Manifesto of Elitism Mailing List

From: Luke Fletcher <lfletch@u.washington.edu>
Date: 25 Jul 1995 08:20:50 GMT
Organization: University of Washington


MANIFESTO of the ELITISM MAILING LIST
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Elitism is the understanding that there is a wide range in human abilities, and
that for a society to be efficiently managed, it must take this into account.

Have you ever wondered why network television is such crap?  Or why the mass
media wallows in irrelevant, pandering tripe?  Does the very thought that the
OJ Simpson Trial is being headlined as the "Trial of the Century" make you want
to wretch?  (Scopes, or say, Roe vs. Wade were of minor historical significance
it seems.)  What about talk shows?  Do you look at the people and topics on any
one of these moronic "discussion groups" and stifle a laugh?

But maybe you can't get worked up about network television, because it merely
demonstrates that people are stupid, and you knew that.  But politics is
another matter.  It directly affects your life.  Are you frustrated and turned
off by the attention lavished on issues that are of trivial importance, but can
be grasped by a five-year-old?  And do you pine for the days of the
Lincoln-Douglas debate, back when the political battlefield was the clashing of
ideology rather than ritualized name calling?

Many people do.  Unfortunately, most of these same people blame the politicians
for the American political joke, and the decision-makers in the media for the
American mass media joke.  The default reaction to a social problem that does
or does not exist in a given institution is to blame those on top.  If a
corporation is doing badly, fire the CEO.  If the economy suffers, elect
another president.  This seems only natural.  Heaven forbid that the problem
lies with anyone else, such as the American people.  We're all victims.  It's
the rich guy, the powerful guy, the guy who is more successful in life than I
am who is to blame.

If only life were so simple.  It is convenient to overlook that we live in a
political democracy, and more importantly, an economic democracy.  By virtue of
the vote, the masses determine who is elected.  By virtue of the poll, the
masses determine how the elected vote.  By virtue of the pocketbook, the masses
determine what's on TV.  The power structures are such that presidents have
become figure-heads, and CEO's scapegoats.  They must obey the demands of their
constituency.

The idea of the tyranny of the masses has fallen out of fashion, not fact.  And
the masses are hegemonizing.

Luckily, not all people are members of the masses.  Everyone is different, with
a unique genome and unique personal experiences, thus seemingly invalidating
the term.  But that doesn't mean people cannot be lumped together.  Just as a
big chunk of a population has blue eyes, a big chunk likes to watch Geraldo and
knows the names of only those countries America has invaded in the last few
dozen years.  For brevity, these are called the masses.

And then there are those whose IQ is far above 100 -- who manage to 
intellectually transcend their environment, and who possess an intense 
awareness of being.  A generalization would be to call these people 
"elite."  Again, this is only arbitrary lumping.  There is no gene for 
elitism.

If you spot someone who may be considered elite, don't label them thus.  
That would be calling them names, thanks to the recent rise to 
meme-dominance of the philosophy that blushes at the concept of 
differences in ability -- egalitarianism.  Egalitarianism is the antithesis of
elitism.  It assumes not only that people are entitled to equal protection
under the law, but that people have equal "worth" to society.  Therefore
perceived differences must be circumstantial.

The buzzwords of egalitarianism are political correctness, victimization,
multi-culturalism, and affirmative action, words so common that it is difficult
to remember how new they are.  Political correctness shuns the use of that
handy tool, the generalization.  "Popular culture is, as a whole, worthless
excrement.  Asian Americans tend to fare better than African Americans."  This
is because African Americans are "victimized" by the racial oppression of the
elites of society.  (How else to explain, when everyone is pretty much the
same?)  Multi-culturalism says every culture has the same worth and deserves
equal attention.  (Makes sense if everyone is the same.)  And affirmative
action says if we can't force everyone to start the race together, we should
force them to finish together.  (Why?  You guessed it, differences are
society's fault, because people are pretty much the same.)

We no longer have winners and losers, but exploiters and victims.  This has
historically always been the view of the "losers," and in the past there were
good arguments for it -- racial suppression, economic suppression, etc.  Today
this line of thought is much sketchier, because almost all of the institutional
vehicles of oppression have vanished, thanks in part to the sympathies of the
"winners."  These sympathies didn't die with the oppression, however.  Perhaps
because the baby boom generation spent much of its impressionable collective
childhood actively taking part in the dismantling of oppressive institutions,
they still see the "losers" as victims. 

This extreme view of human nature is unique to our time.  In the past, the
elite acted as a counter-weight of opinion to the masses, always reminding
society of their "betters."  However condescending that may have been, at least
it prevented the strangle-hold of extreme egalitarianism.  Now even the elite
have succumbed to the we're-all-one-big-happy-family views of egalitarianism,
effectively putting an end to public debate on the issue.

Let's restart the debate.  Extreme egalitarianism not only flies in the face of
common sense observations of human differences, but it is destructive to
society because it does not take advantage of the gifts of our most gifted.
Its natural counter-weight is elitism.  Instead of blindly accepting elitism as
a dirty word, (try for yourself to find even one popular reference that doesn't
use it as slander) think about the pros and cons of both philosophies, and make
your own decision.
 
*****

If you think American society needs a splash of elitism to balance out
egalitarianism, consider yourself intellectually elite (say, 95th percentile on
an admittedly oversimplifying intelligence test), and would like to discuss
elitism with other like-minded people, then you may wish to join the Elitism
Mailing List.  Just send mail to:

listproc@u.washington.edu (mailto:listproc@u.washington.edu)

with the words "subscribe elitism [your name]" in the subject.

It is currently unmoderated.  This will change if the need arises.

*****

Official Charter of the Elitism Mailing List

The purpose of this mailing list is to act as the medium for an intelligent
discourse on the virtues of intellectual elitism, and its decline as a
respectable philosophy in contemporary American culture.

==============================================================================
                                Luke Fletcher              
                           lfletch@u.washington.edu        
                    http://weber.u.washington.edu/~lfletch