[extropy-chat] FWD [fantasticreality] Nice Summary of Problems of the self-denoted "Cultural Elites"

[Terry Colvin]

-----Forwarded Message-----
>
>This is nice review of some (I am sure it is incomplete) of the 
>problems regular folk see with the so-called cultural elites.  It is 
>in the form of a summary of the conclusions of the great social 
>critic Christopher Lasch from his book The Revolt of the Elites.  I 
>like it because Lasch knew the "Elites" from the inside, being one 
>of them himself.  I especially note how he counters Peter Parks' 
>claim that "bettering oneself" and "meritocracy" is in some way part 
>of the American democratic ideal of respect for every person, no 
>matter to which social class they might be assigned by 
>their "betters" at any given moment.  Lasch's book is well worth a 
>read.
>
>THE REVOLT OF THE ELITES: And the Betrayal of Democracy by, 
>Christopher Lasch 
>
>Publisher: W.W. Norton & CO. 
>
>December - 1995 
>
>In this book, an American historian finds fault with the values and 
>beliefs of America's professional elites. 
>
>Christopher Lasch argues that democracy today is threatened not by 
>the masses, as Jose Ortega y Gasset argued in The Revolt of the 
>Masses, but by the elites. 
>
>These elites - mobile and increasingly global in outlook - refuse to 
>accept limits or ties to any nation or place. Lasch contends that as 
>they isolate themselves in their networks and enclaves, they abandon 
>the traditional middle class and betray our democracy. 
>
>The author traces how meritocracy - and its selective elevation of 
>individuals into the elite class - gradually replaced the original 
>American democratic ideal of general competence and respect for 
>every man. 
>
>The author criticizes our elite class for valuing self-esteem over 
>achievement. He sees self-fulfilment as a false remedy for deeper 
>social problems, and he attacks the superior pseudoradicalism of the 
>academic left. 
>
>He sees these Americans as apathetic about their common culture and 
>ambivalent about arguing politics or voting. 
>
>The elites, having jettisoned the moral and ethical guidelines 
>provided by religion, cling to the belief that through various 
>sciences they can master their fates and escape mortal limits. 
>
>In pursuit of this illusion they have become infatuated with the 
>global economy. Their revolt, the author warns, is diminishing what 
>is worthwhile about American life. 
>
>1. There used to be the threat of communism and the revolt of the 
>workers. Now the threat is a revolt of the elites. 
>
>1.1. Those who control the international flow of information, 
>bankers, stockbrokers, executives, professors, government analysts, 
>have lost faith in the concept of Western Civilization and of 
>reason. 
>
>1.2. These behaviours and beliefs are more characteristic of the 
>upper classes and represent the betrayal of the middle class and of 
>the lower classes, but especially the middle class. 
>
>1.3. The middle and lower classes are much more socially and morally 
>conservative than their would-be liberators from the upper class. 
>The natural and reasonable conservatism of the middle and lower 
>classes is not serviced by the media, who are controlled by elites. 
>These elites believe that they know what is best for the masses. 
>
>2. The Decline of the Middle Class 
>
>2.1. The middle class is treated with scorn and derision by the new 
>elites. Everything that is ugly in society is associated with the 
>unenlightened middle class (i.e. homophobia, racism, retrograde 
>attitudes towards women, etc.) 
>
>2.2. Lasch argues that the crisis in the middle class must be 
>addressed for democracy to survive. 
>
>2.3. The middle class is the silent backbone of society, paying an 
>ever-growing proportion of the national tax receipts and working 
>longer hours. Meanwhile the welfare state generates complacency 
>among the lower class and the upper-middle and upper class become 
>more powerful and separate from those who surround them. 
>
>3. Who are the New Elites? 
>
>3.1. They are symbolic analysts. They live in a world of ideas, 
>abstract concepts and symbols: the stockmarket, financial trends, 
>technology, communications, universities, etc. 
>
>3.2. They participate in a market that is global in scope. 
>
>3.3. They have more in common with their counterparts in foreign 
>cities such as London, Brussels, Hong Kong and Cairo than they do 
>with the average people whom they see every day. 
>
>3.4. In these abstract circles, there exists the cynical idea that 
>the circles of power in finance, government, entertainment and the 
>academe become interchangeable. 
>
>3.5. This is product of the Meritocracy. 
>
>4. Lasch's Meritocracy 
>
>4.1. The meritocracy has many of the attributes of the aristocracy 
>minus its positive traits. 
>
>4.2. No sense of social chivalry and noblesse oblige. 
>
>4.3. No sense of community and of place. 
>
>4.4. Symbolic analysts often feel that they are self-made people who 
>owe all their privileges to their efforts and talent. 
>
>4.5. They tend to be transient and live in a community of 
>contemporaries. They do not accept the generational transfer of 
>wisdom, knowledge and values. 
>
>5. Meritocracy and Democracy 
>
>5.1. For Lasch, meritocracy is a parody of democracy. 
>
>5.2. It has brought on the collapse of public schools and an end to 
>the notion of a common culture. 
>
>5.3. Educational reforms leave little possibility for outrage. Those 
>who are left behind know that "they have had every chance to 
>succeed." 
>
>5.4. The concept of an obligation to others is depersonalized in the 
>meritocracy. The symbolic analysts who benefit from being elites 
>feel for their fellow citizens but do little directly or physically 
>to benefit their fellow citizens. 
>
>6. Democracy in the Age of Meritocracy and Globalization 
>
>6.1. In the borderless economy, money has lost its nationality. 
>Thus, it is harder to pinpoint those who divert it away from the 
>national popular interest. 
>
>6.2. A strong centralized government, run by a quasi-permanent 
>bureaucracy reduce the possibility for protest, change and real 
>representation. 
>
>6.3. A strong centralized government is supported by a media that is 
>owned by and serves more and more, a class of symbolic analysts who 
>are increasingly removed from the common culture. 
>
>7. Lasch's thesis is that the decline of democracy is closely linked 
>to the decline of the middle class and a move away from argument, 
>discussion, freedom, individuality and a common culture. 
>
>The Lost Art of Argument 
>
>8. For many years we have been regaled with the benefits of the 
>communications revolution. Lasch contends that all is not as rosy as 
>it would seem. 
>
>8.1. The post-industrial economy puts a focus on the 
>interchangeability of employ for the majority of non-symbolic 
>analyst work. 
>
>8.2. A growing concentration of non-union labour-intensive parts of 
>the economy. 
>
>9. Why is this happening? 
>
>9.1. We tend to blame the schools, but this is fallacy in Lasch's 
>eyes. Instead Lasch says that it is the general decay of public 
>debate that has caused this. 
>
>9.2. What democracy depends on is not information, but informed, 
>rigorous and reasoned public debate. 
>
>9.3. The only way that we know that we know something is by 
>subjecting our ideas to the test of public controversy. 
>
>9.4. Lasch thinks that an example of this decline in public debate 
>is the way televised political debates have changed. The corporate 
>media demand certain types of politicians. 
>
>10.Government, Media and Meritocracy 
>
>10.1. The corporatization of the media has brought about the 
>incorporation of corporate methods in governance. Technocracy is the 
>result. 
>
>10.2. Democracy requires the broad discussion of issues. This is 
>difficult when discussion is discouraged. Lasch says that the 
>written word is a poor substitute for oral argument. 
>
>11.The author notes the rise of "Public Relations and Advertising" 
>and its negative effects on the democratic exchange of ideas. 
>
>12. The author laments the loss of "the ability to follow an 
>argument, grasp the point of view of another, expand the boundaries 
>of understanding, and debate alternative purposes that might be 
>pursued."