The growing insularity of elites means, among other things, that political ideologies lose touch with the concerns of ordinary citizens. Since political debate is restricted, most of the time, to the "talking classes," as they have been aptly characterized, it becomes increasingly ingrown and formulaic. Ideas circulate and recirculate in the form of buzzwords and conditioned reflex. The old dispute between left and right has exhausted its capacity to clarify issues and to provide a reliable map of reality. In some quarters the very idea of reality has come into question, perhaps because the talking classes inhabit an artificial world in which simulations of reality replace the thing itself.
Both left- and right-wing ideologies, in any case, are now so rigid that new ideas make little impression on their adherents. The faithful, having sealed themselves off from arguments and events that might call their own convictions into question, no longer attempt to engage their adversaries in debate. Their reading consists for the most part of works written from a point of view identical with their own. Instead of engaging unfamiliar arguments, they are content to classify them as either orthodox or heretical. The exposure of ideological deviation, on both sides, absorbs energy that might better be invested in self-criticism, the waning capacity for which is the surest sign of a waning intellectual tradition.
The previous two paragraphs are from Christopher Lasch's The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. The book was published in 1995, but the words had to have been written in 1993 or 1994, since he died in February of the latter year. This is stunning. Everything he saw then, it seems, has come into even sharper focus since. The biggest change is probably that the chattering classes are no longer satisfied to live in an artificial world themselves, but actively denigrate the lower orders who fail or refuse to join them.
One long-term change that Lasch details is the replacement of an aristocratic elite with a meritocratic one. Of course no one--at least almost no one--likes having an aristocracy around, so meritocrats who've earned their place sound like an improvement. One problem with this is that realistically not everyone can rise to the top, so hard limits are still drawn around the classes. Another is that meritocratic elites fully believe that their own superior skills and efforts are responsible for their high placement in life. That belief doesn't encourage the sense of noblesse oblige that sometimes accompanied the old aristocrats. It may, in fact, encourage them to exclude themselves from rules they make for others.
In unrelated news, San Francisco's mayor really enjoyed that Tony! Toni! Toné! show.
2 comments:
christopher lasch was certainly on the money. afa 'the old dispute between left & right' is concerned, one comes to quickly understand that, as regards such fundamental concerns such as foreign policy & finance, 'neoconservatives' & 'neoliberals' are more like 2 sides of the same coin rather than actual opposing forces, whereas any 'ideological' differences end up feeling more like vapid shit-stirring/rabble-rousing or just out'n'out grifting rather than any kind of actual reflection of a genuine, deeply held set of beliefs. lastly, afa 'instead of engaging unfamiliar arguments, they are content to classify them as either orthodox or heretical', well, i'd say much, if not all, of this is simply predicated on the impossibility of 'defending the indefensible'. while the soaring rise of cancel culture has most certainly been radically expedited by the existence of the www, there's also, particularly as involves just about all things covid related, been a massive surge in what could be described as 'incoherence/irrationality as public policy'. such that a mayor of major american city can actually excuse herself from breaking her own rules by saying 'i was feeling the spirit and I wasn’t thinking about a mask' without acknowledging that this's exactly what everyone at ft. lauderdale & at sturgis was feeling, as well...
now, regarding them 'meritocratic elites', & your observation that 'not everyone can rise to the top', what's a somewhat unique defining element of the 'great pandemic of 2020-2021' (hopefully!) is that the initial 'flatten the curve' narrative gradually metamorphosed into what now looks like a psyop directed primarily at the same class of people as that of those who devised it. for the educated/professional/laptop class, there's been this 'appeal to the intellect approach', which's proven to be extraordinarily successful...
for instance, see this example from yesterday of how to scare the bejeezus out of the readership of the new york times: https://twitter.com/karenvaites/status/1440245846327447564
&, for the rest of us? well, - there's mandates! & passports! & (god help us all) scolding! because, well, we're just too damn stupid to understand how horrifying this is!...
it's a weird bit of business, & i can't really think of anything similar to it...
unless, of course, your talking about every woke-related issue that's ever been invented...
the great dilemma faced by the chattering classes at this point? their desperation/need for life in elysium (with a big assist from jeff 'you can have it all, delivered right to your door!' bezos) has led them to delude themselves into thinking they already live there. which continues to create some pretty shabby 'optics' for the rest of us...
A lot of it does seem to come down to aesthetics. The news is geared towards three basic consumer groups: "conservatives" with very little memory; the center/center-left faction, the ones most invested in the current administration and makeup of Congres; and "the Left", mostly youngish people who like to think they're not just Democrats but tend to act like that's exactly what they are. And in the realm of aesthetics it's the bad luck of Trump supporters to be associated in the public mind with clip-on ties and unfortunate tattoos. Since we're not talking about substance.
Another thing about politicians now is that they've been fully absorbed into celebrity culture. So while someone may draw a salary for being a mayor or governor or legislator, they market themselves as Instagram influencers, so that you're supposed to admire the lifestyle they promote and not fret about their connection or lack thereof to any given policy. Which is how London Breed can sass about not answering to "the fun police" when in fact she's the fun sheriff and the fun police work for her. Of course there have been encouraging failures in the system. Apparently New Yorkers weren't as charmed by Andrew and Chris Cuomo's Smothers Brothers act as they were supposed to be.
An appeal to the intellect, yes, but not so much the rational mind. Poorva is one of those "scientific" experts who probably does have a grounding in science but butters her bread by acting as a prophet, usually one of doom.
It's been revealed in the past couple of years that the upper classes by and large are not more rational than the great unwashed. They have different shibboleths, different superstitions, different taboos. You could argue over which set is better, but the elite beliefs are arbitrary when they're not self-serving.
Of course we've also seen how many people are willing to burn their credibility for a short-term boost in attention and status. Or maybe they don't realize that's what they're doing. The credibility part, I mean.
Post a Comment