Confusing Definitions

Elitism has taken on a negative connotation over the last twenty-five years. Today many people flippantly use it as an insult (as if being an elitist or even subscribing to an elitist belief were as bad as being a racist). Elitism is viewed negatively by two groups. The first group is the majority of the anti elites. They confuse Elitism with discrimination. This group of anti-elites are simply anti-discrimination and not really anti-elitist. They have had trouble defining terms. Let's get clear on some terms so that the first group can change their attitude about "Elitism".

Elitism is the idea that some people have special skills, talents, and resources that positively influence society, which are good for society and these special individuals have a disproportionate influence. Subscribers to Elitism believe that the elites impact on the future of society should be encouraged. Discrimination is the idea that "self-appointed elites" grant themselves special privileges at the expense of those excluded from their group.

The second group of anti-elites understands the concept but don't like the ideology. Egalitarianism is a response to Elitism. Egalitarianism argues that Elitism "stratifies" society and that it creates a gap between the privileged and the "ordinary". Egalitarians want to erase the gap the elite an ordinary person's access to power by marginalizing an elite's advantages.

Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism can refer to many different ideals. The central idea is of course equality. The Founding Father's believed in equality for the voting class. I tend to subscribe to an Egalitarian ethic of political equality much more equal than theirs (one which includes non-land owners, minorities, and women). However, when we confuse "equal access" to a society's political systems with "equal entitlement" to outcomes in society, we make a disturbing error.

Elitists see the above average contributors of society as one of society's greatest assets and for that reason they should be nurtured so that their contributions can be maximized. Elitists claim there is value in being led by the brightest, most educated, and most dynamic members of society

Egalitarians prefer marginalizing these differences to prevent the "elite" from "discriminating". One can understand an Egalitarian's fear in regards to political equality and social injustice. However, Egalitarians usually won't stop there with their argument. [I happen to subscribe to a Moral Egalitarianism (if defined as "all men are created equal")]. The problem is that Egalitarians have become obsessed with equality far beyond promoting political fairness.

Overstating Equality

Egalitarians want equality grossly exceeding the reach of political representation. I suppose that most Egalitarians believe that political power is much more than "one man equals one vote" representation. They believe that money, intelligence, talent, and all other resources which put someone at an advantage should be reduced so that the outcome of equality manifests itself in every part of a society's life so as to give no more power to one man over any other.

While Egalitarians seem to clearly identify a "superior" and an "inferior" in terms of what is best for society they tend not to be interested or capable of making other types of value determinations. For example, Egalitarians are unwilling to teach an Ethnocentric viewpoint (in public school)of any study if it is too heavily influenced by Western contributors. This is where Egalitarianism begins to really reveal it's true ethic.

Greeks Vs Pygmies

Let's look at a cultural analysis of Ancient History for instance.
When it comes to ranking culture, Elitists have a pretty easy time of determining the best and worst. They look at a culture's relics, language, innovations, freedom, access to happiness, etc.

For example, the Greeks rank highly as a "superior culture" because of their surviving relics such as the Parthenon. This structure demonstrate the complexity of mathematics, physics, construction, and many other concepts all harmonized in such a way to inspire the magnificent sense of awe for human ingenuity.

For the sake of contrasts let's compare it to a face mask of a Pygmy artist. One might see how they are "different" but surely we all must admit that complexity, massive community cooperation, and a deep understanding of "less than obvious" natural laws aren't reflected in a beautiful but unsophisticated war mask. Elitists view these kinds of differences as having values that contribute to a culture's relevance and perhaps more importantly to their impact on the world.

Are Elitists Racists?

This is where Elitists are accused of being "ethnocentric" and possibly even worse "racists". But come on, if your child only has a very limited amount of time in a classroom to learn about the most "important" parts of History and culture, is it really so evil to focus on the group which is far more relevant to our life? Do we really have an equal amount to gain by studying both cultures? Maybe I am missing something infinitely more valuable about primitive equatorial cultures but I have a hard time seeing how we should give equal study time to the "poison dart" as we give to Homer or Plato.

Egalitarians, however, reject this idea of cultural superiority. They argue that since no culture is better or worse than any other (at the same time they seem to insist that the West is flat out evil), then, highly sophisticated major influencer's of our modern culture are no more deserving of text book space than the obscure primitive minority based ones.

Egalitarians Are Relativists

Egalitarians in this sense claim an ethic of relativism. In other words they don't believe in good or bad. This is especially confusing when only a moment ago we caught them saying how "evil" elitists are.

Almost across the entire spectrum of educational fields Egalitarians want greater amounts of time to study less relevant societies, stories, and ideas simply because they are non-European. Egalitarians seem to have an aversion to making value judgements on every level except when it comes to our European based Ancestry.

Are You Self-Assured Enough To Accept Your Elitist Side?

When you start making judgements about which books to read and which ideas are the most valuable, watch out, somebody might call you an Elitist. Even if you are on the fence regarding the nurturing of the extra ordinary members of society, you have already rejected a major precept of Egalitarianism (a notion of good and bad). Maybe then you will know that you are at least a little more Elitist than you had realized.