|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
"Twilight of the Elites" is a book by Christopher Hayes that examines how the constituents of "the elite" have changed in recent history, compares the guiding philosophies of the two eras of elites, and offers insight into how and why the current "ruling class" have failed to be responsible custodians of society.
I think there are two camps that will pick up this book on their own volition. The first group is comprised of those who are understandably irate and outraged at the elites. They may be seeking to understand the situation they are placed in, but they are also looking to feel good about themselves by reading a book that generally lambastes the "1%".
The second group is comprised by the elites themselves: those that are aware that something isn't quite right in their fifedom, or those who are incredulous of this accusation. The book may be entertaining or insightful to the former group, but it is more important for the latter. After all, the elite are the ones who can most easily affect the way in which the elites behave; enough of them just have to start reconsidering some of their attitudes and actions.
I'd say that the book is definitely worth reading if you consider yourself to have even a remote possibility that you are part of the elite already, or even a budding elite. Making self-inquiry for the current set of elites difficult is the fact that more than ever, the elites of our generation don't consider themselves to be elites. I fall into this camp. But when examining my views, attitudes, and actions, it seems indisputable that I indeed fall within some spectrum of this "elite". If you were part of the culture of hyper competition in high school and college, if you are in a profession or institution that is looked up to by our society (whether it be a law firm, a bank, or an technology company), then I think the book is worth reading.
The following are excerpts from the book that I found particularly elucidating.
The meritocratic elite is more diverse than its predecessoras as racial minorities and women have been allowed into its institutions. And it places a greater value on high levels of educational attainment, advanced degrees, and professional schools. Where the Establishment emphasized hmility, prudence, and lineage, the meritocracy celebrates ambition, achievement, brains, and self-betterment.
So then: What makes the elite the elite?
"From the hour of their birth," Aristotle once observed, "some are marked for subjection and some for command." For nearly all of human history the former have vastly outnumbered the latter, and while modern democracy represents the single most durable challenge to this imuutable logic, our own history shows that democracy does not necessarily foreclose the possibility of rule by an elite.
So long as the franchise is granted to a small enough group of people, or the layers of representation between the masses and political leaders are sufficiontly attenuated and mediated by powerful interests, a democracy in name can still feature rule by the few over the many.
For generations, scholars and thinkers of both left and right who have taken to analyzing the elite have recognized that the most salient features of its members isn't their consumer preferences, aesthetic tastes, or some vague notion of "snobbishness," but rather their relatively small number, their power relative to the power of the wide swath of their fellow citizens, and their interconnectedness.
Societies whose upper class is marked by birth, title, and lineage do not tend to cultivate a voracious appetite for competition in the same way ours does. There is a certain security that comes from being at the top, but in a society of fractal inequality there is no top. There is always another height to which to ascend, more competitors to vanquish, more money to obtain. Which is why our elites display a destructive and combustible combination of egomania and entitlement on the one hand and insecurity on the other.
This means that we are cursed with an overclass convinced it is composed of scrappy underdogs, individuals who are obsessed with the relative disadvantages they may have faced rather than the privilege they enjoyed. It is remarkable how under siege and victimized even the most powerful members of society feel, how much they tout their own up-by-their-bootstraps story. In fact, a basic ritual associated with entrance into the circle of winners is constructing a personal story about how it was through grit, talent, and determination that you fought your way into it.
---
Crossposted from my blog
 
|
28084 Posts
Interesting blog yet again. I feel like I have been a part of a lot of elite things (certain athletic achievements and other stuff), but I don't feel particularly elite myself. Maybe this book will shed some light 
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On September 03 2013 13:52 TheEmulator wrote:Interesting blog yet again. I feel like I have been a part of a lot of elite things (certain athletic achievements and other stuff), but I don't feel particularly elite myself. Maybe this book will shed some light
the book specifically covers the social, political, and economic elite, but I think you might find the book interesting and thought provoking regardless.
|
I will try not to disparage a book I haven't read, but even though it seems interesting I can't bring myself to take seriously a topic which by its nature requires a simplistic and narrow view of the world. From your excerpts (I admit they may not be representative for the purpose) it seems like it didn't even settle on a definition of "elite". Is it more than just a loaded term and a button-pushing topic?
|
On September 03 2013 15:00 EatThePath wrote:
I will try not to disparage a book I haven't read, but even though it seems interesting I can't bring myself to take seriously a topic which by its nature requires a simplistic and narrow view of the world. From your excerpts (I admit they may not be representative for the purpose) it seems like it didn't even settle on a definition of "elite". Is it more than just a loaded term and a button-pushing topic?
yeah i was also asking myself if or when you ever will introduce people a decent book instead of the garbabe you force yourself into
|
The excerpts you present are very intriguing. For exemple it says : elites are scrappy underdogs, insecure beings. What in the world is that affirmation ? They have the power, thay aren't per definition underdogs and they might (rightfully so) be plagued by doubt and guilt but can't be qualified as insecure since their external persona is very well defined.
