Talk:Elitism: Difference between revisions

Philosophy: Ethics Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics

Politics Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Sociology Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Why do you refuse to discuss your edits,and instead claim I am the "North Carolina" vandal and "Remington and the Rattlesnakes"? I will not tolerate this from the Wikiquinns. I know Remington, but he is too low-class to be my friend, although we are both involved in this stupid dispute.

Jake Remington

I think the main definition provided in the first section needs to be re-written to place the questions of "Who rules?" and "Who should rule?" at the beginning rather than at the end. This is, IMO, more congruent with accepted primary definitions such as "leadership or rule by an elite." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elitism

Elitism is an ideology or element of an ideology that claims a subgroup of persons *ought* to have Power. That is not the same as granting a person or persons more "weight" or taking their POV more "seriously" than those of others.

The current definition on Wikipedia, by de-emphasizing the question of political power, redefines elitism into a question of culture or simple meritocracy. This obfuscates the question because elitism is about power and privilege.

It isn't mere fitness or acceptance of variation in skills that makes a mode of relationships elitist. Elitism involves a pivotal claim: that fitness confers different legitimate powers or rights on different people.

A simple example might illustrate this: If three housemates decide that one with direct experience as a plumber should fix the plumbing, should we conclude that these three have acted in a manner that is elitist? The answer is 'no'. No exchange of power (or "rights") has occurred. All three retain their right to change their mind at any time. It would be elitist if the plumber among the three claimed that the other two have no right to interfere with his intent to fix the plumbing OR if the plumber insisted that he should pay less rent because he's the best plumber. Sphlalle (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is being an expert (+ claiming to be an expert) elitist? This article seems to imply this. If anti-elitism is indeed such a strong stance then I think we also need to include it's critique (e.g. for discrimination against experts). I may get to fixing it in the next few years or so. --Wikiloop (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or does the article assume that meritocracy is by default elitism? The whole thing is really confusing me. --Wikiloop (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meritocracy does not imply that those elevated to positions where they may rule or direct actions by virtue of their merit necessarily enjoy a more privileged lifestyle. Elitism implies that any member of an elite is entitled to a more privileged lifestyle. That's my understanding. 77.101.47.254 (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The connection to politics could be easily exemplified by a discussion of the U.S. Founding Fathers as elitists, with the blatant evidence of the creation of the Electoral College. Here's a reference article: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2015/jul/02/founding-fathers-ordinary-folk/ And another from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leon-friedman/why-do-we-have-the-electo_b_12885468.html:

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No 68, explained that the “immediate election [of the President] should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station.” We cannot trust the decision to the people themselves. Rather, a “small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”

Can someone expound on or better cite the reference to "meritocracy" being a policy favored by Elitists? It would seem most forms of "merit" would be antithetical to "elitism" which, at least in the perjorative is usually meant to be unmerited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.74.47 (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meritocracy is not antithetical to elitism, and both can happily coexist when the elite has captured the mechanisms for determining merit. The belief that they are antithetical is, however, a very good way to prevent any effort to prevent the elite from doing so, or to remedy once it has occurred...and, of course, quiet any troubling thoughts on their part. After all, they're not elitists, they just happen to have ensured that only the right people (who merely happen to be members of their group) can gain access. Werhdnt (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elitism is the belief in a 'best' who should rule. Meritocracy also is about the 'best' ruling; the best doctors ruling medicine, the best engineers ruling engineering, the best surveyors ruling surveying, all setting the standard for entry and acceptance. But today our politics are increasingly influenced by "prizes for all", which reflexively abhores hierarchy and so flees any suggestion of 'elitism' - not least in denying that the label applies to things important to them (special pleading). LeapUK (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In it's primary connotation "Elitism" is not a thing like Marxism, or Catholicism, it's an aspersion, a fault charged to some person, institution, etc. The first question is always "is it a thing and what thing is it?". Secondarily it is a concept associated with simple superlatives for some group attribute, e.g. Elite X where there is a conscious attempt to form a group based on some excellence. With these core conceptual corrections the redact should be straightforward if tedious. The current content appears to be a confabulation from folk perceptions. If it were a thing though, as depicted, it's opposite would be egalitarianism, so that apposition ought to stay. Lycurgus (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if this seems too much like something that should be written on a chat page, but I simply fail to understand how there is a difference between the two, and cannot help but wonder if the two actually warrant separate articles DJK (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Elitism' also refers to situations in which an individual assumes special 'privileges' and responsibilities in the hope that this arrangement will benefit humanity or themselves.

Even in an article already flagged for lacking citations, eventually one reaches the breaking point. Sentence removed. — MaxEnt 18:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "synth" flag couldn't be more true.

What needs to happen, I suspect, is that the first half of the lead needs to begin "In sociology, elitism is ..." followed by some stiff academic credos, and then the second half of the lead needs to begin "In contemporary culture, elitism is ..." and then we can on with carving the east coast Kennedys and the west coast Zuckerbergs a new one (don't be fooled by deep south W's cowboy boots—it's a trap!) — MaxEnt 19:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a third "in politics" definition might not hurt: any form of government of the many by the few is implicitly elitist. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's conception of the selectorate is surely worth a lead mention. And maybe also a fourth definition "in celebrity culture" covering actors, artists, musicians, athletes, and impresarios. Turns out, there's an elite wherever an itch is scratched. — MaxEnt 19:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the lead sentence should be brief, which it is not in the current state and may be confusing. The oxford dictionary definition seems to serve a better starting point and perhaps the lead can be summarized as such. Otherwise it just seems like another long sentence with no citation Princeton wu (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At present, there is a section on anti-elitism in the article, and Anti-elitism exists as a redirect to that section. The purpose of this redirect is currently being discussed by the Wikipedia community. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this redirect's entry on the Redirects for discussion page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word elite is an obvious adjective. When I was young it would only be used to modify nouns, for example, Mark Spitz is an elite athlete. Since then, the spelling of the word itself has been borrowed and modified by simply placing an 'ist' or 'ism'. The origins of this new noun are entirely political in nature and it is used as a pejorative noun. It's purpose is for the listener to mentally group large numbers of people together, (whether they actually exist or not) to bond with the speaker and have a common enemy to target for the members of the real group (the ones conversing).

Members of all political parties and special interests do this and it creates conflict. Over use of these adjective->to->noun words promotes political escalation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3D1:1990:C08C:2308:38CF:B33D (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1702:3d1:1990:c08c:2308:38cf:b33d claimed "It is a new word created by borrowing the adjective 'elite', and modified into a noun by the right to mask their own 'racial heirarchialism'."[1]

Merriam-Webster says that the word "Elitism" dates from 1947, and meant "leadership or rule by an elite".

Merriam-Webster says that the word "Elite" as a noun dates from 1823, and as an adjective dates from 1808.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a section devoted to how the world has and is becoming more and more elitist (housing crisis, class disparity, etc.).