As we have inevitably noticed, the elite concept has been booming in the last few months. Before it will have exceeded its trendy half-life, the author likes to seize the opportunity to give some irrelevant thought to the semantic traps of this celebrated notion.
Since the beginning of time, May 8th 1945, to be more precise, Germany has had some difficulties in classifying citizens regarding their influence (foreigners or recent immigrants count for nothing, of course, since they cannot speak German they are autoatically inferior). And this is for two reasons: Firstly the concept somehow implies the selection procedure. We are about to imagine bored people in uniforms distinguishing two groups of newly arrived people at the loading ramp. Secondly since the 1970s it has become additionally out of fashion, for no potential member of the chosen ones wanted to qualify as a target for terrorist assassinations. From that point of view any elite will be well advised not to behave like that. The media have realized that for a long time, subdividing celebrities into A, B and C categories; while A does not have to stand for media attention, C must tackle the problem of how to make its lost self-esteem palatable to disgusted tabloid journalists. These two reasons bilaterally put the screws on the concept of elite. Which makes the problem right now all the more virulent when it comes to supporting elites appropriately. Again we are faced wit a highly paradoxical construction, for who is entitled to count whom as the elite? If we think it over, we can distinguish two constellations.
#1: The existing elite calls itself elite. Revolutionary assassinations apart, this involves great difficulties because this clientele cannot completely dispel the heretic suspicion it is only interested in its own profit. That is the way it is - lining each other up with monetary awards and lobby positions. Common good is a camouflage for selfish profit. And dog does not eat dog. So credibility is missing, because we might doubt the elitist intercessor's sincerity.
#2: Selecting an elite is an outsider's duty. Which again raises the question of competent assessment. How can I be sure who the elite is and to be treated that way if I do not belong to it, that is if I have no idea if the so-called elite actually is the elite? So credibility is missing, because we might doubt the non-elitist intercessor's factual competence.
In other words, elite is a phantom. As long as things work, no thought is squandered about it. As soon as things go wrong, it will be hectically watched out for - to hardly any avail, since the potential elite will only lament its tied hands.
Most interesting is the political elite's behaviour; probably thanks to expensive opinion research it has noticed a certain dissatisfaction with its performance and is now trying to lead the movement demanding elite support. In doing so, the politicians have turned a disadvantage into an advantage, sneaking out of focus. They ingratiate themselves as a kind of instantaneous water heater for supporting elites and save their position. After all, politics rids itself of tackling problems elites are entitled to solve by calling for elite itself.
Our hectic debate neglects what elite support really aims at. After all, elite support is an ambiguous term, as can be affirmed by the declining elite of the classical educated by use of the pair genetivus subiectivus and genetivus obiectivus; elite supports either means supporting an existent or a developing elite. In the first case the problem is to define an elite extensionally, in the second one to characterize it intensionally. Case no. 2 is more complicated, because we would have to decide what qualities are most useful for society and deserve to be supported sustainedly. Heaven forbid! It is much easier to enter the familiar battlefield for research budget and haggle about per cents instead of objectives. This is because the very principle of elite us self-contradictory; on the one hand it is meant to characterize a group of people who is a minority (thus detaching itself from the majority), on the other it is inteded to display qualities which are in keeping with the interest of the entire population. Elites are the primi inter pares. Furthermore (and her lies the biggest problem) they are meant to form a special but not an exclusive group. Otherwise social promotion prospects on the way up into would be impossible. But they must be possible if values such as achievement orientation and education are meant to be based socially. And this is the only way for elites to legitimate themselves - strictly theoretically speaking, of course. Talking about pinstripe suited washouts or the football players' or civil servants' working morale clearly hint at that crisis of legitimation only the elites' behaviour can alleviate and not their permanent crying for support. Once again, the best example is set by common language use: elitist behaviour just does not mean the elite's behaviour but simply the arrogance the incompetent people with useful contacts display.
Since the beginning of time, May 8th 1945, to be more precise, Germany has had some difficulties in classifying citizens regarding their influence (foreigners or recent immigrants count for nothing, of course, since they cannot speak German they are autoatically inferior). And this is for two reasons: Firstly the concept somehow implies the selection procedure. We are about to imagine bored people in uniforms distinguishing two groups of newly arrived people at the loading ramp. Secondly since the 1970s it has become additionally out of fashion, for no potential member of the chosen ones wanted to qualify as a target for terrorist assassinations. From that point of view any elite will be well advised not to behave like that. The media have realized that for a long time, subdividing celebrities into A, B and C categories; while A does not have to stand for media attention, C must tackle the problem of how to make its lost self-esteem palatable to disgusted tabloid journalists. These two reasons bilaterally put the screws on the concept of elite. Which makes the problem right now all the more virulent when it comes to supporting elites appropriately. Again we are faced wit a highly paradoxical construction, for who is entitled to count whom as the elite? If we think it over, we can distinguish two constellations.
#1: The existing elite calls itself elite. Revolutionary assassinations apart, this involves great difficulties because this clientele cannot completely dispel the heretic suspicion it is only interested in its own profit. That is the way it is - lining each other up with monetary awards and lobby positions. Common good is a camouflage for selfish profit. And dog does not eat dog. So credibility is missing, because we might doubt the elitist intercessor's sincerity.
#2: Selecting an elite is an outsider's duty. Which again raises the question of competent assessment. How can I be sure who the elite is and to be treated that way if I do not belong to it, that is if I have no idea if the so-called elite actually is the elite? So credibility is missing, because we might doubt the non-elitist intercessor's factual competence.
In other words, elite is a phantom. As long as things work, no thought is squandered about it. As soon as things go wrong, it will be hectically watched out for - to hardly any avail, since the potential elite will only lament its tied hands.
Most interesting is the political elite's behaviour; probably thanks to expensive opinion research it has noticed a certain dissatisfaction with its performance and is now trying to lead the movement demanding elite support. In doing so, the politicians have turned a disadvantage into an advantage, sneaking out of focus. They ingratiate themselves as a kind of instantaneous water heater for supporting elites and save their position. After all, politics rids itself of tackling problems elites are entitled to solve by calling for elite itself.
Our hectic debate neglects what elite support really aims at. After all, elite support is an ambiguous term, as can be affirmed by the declining elite of the classical educated by use of the pair genetivus subiectivus and genetivus obiectivus; elite supports either means supporting an existent or a developing elite. In the first case the problem is to define an elite extensionally, in the second one to characterize it intensionally. Case no. 2 is more complicated, because we would have to decide what qualities are most useful for society and deserve to be supported sustainedly. Heaven forbid! It is much easier to enter the familiar battlefield for research budget and haggle about per cents instead of objectives. This is because the very principle of elite us self-contradictory; on the one hand it is meant to characterize a group of people who is a minority (thus detaching itself from the majority), on the other it is inteded to display qualities which are in keeping with the interest of the entire population. Elites are the primi inter pares. Furthermore (and her lies the biggest problem) they are meant to form a special but not an exclusive group. Otherwise social promotion prospects on the way up into would be impossible. But they must be possible if values such as achievement orientation and education are meant to be based socially. And this is the only way for elites to legitimate themselves - strictly theoretically speaking, of course. Talking about pinstripe suited washouts or the football players' or civil servants' working morale clearly hint at that crisis of legitimation only the elites' behaviour can alleviate and not their permanent crying for support. Once again, the best example is set by common language use: elitist behaviour just does not mean the elite's behaviour but simply the arrogance the incompetent people with useful contacts display.
No comments:
Post a Comment