I am going to be a bit provocative and say that elites reading this book (that's apparently the target audience) aren't challenged, they are comforted in their own disbelief that they are victims of a supposed system when they actually are the main culprits - in this sense, the book is right.
All in all, I suppose the book is perhaps more consistent than the excerpts shown here but I fear it'll lack academic arguments.
|
I read that when it came out and found it excellent.
Two other books that contain some similar themes are of course C. Wright Mills' "The Power Elite" which I believe Hayes acknowledges as a major influence. It is a much more academic book than Hayes' but was nonetheless a minor bestseller in its day. It is kind of slow going as many of the details are quite dated - and of course the rigid establishment it describes is in many ways a part of the past.
The book that really brought much of this home for me was actually a very different sort, a sort of case study of elite incompetence. The book is David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest", which tells the story of the United States growing involvement in and commitment to the Vietnam war, throughout the Kennedy and Johnson administration, with a focus on how the very bright and competent staff of both presidents nonetheless made a series of disastrous decisions. Their undisputed intelligence was applied to all the wrong places, and all the wrong questions, and in the end served mainly as a shield against criticism which they in fact richly deserved.
As excellent as the material was, I was every bit as impressed by his prose style, which is far far better than one would expect from a journalist, even evoking Gibbon in places. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand more about how decision making really occurs in the US government, and how that decision making can be distorted by the sort of groupthink Hayes describes.
|
So here's an example person: professional and fairly wealthy parents, good education, about to start a professional and well-paid career (ie a research scientist/doctor/lawyer etc). Does this make the person a member of the 'elite'? If it does, then what does the author suggest that person should do?
Should they decide to give all their earnings back to the government, or should the government take it off them? Does the book propose a solution?
Not expecting a summary of the entire book, but it would be good just to know if the author has realistic proposals rather than just eloquence and anger in case I decide to read it.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On September 03 2013 13:00 thedeadhaji wrote:
I think there are two camps that will pick up this book on their own volition. The first group is comprised of those who are understandably irate and outraged at the elites. They may be seeking to understand the situation they are placed in, but they are also looking to feel good about themselves by reading a book that generally lambastes the "1%".
Hmm I seem to fit into neither camp, I'm not one of the elites, or expect to become one, nor particularly irate/outraged at them.
I'm just have an academic curiosity in the mechanics of the particular power dynamic. Surely I can't be the only one, in fact I would have thought this would be a larger group than the elite/prospective elite.
|
I hate it when I completely lose my reading comprehension abilities. I was under the impression the book included people like doctors and lawyers in the elite.
Or maybe it does. thedeadhaji includes people in prestigious fields as members of the elite. I hope the book isn't stating that people working in the more profitable fields are members of the elite. If that is the case, a more "grey" view is necessary. A book that fails to move beyond black and white is a book that should never have been written, penned by an author that should never have opened his mouth.
On another note, does the book cover the cost of financial security? Surprisingly, financial security is one of the more expensive things in the world. You can have several times the money of your average joe and yet still be too poor to know that you're ready for a rainy day (or year, as the recent recession taught us).
|
16957 Posts
On September 04 2013 00:19 Poetic[AoV] wrote:
So here's an example person: professional and fairly wealthy parents, good education, about to start a professional and well-paid career (ie a research scientist/doctor/lawyer etc). Does this make the person a member of the 'elite'? If it does, then what does the author suggest that person should do?
Should they decide to give all their earnings back to the government, or should the government take it off them? Does the book propose a solution?
Not expecting a summary of the entire book, but it would be good just to know if the author has realistic proposals rather than just eloquence and anger in case I decide to read it.
I wouldn't say this makes a person a member of the elite, but the upper middle class.
|
[disclaimer - i am tired after a long days work so forgive the lack of empirics and the typos. This is mostly a "what i think" post, not something that most of you will find compelling - thanks]
So here's the thing, every time I run into someone using the concept "the elite" or "the 1%" i have a hard time taking that person seriously because of how shoddy and imprecise this concept is. What do people mean when they refer to "the elite?"
The 1% is "easy:" the top 1% of earners. But even in this group, its not homogeneous. Yeah its majority white, yes, its a plurality of executives/managers, and yes its slightly more conservative than the general population. But its only 1/3 executives, its actually just as liberal as the general population, and its been educated in those institutions that those that rail against the 1% respect most highly(1). The 1% is extremely educated (duh) compared to the average person. Educated in the same highly liberal state and ivy league schools where a professor's marxist critique is more at home than the plain old conservative who comprises 40% of the population. They've been through the same education as you and me.And they are freaking busy. They run companies stereotypical, they don't have time for conspiracies to rob taxpayers and hold the nation hostage - and frankly, they don't need to. Really, I don't understand the outrage at the 1% as people. They generally are highly educated, high IQ overachievers that do insane amounts of work. So that leaves systematic theories for 1% oppression. Maybe they are part of the machine and don't know it.
On top of this, the top 1% of earners really can't be "the elite" in terms of political or cultural power. When i think of political and cultural power elites, i think people in the media, academics, artists, politicians, career bureaucrats at the top of their institutions, etc. That's a much wider group. 30% or so of the 1% are executives. They run the corporations in america. These 1 million people run a vast array of companies, some big, some small, some enormous. They make business decisions, set strategies and goals, allocate resources, employment policies, etc. Yet they work in many thousands of firms making business decisions based on market information and the drive for profit. To imagine some conspiracy between a million executives is absurd. So they control, in aggregate quite alot, but remember its many thousands of individual competing firms. They control much of america's employment and goods and services.* Yet, I suspect Paul Krugman and Larry Sumner have more impact than the CEO of the odd fortune 500 company in terms of determining the course of the country. Those in the media, in politics/the government, and in academia are also highly educated people. But this time they tend to be liberal and often have marxist or at least critical leanings. They control the levers of the state and popular (or at least elite) opinion. They came from the same schools we all came from. They were the journalist majors and the polisci majors that sat through the same critical race theories and the same post-capitalist classes we did/do. Yet somehow people believe those executives control them? laughable.
Now that we all agree the levers of power in america are spread broadly and a relatively diverse group, if too white and too highly educated,controls power, it really comes down to systematic explanations of oppression. And i know alot of people find marxist explanations to be powerful. But i find that they tend to be unmoored from empirics and unconcerned with reality. But hey, reasonable pluralism. But i just wish people could quit with the imprecise, amorphous conspiracy theories attesting to a plot by the 1% to steal america from the 99%. Its a cheap way out - lets you feel morally superior, and blame the problems in this country on a mythical set of people. OH and it often denies the hard problems that can't be easily fixed and the rationality and good faith of those that disagree.***
I know, i know, there's the whole 'money from business leaders in exchange for the levers of government.' At least that is plausible. There aren't THAT many people you'd have to buy off to get favorable bills passed, and we know lobbying happens and corporations/unions/etc think it works (otherwise why pay so much?). Here is where i radically depart from most people who find the 1% issue salient: I just don't see the evidence of malicious, unreasonable corporate dominance. Yeah at the margins corporations get some nice perks and some home field advantage shit. But mostly i see politicians responding to their constituents. Mostly i see people mad about pluralism.
*The power in any individual's hand in the business world is quite small in comparison to the many fewer people in gov't that control policy that affects the natuin. Frankly, the 1% controlling these business is a pretty diffuse class, especially considering pretty much anyone with access and the ability to succeed in school can make it into this class if they dedicate themselves**
** though of course many cannot do this. Poor inner city kids have a much harder time making it than a rich kid born with connection from parents. But they do, it happens. And the many, many middle class kids that make it aren't from a 1% background.
***ie - "american citizens are dumb and uninformed, that's why they disagree with me."
(1)http://www.gallup.com/poll/151310/u.s.-republican-not-conservative.aspx
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On September 04 2013 05:56 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
I hate it when I completely lose my reading comprehension abilities. I was under the impression the book included people like doctors and lawyers in the elite.
Or maybe it does. thedeadhaji includes people in prestigious fields as members of the elite. I hope the book isn't stating that people working in the more profitable fields are members of the elite. If that is the case, a more "grey" view is necessary. A book that fails to move beyond black and white is a book that should never have been written, penned by an author that should never have opened his mouth.
On another note, does the book cover the cost of financial security? Surprisingly, financial security is one of the more expensive things in the world. You can have several times the money of your average joe and yet still be too poor to know that you're ready for a rainy day (or year, as the recent recession taught us).
