There has been lots of talk about Elitism in the media since Rob Ford's election and the midterms in the U.S. Today Margaret Wente from the Globe and Mail wrote a piece on it, complete with a quiz to see if you were part of this elite group. Apparently I failed miserably to be part of this group as I scored a -70.
Unfortunately, I belive Wente fundamentally fails to understand why this anti-elitist movement has sprung to life. In addition, her explanation as to why this movement has risen is actually an example of the movements causes.
She argues that it is the lack of social mobility and access to elite post secondary education that has caused this anti-elite sentiment to raise. I have to disagree. It is not the inability to become an elite that has non-elites angry at elites. Rather it is the elite's superiority complex that causes the movement. What Wente argues is that non-elites are jealous of elites and want to be them. In fact what the non-elites resent is this idea that they're are somehow inferior to the elite, that their political participation is less valued. That is the cause of the resentment. That since they drink Tim Horton's rather than Starbucks they are somehow unfit for office or their vote is less valuable. That the candidate they support is somehow unfit for office.
While she calls for elites to be humble, she misses the whole point of this anti-elite backlash. The non-elite don't want to become the elite, they want to be respected and treated as equals by the elite and until the elite get it, the backlash will continue.
You're absolutely right! Well said. And I don't think there's much hopes for the elites to "get it".
ReplyDeleteCan we have some sensible analysis of what makes someone "elite"? Perhaps class, race, gender, or hetero- privilege?
ReplyDeleteAll too often instead of analyzing the real divisions in our society, this stuff about "elites" winds up just descending into urban vs. rural, east vs. west, Tims vs. Starbucks type of silly culture wars which are meant to promote right-wing politicians as somehow being men (gendered pronoun intended) of the people.
Take the case of George W. Bush. He's a straight white male whose dad was President. Then he became President. You don't get much more "elite" than that. But somehow, because he dresses up in a cowboy hat on his ranch (say, how much did that ranch cost? Could you afford it?) and throws out some folksy mispronounciations, and all of the sudden he's the guy you want to have a beer with.
Too much of the time, it's all an act.
Brian, I think it is sensible to suggest that grown men who drink loose leaf tea is evidence of their elitism.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, it would be fair to categorize the “elites” along socio-economic lines. While I agree with Brian’s assessment being “one of the guys” is often an act, the recent T.O. election is evidence of an emerging cleavage in Canadian Politics, namely urban/suburban. I think the debate becomes limited when we continue to rely on outdated stereotypes, such as Starbucks vs. Tim Horton’s consumers. I think the election of Rob Ford indicates there is something real emerging which requires considerable examination.
ReplyDeleteBrian, I agree that the distinctions and the dichotomy about who is an elite in society isn't based on where on gets his coffee or where one lives but more on questions of education, income and access to decision makers. Who is an elite and who isn't is a very difficult question to answer I believe.
ReplyDeleteThe point of my post was to argue that the way this anti-elite movement has manifested itself in its political form was fundamentally misunderstood by Margaret Wente and by many others.
I think this misunderstanding is one of the reason the right has been so successful with this movement and that the left hasn't.
I will agree with you 100% that in no way shape or form was Bush a non-elite. But he was able to market himself that way and that was one of the reason for his success.