Reply
Mon 13 Nov, 2006 05:50 am
Is populist elitism an oxymoron?
Elite?-a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence
Populist?-a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtue of the common people
I claim that a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtue of the common people who exercises much power or influence by virtue of his or her learning is a populist elitist.
It is obvious that there is a class of people who manage the government, who influence those that manage government, and who interpret it all to the voting public exists in the United States. Such a class is essential to the functioning of a liberal democracy.
Presently in the US this class of elite individuals consists primarily of ?'experts'. This class of experts "is inevitably so removed from common interests as to become a class with private interests and private knowledge, which in social matters is not knowledge at all." The result, Dewey warns, is a democracy that risks both unaccountability and error. It is obvious to me that such a situation is no longer a risk but is a reality.
I offer, for consideration, a possible solution that will take much time to implement but will be the fastest solution available. I suggest that those adults, who can, begin the process of self-actualizing self-learning in order to become a populist elitist.
It's a difficult question to ponder without considering the full range of the term "elite." I see that you used the fourth definition from Merriam-Webster... here are the other three, just to give a fuller scope of the issue:
elite
1a: the choice part
1b: the best of a class
1c: the socially superior part of society
In other words, the term "elite" has a lot of nuances pertaining to social standing, which should be taken into account as we're pondering the merits of putting national policies in the hands of an "elite," even a populist one.
Which is not to say that I disagree with your basic point that adults (and children too) would do well to get as smart as they can. But is it useful to talk about this under the rubric of elitism? What would we lose or gain by removing the specter of social superiority to this (otherwise uncontroversial) speculation?
No. There is an obvious difference between having such power and abusing, or even using, that power.
Shapeless wrote:It's a difficult question to ponder without considering the full range of the term "elite." I see that you used the fourth definition from Merriam-Webster... here are the other three, just to give a fuller scope of the issue:
elite
1a: the choice part
1b: the best of a class
1c: the socially superior part of society
In other words, the term "elite" has a lot of nuances pertaining to social standing, which should be taken into account as we're pondering the merits of putting national policies in the hands of an "elite," even a populist one.
Which is not to say that I disagree with your basic point that adults (and children too) would do well to get as smart as they can. But is it useful to talk about this under the rubric of elitism? What would we lose or gain by removing the specter of social superiority to this (otherwise uncontroversial) speculation?
I wish to accent the positive and eliminate the negative. I wish to make the reader conscious that elite does mean positive things and I would like the reader to recognize that the salvation of our life style or even our existence may depend upon humans finding what is positive and to set them self upon the path toward utilizing our potential to save our self.
It is easy to dismiss all positive things and to remain negative and apathetic but if we accept our responsibility we will not take the easy way out.
Four out of five replies are negative. I guess young people think it is cool to be negative but it is not cool and it is not smart.
coberst wrote:I wish to accent the positive and eliminate the negative.
You have more faith than I do about the ability to have one without the other. I'm sure it's possible, especially when the terms of this (or any other kind of) elitism are kept abstract enough. But the moment you specify exactly which problems you're looking to solve (something a little more specific than "the salvation of our life style or even our existence"), I suspect the difficulties in separating what is positive and what is negative will become apparent. Not that this is a reason to shy away from specifying the problem; far from it. It's all the more reason to be as specific as possible about the social ills for which "populist elitism" is to be the cure. It's only in the details that any real progress can be made.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace