Mass Society and Elite Ideology

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It seems obvious enough that it is the nature of every functioning society that it be composed of, at the very least, a ruling class or elite on the one hand, and a usually larger, mass or subordinate class on the other hand.

The elite class are those who wield the concentrated political and economic power and who set the general societal tone for what is considered right or wrong, good or bad; they standardize the cultural mores.

The mass culture of subordinate classes are largely dependent upon the elites who are, in turn, responsible for making the legal decisions of the society, and also the economic decisions and running the large bureaucracies.

Such a system -of elite classes and mass classes- seems necessary in order for a society to function at all. However, I believe that today in the United States, the masses generally do not recognize that such a scheme is necessary nor, more importantly, do they believe that such class hierarchy is at work, or in effect, in their own society and in their own lives. And this is because the masses have been wrongly taught from the elites that every 'individual' is soveriegn and special regardless of his or her identity.

Individuals within mass society, instead of being taught that class hierarchy is a necessity, have instead been taught that class hierarchies are immoral. The over-estimation of the status of the individual, therefore, serves to blind the people into thinking they are not part of the masses even while they all act and think very much like one another.

The problem lies with the ruling elite's insistence that, in order for the individual to garner a high estimation, he or she doesn't have to accomplish any measure of authentic societal achievement. The ruling elites, by automatically bestowing 'greatness' upon each individual no matter who or what the individual is or has accomplished, have prevented the individual from perceiving the fact that they are actually part of a growing mass of an ever more vulgar mediocrity.

One solution to this problem would be to remove self-esteem from the masses by pointing out that they are, in reality, a subordinate class who are generally indistinguishable from one another. And to teach that class hierarchies are not immoral and that the true immorality is for the elites to convince unsuspecting individuals that they are deserving of self-esteem when they are not.

But as long as we continue to accept the ruling elite's ideology that says that any individual is deserving of great self-esteem, then the more difficult it will be for the individual to free himself from the herd and to attain real independence. The more we believe in the ruling elite's culture, the more enslaved and blind we will be toward our own inadequacies as individuals and our own desires to escape the ugly confusion of the masses.

We must undertake a revaluation of elite values and tell the masses bluntly how naturally ugly and vulgar and repulsive they are and how hurtful that behaviour is for individuals who want to be better than that. Because, in order to be a truly free individual one must work hard and climb above the many.

--Pyth

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,480 • Replies: 36

No top replies

@Pythagorean,

Quote:

Because, in order to be a truly free individual one must work hard and climb above the many.

pyth! what are you thinking man?
have you ever seen the movie the matrix? thats what ur post reminds me of
i thought my posts were intense but this is just off the wall!
in my opinion you are so wrong on so many different levels except 1
this whole post can be looked at as very disrespectful to the entire human race even though i wont look at it that way
we dont feel sovereign because someone else told us we are, or convinced us
we feel sovereign because we know we are sovereign
and we are.. obviously
that doesn't mean we are apart of any herd.. infact it means the exact opposite, that we believe what we want to, and in that way yes we are all united but we are united as individuals simply being individuals
a person accepts the idea that they arnt soverign
which is still an act of being soverign!
if anything this is what the top classes tend to make the bottom classes feel; that they are not sovereign, that they are to do as they are told and is probably an even greater precursor to the realization that we are all sovereign
theres no reason for the leader of any nation to get on television and say something like
"you are all my pawns because it is necessary"
this wouldn't lead to a functioning system at all

but i agree you are right about one thing.. what u described are characteristics of a functioning system
instead of coming up with crazy painful ideas why dont you sit down and ask yourself why are these characteristics of a functioning society?
why do these things have to occur?
why do we have to have functioning societies?
why do the masses have to suffer?
where is this functioning system going to take us and when is all this sacrifice going to pay off?
in some places leadership is something people are born into.. do you think they made the choice to become leaders? their system is still functional though..
do you think you made the choice to become the class you are?
functioning societies just happen, this is the way they manifest
theres no other way for all of this to have occurred without it
but ask why?
not what can i do to further this process
because you are furthering the process!
and maybe u were just brain storming on what it is exactly that influences the characteristics of a functioning society and thats the way i tend to look at this post
but still man
the type of society you are describing is not the type i would want to live in
even if it does speed things up in your opinion
its not the way it is and im glad

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean, you write: 'It seems obvious enough that it is the nature of every functioning society that it be composed of, at the very least, a ruling class or elite on the one hand, and a usually larger, mass or subordinate class on the other hand.'

