by liberal japonicus
One of the podcasts I listen to is The rest is politics, which has Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart talking about various UK and world politics. They each have interesting backstories, and are personable enough to listen to, though I don’t think they are really cognizant their actual membership in the ‘elite’. A recent podcast interview with Gary Stevenson had Stevenson point out that the bulk of economists are also part of the elite while Stewart insisting that Oxford professors are not getting rich. I do think Stevenson tends to overplay his working class roots (and accent) but I think it is hard for Rory Stewart to understand that he is also part of that elite. While the reasons I’ve not become a ‘Trip+ member’ aren’t some sort of protest at Ancien Régime, I felt I was on the right track when I heard this sponsorship. The youtube video is (I hope) teed up to the spot.
Jesus fugging Christ. If it is so earth-shattering, why does Google need to convince everyone that AI goes well with trade unions?
I think one of the great (and often overlooked) issues in this kind of discussion is: What is your definition of “elite”? Is it how much money you have (regardless of whether you earned it, inherited it, or maybe won the lottery)? Is it how much you make (whether you hang on to it or not)? Or is it how much education you have (regardless of whether you actually use anything you learned)? Or maybe something else?
Granted there is some correlation among the first three. But they are certainly far from identical. And yet anytime the term comes up in discussion, everybody seems to assume that everybody else is working from the same definition. Or should be.
And that is at the root of any suggestion that someone doesn’t recognize their own membership in “the elite.”. Almost certainly the other person is coming from a different definition of the term. Under their definition, they might well be correct.
That’s how an Oxford professor can believe that he isn’t a member of the elite — he doesn’t make enough. While someone who uses the level of education as the governing criteria will think that of course he is part of the elite. Different definitions.
P.S. It belatedly occurs to me that the converse also applies. Some people consider themselves part of the elite. While lots of others strongly disagree. (Only consider the term nouveau-riche.) Again, different definitions.
Though he seems to have some opinions that I might agree with, I refuse to listen to or read Campbell because of his role in the Iraq war and his lack of contrition and insight since. To put it bluntly, he’s just an arrogant f@ck who can get away with anything and still be a member of the media/political elite. Like Blair.
In fact, that might one good definition of elite: you just stay at the top whatever you do.
It’s almost tragic to see how Campbell seems to be incapable of understanding that the problems we face now regarding a post-truth public have their root in the handling of the Iraq war by the US/UK.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WEzvesJUAuc
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-Bxs-dmb9nY
Speaking of Blair, this New Statesman podcast is eyeopening
https://youtu.be/QwCsQYUFuEE?si=Jjf_FCPYomnP5TQM
I think wj is absolutely right, nobody using the word knows what definition of “elite” anybody else uses. In the case of Rory Stewart, it can be quite hard to imagine how he wouldn’t know he was part of “the elite”, having been educated (as he was) at Eton and Balliol. It is of course a point in his favour that he only attended one meeting of the Bullingdon Club having realised how appalling their prevailing behaviour was, but on the other hand I believe they make a bit of a fetish of only selecting the “right kind” of members, which would mark you out as being a member of what many people (like Etonians for example) understand “the elite” to be. The only thing that would perhaps make sense is that he imagines the elite to be about money: he is right when he says that Oxford professors are not what most people these days consider “rich”. Of course, before they started the immensely popular podcast, neither was he, although I believe he and Campbell are now!
I sympathise with novakant’s view of Campbell, it took me a long time to get over his behaviour on Iraq etc. And I have never forgotten how he stormed onto the C4 News, with no notice, and tried to browbeat Jon Snow about the Dodgy Dossier. Watching it again makes me very much miss the calibre of those kinds of journalists (JS, not AC).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBWE7QzADe8
This seems exactly right to me. Thanks for this, it crystalizes a lot of things in my thinking.
And it has the huge merit that it will classify as elite a whole bunch of people that today’s self-important elitists will be horrified to be classed with.
“Elite”, like “Woke”, is a purposefully hazily defined word. Like woke, its used to denigrate a class of people as Them, the Problem. To obscure, rather than enlighten.
Elite does have a real definition, but its so broad as to be pretty useless. Its a sub-group of people with exceptional skill in some endeavor, but the usual meaning is a class of people with some combination of exceptional wealth, privilege, and status. Power is assumed in any combination. In this definition there is no single Elite, but the use of the word always implies it, because the point is to accuse The Elite of abusing their power for their benefit and the detriment of The Rest Of Us, the common clay of the West. Whether its a Harvard professor brainwashing midwestern students, movie stars sticking their noses where they don’t belong, or a billionaire doing billionaire things, the Elite are shoving things down our collective throat.
Actual elites have power, whether through politics, wealth, or celebrity, though the 3 naturally go together. The people who can directly affect our lives from a distance, who convince us who we should trust and believe. The people we look up to, because we want to or we have to.