Intellectuals, Elitists, and Public Discourse

Elitists
In Intellectuals, I tried to discuss what aspects contribute to an individual being considered an intellectual both in their own specific area of expertise, but also more generally in society.  Those who believe another an intellectual think that person contributes invaluably to matters relating to that expertise and generally has a strengthening effect on whatever group they're a part of.  If enough people in broader society agree, the intellectual has either in some way affected society's opinion or is particularly good at articulating an already held idea.  Elitists, as a conceptualization, would be the nemesis of this ideal.  It's not that they cannot make points or even can think for themselves, but that they are somehow disingenuous, illegitimate or condescending.

As part of demonstrating where those on the other side are coming from with their rhetoric, Dominick played a soundbite of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell laying into President Obama for being anti-capitalist, anti-success and a litany of other accusations.  Pete was almost at a loss for words, saying he didn't know how to even respond to it and didn't know where it was coming from.

Before I get too much into the meat of the post, a couple observations which can also be found, and perhaps better articulated, on the Wikipedia page on Elitism.  A person considered to be elite is someone to be considered at the forefront or top of their field, for our purposes perhaps even an intellectual.  From the perspective of government or business policy, it stands to reason these people would be desirable, even critical to have input on the discourse surrounding these policies' development and implementation.  While a representative system of government is built to provide equal weighting of individual citizens' on voting and, through that, the laws and regulations of society, there's always been the well-founded idea that those who have the most working and/or intellectual knowledge of certain areas have a highlighted, amplified voice.  In a similar vein would be those people most directly affected by the discussion at-hand.  This isn't necessarily in conflict with the ideas of democracy, especially in accompaniment with a capitalist economic system which values and rewards the achievements and merits of the individual, but recognizing this balance is critical in making sure one principle doesn't outweigh the other.

This takes me to the other popular use of the term elite, along with it the derivative terms such as elitist and elitism.  I'm no scholar, though these terms are thrown about nearly exclusively in a derisive, scornful manner as a means of identifying someone who is not to be trusted, regardless the content of their opinion though it's very common for the insult to be directed at someone with an opposing viewpoint.  This is often because the speaker considers the accused elitist to be of some isolated and entitled, unworthy group which has self-identified itself and like-minds as the supposed masters of valid, serious perspectives in a given area of debate.  Religious leaders are moral elitists, judging from on high based on archaic documents with outdated notions of right and wrong written by flawed human beings with their own prejudice; academic elitists are wonks with no real-world experience in the matters they presume to speak; Hollywood and media elites feel they ought to have a weighted voice on any topic simply because they're already on the public stage for some superficial reason like they're attractive or can sing well or did an article this one time at that one paper about an actual expert.  These elitists also may have such characteristics as being duplicitous, racist, sexist, classist, statist, or some other type of disqualifying inner motivation which isn't stated by the elitists, themselves.  It sometimes seems as though if we were to take all of the accusations of elitism to be truth, there'd be no one left to give an opinion.

Less frequently there are accusations of elitism within shared opinions because of a pedantically expressed opinion.  The economist Paul Krugman, near-universally thought of as an elitist by those of a conservative stripe, is generally held in high regard by liberals/progressives for his perspective and insight.  However, he upset some readers of his in a comment section concerning the Occupy movement.  He made a post stating(paraphrased) that it was really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to come up with the things that are implemented in law, and that the things the movement want are clear enough.  This lead to some degree of outcry among people who might otherwise agree with him because of an understandably wounded pride that, essentially, the concrete actions taken by government should be handled by the adults and intelligent people who've spent perhaps years immersing themselves in the minutia of their respective expertise.  Defenders might say how can we be sure those people upset with him were even supporters of his upset at his style and were not, in fact, conservatives.  Regardless what label or ideology those offended attach to themselves, however, it speaks again to the frustration that a great many people feel on any given issue.  We are not all economists, but we all have an interest in the outcome economic policies produce.  We're not all military tacticians or experts in diplomacy, but the vast majority of people who end up spilling their blood in war or espionage aren't either.  There'll always be those who disagree or feel slighted by the outcome of public discourse, but in pursuit of encouraging an engaged and active electorate, those having spent their lives achieving merit in their field owe it to their own knowledge to do as much as possible to 'sell' their idea to the great audience of the world.  To ignore this, or worse, scorn needing to explain things in simpler or more identifiable language is to frustrate and enrage people who live in societies where the virtue of one person, one vote and the power of the common person is heralded as the paramount form of government.  Metaphors, talking points and personal anecdotes are powerful specifically because of this.  They allow complex issues to be articulated in a way much more readily identifiable to the people who ultimately, through nominations and elections, are those who legitimately operate the levers of public policy.

In summary, the pejorative 'elitist' could be applied to nearly any person asserting their opinion because another considers their input flawed in some way.  It behooves the accused to reconsider, reword, or otherwise try a different manner of communicating their idea.  Otherwise, they risk becoming a caricature who will do more harm than good to their own perspective.

Intellectuals, Elitists, and Public Discourse

This is the first of three entries on related concepts.


Intellectuals
After a discussion he had with Noam Chomsky, Pete Dominick(on his Sirius/XM program Stand Up!) wondered aloud and discussed with his producer why intellectuals aren't given the platform they once were, and much of the discussion revolved around the anti-intellectualism, cynical political framing of issues, and people being distracted and uncaring toward matters of politics.  I sent a couple tweets on the matter, among them "Chomsky and other intellectuals are not palatable because, in part, that inability to 'talk to the level' of the audience." and "It's not talking down inherently, but can easily come across as exactly that.".

To elaborate, I'm saying that for someone to be considered an intellectual by at-large society, they must not only be considered a luminary of the tighter community of their own background or chosen pursuit, but by the actual at-large community.  For this to occur, the person must be more than intelligent.  Their points and perspective must be coherently perceived by more than those people already in agreement.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a person who I would feel safe saying most people who recognize his name would say he is an intellectual, and if they know his field would also consider him a relatively trustworthy source of information and opinion on matters relating to, at least, his field and in some cases more than that.  To be fair, Tyson's field of expertise is generally one that doesn't lend itself easily to liberal vs conservative stereotypes, but much more important is his ability to communicate and connect with people.  He is enthusiastic and friendly, unoffended but assertive, he motions with his hands and is animated in his body language.  He also tends to not get caught up in necessarily using complicated words.  This is not to say he dumbs things down, or doesn't use large words or get into minutia for a point he is making, but in general I think his language, which is easy to understand and relate to, and his favorable disposition both contribute to people liking him and respecting him.  Is he the most knowledgeable person in his field?  Tyson would probably not say say so, anyway.  But that matters little in the broader perception and public acknowledgment of the points he makes and issues he weighs in on, because he is the person more people identify credibility with.  He might make arguments from more cerebral people and those arguments are bolstered from his style of communication.

Compare this with Chomsky:  Granted, much of what he addresses is political and also his target audience are people who've read his books or are otherwise already familiar with his perspectives.  He is cerebral, perhaps overly thoughtful for his energy, and does tend to also use a wide vocabulary and even jargon which the average listener or viewer or audience member, unless already familiar with the concepts he speaks of, isn't going to easily follow.  This isn't an altogether bad trait, as it can engender a better informed specific community in which he is held in high regard.  However, I don't think Chomsky is as effective as he could be or  held in as high a regard in broader society as he could be, and what has become the popularized way for public policy to be discussed in the media where aggressiveness and argument-oriented wittiness are the prized manner of discourse.

In summary, all of this isn't to say style and medium should overwhelm the content of the idea a person is attempting to convey.  Rather, they must both exist for the other to matter.  Good ideas only rise to the top when people are able to understand and effectively spread it to others. Further, perhaps as much as ever, our attention spans and programming demand an engaging and entertaining experience.  So if the leaders and spokespeople are not the best at not only energizing their own adherents, it only serves the best interest of the organization, the ideology, and ideally the public interest for there to be followers or like-minds to attempt to make an argument for the same thing but in a different way, to avoid misunderstandings and fundamentally just contribute another voice to the public discourse.

*Edited on 8/4/12 for better clarity