On the whole, i agree, but eltism could no more morally questionable than a division of labour were it not that elites act to illegitimately enrich themselves at the cost of the masses, the planet, truth, justice...

the elites are the worthless - for they know no truth.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

l0ck:

In the movie The Matrix, if I remember correctly, the real world had been taken over by foreign beings and a false world had been put in its place. And human beings were then living in a manufactured world without knowing it. Thus, human beings were in need of 'liberation' from that world of false reality.

I think the difficulty with our culture is that our theory of government is being falsely interpreted as bestowing absolute rights upon the individual regardless of who the individual is or what the individual will do with their freedom which has now, I think, become a false freedom and a false liberty.

This interpretation of the theory of individual rights has led many to now think that any kind of behaviour -- no matter how low or vulgar -- is acceptable because, after all (so they think) vulgar behaviour is still human behaviour - And the masses of people think they have an absolute right to behave in any disgusting manner whatsoever. But I ask you l0ck, does this self-reinforcing mass behaviour of crude and coarse conduct constitute true freedom?

Today the masses live in a matrix of cheap thrills and consumerism which is sanctioned by elites through controlled communication systems ie the mass media.

My main point is that those elites who actually wield power in the real world - (those who control the large media, the universities, the large corporations and the government) - those elites proffer an ideology which blinds and enslaves the masses in a false sense of freedom and this blindness of the masses allows the elites to grab more and more power and to further and further disempower the majority. I would point to the ever growing disparity between the super-rich and the regular American as a telling, portentous symptom of this ongoing process.

The elite ideology tells the masses that it is their right to act like a sloppy ignorant sort of person because they know they can fully control these types of people.

l0ck wrote:

why dont you sit down and ask yourself why are these characteristics of a functioning society?
why do these things have to occur?
why do we have to have functioning societies?
why do the masses have to suffer?
where is this functioning system going to take us and when is all this sacrifice going to pay off?

l0ck these are very good questions and I hope to be able to discuss them.

Quote:

maybe u were just brain storming on what it is exactly that influences the characteristics of a functioning society and thats the way i tend to look at this post...

Yes, I was doing that but I wanted to look at the characteristics of a functioning society in light of our actual society. Maybe I bit off more than I can chew?

But you may agree that those who are now in power, as it seems to me, would like nothing better than a docile population of American 'sheeple' who do nothing but go shopping and watch T.V. for that gives the elites more control over the population.

--Pyth

1 Reply

@Pythagorean,

William Cooper (youtube or google video), was one of the FIRST to expose what "they" are up to. So much so, he received a few bullets in his head after 9/11 for doing so!!

Also, check out David Icke and rense.com.

I won't hold your hand, have a look for yourself.

Also a MUST READ is "Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" >

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

Brett.

1 Reply

@linux user,

I have had an epiphany. Its constants are conception, deception, and perception. Our societies base their functions on these constants.

The conception of an idea in a persons' mind creates a deception to society. Truth is simply the common perception of the common populace. Deception is in and of itself a perception. With the conception of a deception, a perception is born. The deception spreads like wild fire amongst the populace, and when it is accepted amongst the populace the perception then becomes truth. If your perception is that things are the way they are, and that they will never change, then this is truth. But if you conceive that things will change, this becomes truth, and they will change.

I see the world operating as one society, and every person individually performing their talents and abilities to contribute to all mankind. This is definitely a desirable environment for man to live in, and it could open our world up to so much more, and if we believe that this change could happen then it will. I don't want my children coming over to Afghanistan as I have to fight ideology, and I'm sure you don't want yours to either. Change must come, and I believe it will. If you believe with me, we can see results from our perceptions.