From what thedeadhaji posted of the book so far, I don't think the 'elite' is particularly defined by profession. It seems to be mostly about having disproportionately large amount of influence on the policy, the market, and social attitudes of whatever society they belong to.
So naturally it's going to be biased towards rich executives, politicians, religious leaders, and socially influential figures (celebrity and really famous scientists etc). Whereas as a general rule only includes small numbers of lawyers (eg district/state's attorney's who will have an easy pathway into politics later), doctors, scientists etc.
As I understand it, being a part of the elite is not so much about wealth, income, education etc, as about having influence. While those things are very conductive to having influence, you could theoretically be very wealthy, well educated and even respected, without being a part of the 'elite' if you choose to exert little or no influence over society/politics at large, and your wealth/education/respect did not come about itself because you were born part of the elite, eg if your parents were very rich.
|
United States15275 Posts
Anyone who doesn't believe there is an elite should read Democracy Incorporated by Sheldon Wolin.
On September 03 2013 13:00 thedeadhaji wrote:
"Twilight of the Elites" is a book by Christopher Hayes that examines how the constituents of "the elite" have changed in recent history, compares the guiding philosophies of the two eras of elites, and offers insight into how and why the current "ruling class" have failed to be responsible custodians of society.
I think this has always been the fundamental problem. The connection between being "an elite" and being "a responsible custodian of society" has always been tenuous for four primary reasons.
1. Democratic political systems are usually republican in nature, which means there are several filters between the political station and the popular will.
2. Elitism generally entails some measure of rationalization as to why there is a gulf between elites and common people.
3. The priorities of elitist culture and public culture are intrinsically different.
4. The principle behind the "responsible custodian" is self-defeating.
P.S. Why does Christopher Hayes have such archaic ideas about how meritocracy works? It really contradicts the points he makes in the book.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
This means that we are cursed with an overclass convinced it is composed of scrappy underdogs, individuals who are obsessed with the relative disadvantages they may have faced rather than the privilege they enjoyed. It is remarkable how under siege and victimized even the most powerful members of society feel, how much they tout their own up-by-their-bootstraps story. In fact, a basic ritual associated with entrance into the circle of winners is constructing a personal story about how it was through grit, talent, and determination that you fought your way into it.
Doesn't this work the other way around too? An "underclass" convinced it is composed of those that are talented but just plain unlucky, people who could "strike it big", "smart kids" who would totally get A's if they tried. People who look at successful men and say it's just because they're handsome or born into wealth or got lucky.
People often use "privilege" as an excuse for their own failures and shortcomings. As a way of making themselves feel better about not having succeeded, or to rationalize away sloth.
I don't deny that a lot of successful people would prefer their life story to have been one of hard work instead of privilege. But it's just as hypocritical for someone to blame their own lack of success on their misfortune. In real life, like in gaming, success is a mixture of both. Hard work prepares you for and allows you to take advantage of good fortune. Breaking out of the victimization mentality and realizing your responsibilities towards yourself is the first step towards success -- be it financial, romantic, or however else you choose to define it.
|
United States15275 Posts
On September 05 2013 03:29 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +This means that we are cursed with an overclass convinced it is composed of scrappy underdogs, individuals who are obsessed with the relative disadvantages they may have faced rather than the privilege they enjoyed. It is remarkable how under siege and victimized even the most powerful members of society feel, how much they tout their own up-by-their-bootstraps story. In fact, a basic ritual associated with entrance into the circle of winners is constructing a personal story about how it was through grit, talent, and determination that you fought your way into it. Doesn't this work the other way around too? An "underclass" convinced it is composed of those that are talented but just plain unlucky, people who could "strike it big", "smart kids" who would totally get A's if they tried. People who look at successful men and say it's just because they're handsome or born into wealth or got lucky. People often use "privilege" as an excuse for their own failures and shortcomings. As a way of making themselves feel better about not having succeeded, or to rationalize away sloth. I don't deny that a lot of successful people would prefer their life story to have been one of hard work instead of privilege. But it's just as hypocritical for someone to blame their own lack of success on their misfortune. In real life, like in gaming, success is a mixture of both. Hard work prepares you for and allows you to take advantage of good fortune. Breaking out of the victimization mentality and realizing your responsibilities towards yourself is the first step towards success -- be it financial, romantic, or however else you choose to define it.
