites try to establish hereditary structures of government to assure their
advantages, he and Pareto did not argue that genetic advantages were the cause
of such social advantages. They did,
though, see elite rule as the natural course of politics. Other more recent works that use or arrive at
an earned elitist view are Community
Power Structure (1953) by Floyd Hunter – an analysis of Atlanta, Georgia
politics – and The Power Elite (1956)
by C. Wright Mills – a national description of elite power among the political,
economic, and military institutions.[2]
Let me share a few ideas concerning this
view. I once had a political science
professor who told the class that elite theorists were not telling us anything
insightful. Of course, nations,
particularly modern ones, were/are mostly controlled by relatively few
people. The structure and complexity of
modern life made such arrangements necessary.
In terms of production, communication, distribution, and consumer
preferences, large corporations have enormous influence on how we behave and
view our social and personal realities.
For example, how much of your political thinking is influenced by the
language used in political messages on TV?
Research indicates that political ads on TV have an effect on how the
average American views the political conditions at a given time. While this level of influence might be
argued, I accept the assumption that there is an important influential
effect. One needs to look only at how
many people, arguably, vote against their interests to give one a strong
suspicion that such an effect exists.[3] And who controls that messaging? Who pays for those ads? Well-heeled interests do. Also, where are our economic centers? They are in large cities in which large
corporations have inordinate influence.
On and on it goes. This is nothing
new; this is nothing surprising.
The questions are: how should we view this elitist reality? Are elites simply, as Marxists claim, a
result of classes or the wealth distributions of a society? Or is it better to view the organizational
arrangements in a society as reflecting a more complex reality? That is, we should have an open view that
recognizes people having more access to opportunities to attain elitist
positions. Is this a more useful way of
seeing how power is achieved and maintained?
These are questions which scholars who adopt elitist theories
consider. In any case, while genetics
might contribute some advantages, the general consensus of this orientation is
to view elites as individuals who have worked hard and taken advantage of the
opportunities the existing system offers.
This description might lead one to confuse this orientation with the one
I will next explain, equal condition.
The main differences between earned elitism and equal condition
orientations are, one, the more pervasive nature of earned elitism – members of
this type of elitism enjoy benefits and deference beyond their area of
work. As members of an aristocratic
class, they are attributed a level of deference in all areas of social
interactions whereas equal condition limits benefits to those the individual
can purchase. Two, earned elitism has
more of a timeless quality; once attained, the person is held in a high level
of status and respect. Under equal
condition, the sense is “what have you done for me lately.” And three, earned elitism is dependent on a particular
system's structure to determine how many people will share in the
responsibilities of making the political and financial decisions under which
the rest of society lives. Under an
equal condition arrangement, there is no presupposed notion of limitation –
there is no limit to what one can accomplish.
Under earned elitism orientation, the following
beliefs can be listed:
1.
Some people develop highly sophisticated talents and society should hold these
people up to higher standards than the rest.
At best this takes on a paternalistic sense of obligation to those not
so advantaged.
2.
Those in society who show higher levels of developed
talent should be considered exceptional and given more privileges in
employment, material rewards, respect, and political position.
3.
When considering which people will advance in the workplace, the
number one element to look for is those who have worked hard to develop
exceptional talents.
4.
Those who have sacrificed to become geniuses or otherwise
talented people should not be judged by the same ethical standards as the rest
of us; they operate under a different morality.
For example, society should expect more meaningful contributions from
these citizens and, if not attained, that failure should be judged a moral
shortcoming. On the other hand, minor
infractions of moral codes, those particularly associated with personal habits
and social interactions, should be considered less serious than would be the
case in dealing with others.
5.
People who have not worked hard to develop their
abilities should be discouraged from having or even seeking influence.
Summarily, earned elitist scholarship analyzes
how organizational hierarchies, power holders, and organizational interactions
produce the decisions that change society and how the rest of the population,
through varied roles, maintains what the elites have arranged. By focusing on these areas, earned elitist
scholars distinguish themselves from Marxist scholars. Pure Marxist scholars emphasize class and
class conflict in their analysis.
There are, therefore, two versions of elitism
espoused in our history. One orientation
argued that securing a lofted status in society resulted mainly from genetic
factors. The other orientation, earned
elitism, argued that the lofted status should be secured through hard work and
taking advantage of the opportunities that life presents. This latter view was advanced by Thomas
Jefferson and John Adams as well as many of our founding elites. But both orientations see it as natural for
those so advantaged to be treated in special ways that align with their
superior position in society. Therefore,
these orientations were really justifications for inequality and the views of
social realities that result in unequal status among people.
[1] Dye, T. R., Schubert, L., and Ziegler, H.
(2011). The irony of democracy: An
uncommon introduction to American politics, 15th edition.
Cengage Learning, ISBN: 0495802700. This work argues that in a democracy, as in
any society, the population is divided between the few who lead and the many
who are led. In order for democracy to survive, the talented few must lead
because the many are incapable, either in intelligence or disposition.
[2]There is some disagreement as to whether
Mills is more accurately described as a Marxist than an elitist. One thing both
Marxists and elitists agree on is that power in a capitalist society is held by
the few.
[3] Wilson, J. Q. and DiIulio, Jr., J. J.
(1998). American government: Institutions
and politics, seventh edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Let me
quote this source: “Paid commercials [as opposed to news coverage] … especially
the shorter spots, often contain a good deal of information that is seen,
remembered, and evaluated by the public that is quite capable of distinguishing
between fact and humbug,” p. 204. This
salutary notion does not contradict the fact, as we all can attest to, that the
constant drumbeat of political messaging during any election season will establish
the language of that election. As to
determining who wins, political ads are less efficacious than the spending
amounts would lead one to believe. They
seem to make a difference on the margins, but each side cannot just pass on at
least spending comparable amounts to the opposing side. See Farhi, P.
(2012). Presidential campaign ads
are ubiquitous, but do they work? The Washington Post, June 13, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/presidential-campaign-ads-are-ubiquitous-but-do-they-work/2012/06/13/gJQAqQ7waV_story.html .
As for voting against your interests, the issue is complex. See Tirado, L. (2015).
Opinion: Why the poor vote
“against their own interests.” MSNBC,
September 24, http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/opinion-why-the-poor-vote-against-their-own-interests .
In this article, the author reports that there is enough “betraying” of
core political principles by both parties that, in turn, favor the rich, to
make it difficult to determine which set of politicians actually represents a
constituent’s interests.
No comments:
Post a Comment