Our perceptions are the constitutions of truth, and we create our own realities.

We are by nature social creatures. We survive and advance by the accomplishments of our fellow man, and we need each other. Let no man say he is better than the next, but let us rise unified and say that we are a great people, and we are no longer ruled by unnatural ideologies. Let us rise unified in a free world functioning as an enlightened society, and allow our perceptions to become reality to the world as a whole.

2 Replies

@charles m young,

The great need the meek to acheive what they do and to hold the foundations of society when they rattle them too much. The great thus owe the meek a helping hand and this is progress. Without the masses progress becomes chaos and without the great there is only stagnance. This is the balance and it still exists just as it always has.
The more things change the more they stay the same.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

1) that whole voting thing is a scam. lol
2)Elitism is a biological necessity for communal animals, as anarchism would mean that those animals were not living communally.
3)One person one vote only works if their is a system in place to tally and execute the intake of votes and their results, which in itself creates a system of unequal power as the system creators/executors have disproportionate power over the voting populace. Its unavoidable to have an elite class both structurally, as pointed out disproportionate power systems are inherent in social structures and systems, and biologically, as a ruling class is necessary to form cohesive groups.

0 Replies

@charles m young,

charles m young wrote:

Our perceptions are the constitutions of truth, and we create our own realities.

Hate to burst your bubble, but no, the truth is impossible for the mind to grasp. Our perception deviates from the reality it seeks to replicate, and in doing so presents a 'mistruth' - an inabsolute concept. For the truth to be 'true' it must be absolute, so it's impossible, except if we take truth as an untrue concept, a figment of deceit.

Quote:

The mass culture of subordinate classes are largely dependent upon the elites who are, in turn, responsible for making the legal decisions of the society, and also the economic decisions and running the large bureaucracies.

Surely the internet is a system perfectly designed to bring a concept of process to the workings of the 'masses'. Perhaps if we try hard enough we could educate our offspring to the highest degree (as the 'elite' do) and converse with fellows about plots of change in social structure. Of course a vast majority just post photos of pissed-up nights and look at porn - so maybe this means that a new elite is forming as a democratic union of people with the ability to rabble-rouse and converse freely.

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Doobah47 wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble, but no, the truth is impossible for the mind to grasp. Our perception deviates from the reality it seeks to replicate, and in doing so presents a 'mistruth' - an inabsolute concept. For the truth to be 'true' it must be absolute, so it's impossible, except if we take truth as an untrue concept, a figment of deceit.

Doodah,

Perhaps Doobah, it is just a functional illusion, for practical purposes an untrue concept for what is said to us through our senses. In the realm of apparent reality, this is the nearest thing to truth we can hope to know, sensation, sensation is truth, our biology determines if the rock is hot, cold, hard or soft, in the absence of a judgement from another source, this is truth. Truth is not absolute, truth is the experience of our biology.

3 Replies

@boagie,

I'll agree that truth is a functional illusion. Whenever I try to discuss the concept of deviation meaning lie (in language for example) people cite the fact that language is symbolic, but I insist that the point ('truth is ineffable') is more fundamental than symbolism.

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Doobah47 wrote:

I'll agree that truth is a functional illusion. Whenever I try to discuss the concept of deviation meaning lie (in language for example) people cite the fact that language is symbolic, but I insist that the point ('truth is ineffable') is more fundamental than symbolism.

Doobah,

What is more elemental to the truth than sensation/ experience. I agree symbolism comes in much later and is mean't to communicate an experience, truth as sensation, is immediate to the subject.

0 Replies

@Pythagorean,

Very interesting post and among my favorite topics, Pythagorean.

I cannot agree more with your description of society, with an elitist (I call them parasitic) class presiding over a much larger lower class, particularly through fraudulent cultural norms and ideological hegemony.