You're taking the quote out of context. There are many powerful people who are not as qualified as someone else to be there; conversely there are many poor people who missed out on opportunities to climb up the social ladder. The important criticism is that the "overclass" creates a self-mythos that willingly ignores the interconnected and self-sustaining nature of its own culture. This is their rationale that they deserve to have power over the rest of the population: in some manner they are "better" than the rest of us. It is a rationale that comes hand in hand with the existence of a political/intellectual/social/economic elite.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On September 04 2013 15:00 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 05:56 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
I hate it when I completely lose my reading comprehension abilities. I was under the impression the book included people like doctors and lawyers in the elite.
Or maybe it does. thedeadhaji includes people in prestigious fields as members of the elite. I hope the book isn't stating that people working in the more profitable fields are members of the elite. If that is the case, a more "grey" view is necessary. A book that fails to move beyond black and white is a book that should never have been written, penned by an author that should never have opened his mouth.
On another note, does the book cover the cost of financial security? Surprisingly, financial security is one of the more expensive things in the world. You can have several times the money of your average joe and yet still be too poor to know that you're ready for a rainy day (or year, as the recent recession taught us). From what thedeadhaji posted of the book so far, I don't think the 'elite' is particularly defined by profession. It seems to be mostly about having disproportionately large amount of influence on the policy, the market, and social attitudes of whatever society they belong to. So naturally it's going to be biased towards rich executives, politicians, religious leaders, and socially influential figures (celebrity and really famous scientists etc). Whereas as a general rule only includes small numbers of lawyers (eg district/state's attorney's who will have an easy pathway into politics later), doctors, scientists etc. As I understand it, being a part of the elite is not so much about wealth, income, education etc, as about having influence. While those things are very conductive to having influence, you could theoretically be very wealthy, well educated and even respected, without being a part of the 'elite' if you choose to exert little or no influence over society/politics at large, and your wealth/education/respect did not come about itself because you were born part of the elite, eg if your parents were very rich.
It's been a few weeks since I read the book, but iirc the author lays out (1) power, (2) influence, and (3) money as levers that the elite have, and once you have one of these you can trade what you have for the other two. Washington is the most evident example of this I think.
|
This means that we are cursed with an overclass convinced it is composed of scrappy underdogs, individuals who are obsessed with the relative disadvantages they may have faced rather than the privilege they enjoyed. It is remarkable how under siege and victimized even the most powerful members of society feel, how much they tout their own up-by-their-bootstraps story. In fact, a basic ritual associated with entrance into the circle of winners is constructing a personal story about how it was through grit, talent, and determination that you fought your way into it.
I'll give a famous example of this since some people have trouble grasping the concept. Michael Jordan. He was relegated to the junior varsity instead of the varsity team and he used that slight to get better. He was promising but raw. His high school coach thought that he would be better off spending a year playing more minutes leading the junior varsity team instead of being mostly in the bench with the varsity team. Eventually, as he told the story again and again, the story morphed into him getting cut from the team by a coach who thought he wasn't any good. The coach who looked after him while he was on the rise became a villain in his later stories.
The huge chip on the shoulder attitude can be endearing while somebody is on the rise. Same with the overcompetitiveness. However, it can become very destructive once that person reaches the top. Some of Jordan's best traits have become liabilities as he became a general manager and later on, a team owner. However, the amount of money and celebrity he has mean that he's not going to completely fail in those endeavors.
His problem? He, like some of the elites in our society, have trouble relating to people who are not as good as he is (or in the case of other elites, people who they think are not as good as they are). He destroys them instead of building them up. He has trouble understanding other people's limitations. And as much as hard work played role, his talent and perfect size for his position played a role, too.
|
On September 05 2013 04:59 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote + This means that we are cursed with an overclass convinced it is composed of scrappy underdogs, individuals who are obsessed with the relative disadvantages they may have faced rather than the privilege they enjoyed. It is remarkable how under siege and victimized even the most powerful members of society feel, how much they tout their own up-by-their-bootstraps story. In fact, a basic ritual associated with entrance into the circle of winners is constructing a personal story about how it was through grit, talent, and determination that you fought your way into it. I'll give a famous example of this since some people have trouble grasping the concept. Michael Jordan. He was relegated to the junior varsity instead of the varsity team and he used that slight to get better. He was promising but raw. His high school coach thought that he would be better off spending a year playing more minutes leading the junior varsity team instead of being mostly in the bench with the varsity team. Eventually, as he told the story again and again, the story morphed into him getting cut from the team by a coach who thought he wasn't any good. The coach who looked after him while he was on the rise became a villain in his later stories. The huge chip on the shoulder attitude can be endearing while somebody is on the rise. Same with the overcompetitiveness. However, it can become very destructive once that person reaches the top. Some of Jordan's best traits have become liabilities as he became a general manager and later on, a team owner. However, the amount of money and celebrity he has mean that he's not going to completely fail in those endeavors. His problem? He, like some of the elites in our society, have trouble relating to people who are not as good as he is (or in the case of other elites, people who they think are not as good as they are). He destroys them instead of building them up. He has trouble understanding other people's limitations. And as much as hard work played role, his talent and perfect size for his position played a role, too.