You do seem to come from a viewpoint of interdependencies as a necessity for society in relating the ruling and subservient classes, which is good. I also agree that hierarchy is not necessarily immoral, and even that individuals need to be aware of themselves.

However, I cannot help but disagree with viewpoint that pervades your entire post, namely that there need be a hierarchal system of rulers. I am an anarchist via Benjamin Tucker and his great influences Max Stirner and PJ Proudhon, and hold that anarchy, and society itself, is only possible between free and equal actors. If there exists an inherent dependency within the proletariat to the elite class, then we do not have society, we have slavery. Because of this, I find your general position of a necessary hierarchy to be self-defeating.

2 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

What this whole thread lacks is the concept that people just simply don't care. Call them "sheeple", call them slaves, call them the masses, call them whatever you like, they just don't care. They are content to do what they're told, to take what they're given, so they deserve whatever befalls them. This is entirely evident through Michael Moore's work. He doesn't go so far as to outright say it in Farenheit 911, but it doesn't take much reading between the lines or supposition to conclude that Bush orchestrated the destruction of the Twin Towers. Moore didn't get shot in the head for bringing this to light, he didn't even get charged or sued. He was by and large ignored by "the elite" cause they knew that people just wouldn't care. If these people don't care about what's happening to them, why should anybody else?

0 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Quote:

I cannot agree more with your description of society, with an elitist (I call them parasitic) class presiding over a much larger lower class, particularly through fraudulent cultural norms and ideological hegemony.

What exactly makes a cultural norm fraudulent? The "elite" classes didn't create the cutlural norms, They may be arbitrary but what makes them fraudulent? There has never been as far as anyone knows a true anarchist society/culture. It would follow that the idea of anarchy applied to a cultural species is fraudulent.

Quote:

I am an anarchist via Benjamin Tucker and his great influences Max Stirner and PJ Proudhon, and hold that anarchy, and society itself, is only possible between free and equal actors. If there exists an inherent dependency within the proletariat to the elite class, then we do not have society, we have slavery. Because of this, I find your general position of a necessary hierarchy to be self-defeating.

Exactly how does et al presume to create a society without a heirarchy? Even if a la Holy Grail, "we take it in turns to act as an exectutive ........." In any cultural situation certain specialized functions are going to be more prized than other, especially generalized functions. For example a person who is talented at healing will wield disproportionate power to a person who farms. No amount of governmental or communal materials and exectutive leadership sharing is going to change this. And thus we have the seeds of heirarchy.

2 Replies

@GoshisDead,

Quote:

Exactly how does et al presume to create a society without a heirarchy? Even if a la Holy Grail, "we take it in turns to act as an exectutive ........." In any cultural situation certain specialized functions are going to be more prized than other, especially generalized functions. For example a person who is talented at healing will wield disproportionate power to a person who farms. No amount of governmental or communal materials and exectutive leadership sharing is going to change this. And thus we have the seeds of heirarchy.

Perhaps, but let's not be so quick to make that judgment.

Consider your example - 'a person who is talented at healing will wield disproportionate power to a person who farms'. Confucius would have this the other way around - the farmer being the most vital role in society, and therefore, the most highly prized. And think about it, medical care is worthless when you are starving to death.

1 Reply

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

What exactly makes a cultural norm fraudulent? The "elite" classes didn't create the cutlural norms, They may be arbitrary but what makes them fraudulent? There has never been as far as anyone knows a true anarchist society/culture. It would follow that the idea of anarchy applied to a cultural species is fraudulent.

We can get into the definition of truth in this but that belongs to the epistemology forum. For this I will operate from a common sense idea of the truth; it isn't well defined but for our purposes it is fair.

Cultural norms are simply ideas and can be false or true just the same. For a couple of prime examples, how about the cultural norms that have pervaded certain societies that women or blacks are inferior. These are false because they are demonstrably wrong (if only because it requires someone to define what it means to be inferior, which will always leave them at a point of circularity or outright contradiction).