This example doesn't really argue for CosmicSpiral's point. The real lesson from Michael Jordan is that just because you're good at one thing- basketball- doesn't mean you are going to be good at other things, especially the macro parts, like coaching or managing. Maybe that's a lesson Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and some SC2 pros on this site should consider. CosmicSpiral was suggesting that the elite owed their status largely to advantages they possessed and, thus, were undeserving. Nobody would argue that any but a few could be Like Mike no matter the coaching they had, but a plutocrat, no matter their accomplishments, can always be explained away.
The problem with these historicist accounts of class is that it doesn't consider the role of culture, i.e. most of society shares one. If there's a lack of virtue among the elite, chances are there is a lack of virtue in the society as a whole.
|
United States15275 Posts
On September 05 2013 10:56 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 04:59 andrewlt wrote: This means that we are cursed with an overclass convinced it is composed of scrappy underdogs, individuals who are obsessed with the relative disadvantages they may have faced rather than the privilege they enjoyed. It is remarkable how under siege and victimized even the most powerful members of society feel, how much they tout their own up-by-their-bootstraps story. In fact, a basic ritual associated with entrance into the circle of winners is constructing a personal story about how it was through grit, talent, and determination that you fought your way into it. I'll give a famous example of this since some people have trouble grasping the concept. Michael Jordan. He was relegated to the junior varsity instead of the varsity team and he used that slight to get better. He was promising but raw. His high school coach thought that he would be better off spending a year playing more minutes leading the junior varsity team instead of being mostly in the bench with the varsity team. Eventually, as he told the story again and again, the story morphed into him getting cut from the team by a coach who thought he wasn't any good. The coach who looked after him while he was on the rise became a villain in his later stories. The huge chip on the shoulder attitude can be endearing while somebody is on the rise. Same with the overcompetitiveness. However, it can become very destructive once that person reaches the top. Some of Jordan's best traits have become liabilities as he became a general manager and later on, a team owner. However, the amount of money and celebrity he has mean that he's not going to completely fail in those endeavors. His problem? He, like some of the elites in our society, have trouble relating to people who are not as good as he is (or in the case of other elites, people who they think are not as good as they are). He destroys them instead of building them up. He has trouble understanding other people's limitations. And as much as hard work played role, his talent and perfect size for his position played a role, too. This example doesn't really argue for CosmicSpiral's point. The real lesson from Michael Jordan is that just because you're good at one thing- basketball- doesn't mean you are going to be good at other things, especially the macro parts, like coaching or managing. Maybe that's a lesson Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and some SC2 pros on this site should consider. CosmicSpiral was suggesting that the elite owed their status largely to advantages they possessed and, thus, were undeserving. Nobody would argue that any but a few could be Like Mike no matter the coaching they had, but a plutocrat, no matter their accomplishments, can always be explained away. The problem with these historicist accounts of class is that it doesn't consider the role of culture, i.e. most of society shares one. If there's a lack of virtue among the elite, chances are there is a lack of virtue in the society as a whole.
He wasn't quoting me. Also I doubt Michael Jordan would have been considered an elite during his career. He was only an elite in the sense that he was extraordinarily popular and talented at his trade; it did not start to translate into directed cultural or social influence until he was courted for advertisements and endorsements.
I was noting that the self-mythos of the current elite, the mythos created by the elite themselves, usually does not include outlying factors that was extremely important for them to reach power/money/influence (power and influence are redundant, dunno why Hayes put them in their own categories). Every individual account of success and failure is a combination of circumstance and self-responsibility, but a serious examination of the dichotomy would bring into question their legitimacy.
Not necessarily. The decadence of the nobles in Europe during the Late Middle Ages was not matched by the peasantry; the arrogance of the current elite (and not all of them) is not matched by the lower or middle class. Culture is not homogeneous across an entire society. Subcultures develop at all socioeconomic levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