As for the parasitic or elite class's role in the dissemination of cultural norms, norms are spread through natural and logical mechanisms, just as genes are. As such, those in power, those in positions of influence, precisely those who have the ability to make another's life more or less enjoyable (or whatever measure drives a person's actions), will be the purveyors of ideas and norms. We can certainly look at role the government, the priest, or the employer has in altering our behaviors and values to its preferences.

I think your last sentence is a non-sequitor, unless you can explain it better that is.

Quote:

Exactly how does et al presume to create a society without a heirarchy? Even if a la Holy Grail, "we take it in turns to act as an exectutive ........." In any cultural situation certain specialized functions are going to be more prized than other, especially generalized functions. For example a person who is talented at healing will wield disproportionate power to a person who farms. No amount of governmental or communal materials and exectutive leadership sharing is going to change this. And thus we have the seeds of heirarchy.

I don't consider hierarchy to include variance in talent or obligations caused by free association.

If one person satisfies his desires by agreeing to work for another (and what constitutes coercion between these two is one of the most difficult questions of political economy), I find it hard to call this hierarchy. Even if you do call it hierarchy, it is an entirely meaningless form.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

'a person who is talented at healing will wield disproportionate power to a person who farms'. Confucius would have this the other way around - the farmer being the most vital role in society, and therefore, the most highly prized. And think about it, medical care is worthless when you are starving to death.

Indeed this is true, however the china when Confucius was from had a heirarchy where farmers were considered common and healers were elevated. Its a scarcity of resources thing. The healer could farm had s/he the need, but not all farmers could heal.

Quote:

Cultural norms are simply ideas and can be false or true just the same. For a couple of prime examples, how about the cultural norms that have pervaded certain societies that women or blacks are inferior. These are false because they are demonstrably wrong (if only because it requires someone to define what it means to be inferior, which will always leave them at a point of circularity or outright contradiction).

As for the parasitic or elite class's role in the dissemination of cultural norms, norms are spread through natural and logical mechanisms, just as genes are. As such, those in power, those in positions of influence, precisely those who have the ability to make another's life more or less enjoyable (or whatever measure drives a person's actions), will be the purveyors of ideas and norms. We can certainly look at role the government, the priest, or the employer has in altering our behaviors and values to its preferences.

Again how can a cultural norm be fraudulent? There are no value claims in the norm itself. While agreed about the truth of inferiority comment on the base of demonstrable non-inferiority, the norm itself could not be fraudulent. As you said in the second paragraph they are passed on like genes, or rather cultural memes, they also undergo cultural evolution and are changed, modified, or replaced wholesale with other norms that are just as arbitrary. The value of the norms are not in the norms themselves but in the people, as a people changes so does its culture's norms.

As for the other comment, Heirarchy in politics is simply disproportionate power becoming codified/institutionalized. Take an "egalitarian" society where there is no permenent "Big Man". Heirarchy is materialistically inherent in these structures by virtue of the manipulation of scarce resources. The best hunter, the best gatherer, the best healer are respected more and thusly make a disproportionate number of important group decisions. One would have to change human nature to try and somehow legislate away the respect given them and the heeding of their opinion they expect by virtue of their specialized occupations within the community.

Once again there is no way to avoid a heirarchy in a species that is hard wired for group living.

2 Replies

@GoshisDead,

Quote:

Indeed this is true, however the china when Confucius was from had a heirarchy where farmers were considered common and healers were elevated. Its a scarcity of resources thing. The healer could farm had s/he the need, but not all farmers could heal.

I think you underestimate the skills required for farming, especially in such an early society. No weather forecast, not even an almanac.

Farmers can heal, though not as well as someone trained to heal. And, sure healers could farm, but not as well as someone trained to farm. Both careers required, and still do require, a great deal of knowledge and experience.

Confucius suggested that farmers be at the top of the hierarchy as a food supply is the single most important thing for a society to have.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

I understand, and I agree with the sentiment, its simply that its never happened as far as anyone knows.

1 Reply

Mass Society and Elite Ideology

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know