How did “elite” come to be “elitism”?

I’ve commented in several posts here how concerned I am at what appears to be a devaluing of intellect and the loss of critical thinking skills. These are obviously not the same thing, but I think they are related, and furthermore I believe that our current political situation is a contributing factor. The fact that the terms “liberal” and “elite” have become pejorative illustrates my point. I don’t think that “conservative” is (nor should be) a negative; it is simply a non-judgmental descriptive term. Additionally, I believe that most people’s beliefs are complex and varied; to label a person exclusively conservative or liberal is an inaccurate oversimplification. Although most of my positions on social issues are more liberal, I do also have conservative views in some things; most of the people I talk to are like me in that a single label doesn’t define them, or even describe them well. How those terms became epithets is the topic of another post, but for now let me say that’s one of the tragedies of our ever-increasingly polarized political climate.

In this and the next post or two I want to explore the growing anti-intellectualism I see, and try to figure out what’s driving it. I mentioned above the terms “liberal” and “elite;” I see them conflated and used in a dismissive or even contemptuous fashion in the “alt-right” and far right world. While I understand that “elite” can carry the connotation of snobbery (particularly as the term “elitism”), I have argued that we should value our elite. Elite athletes get that way by a lot of hard work and continual practice. Elite scholars are lifelong learners, constantly challenging their notions and refining their understanding of their chosen field. How is that a bad thing? And why, when it’s applied to a political ideology, should that become a negative? World class athletes recognize that they are good at what they do, but those that garner the greatest respect show humility as well. “I’m part of a great team,” or “Yeah, I had a good day but my teammates and coaches are incredibly supportive” coming from Michael Jordan causes us to respect him even more. Of course, if a person begins to think of themselves as superior to all others then that crosses over to arrogance or snobbery (when applied to scholars, for example). When that happens those people should rightfully be called out. But the terms that should be used then would be arrogance or snobbery in my opinion, not “elite” as a pejorative.

As I think about this it occurs to me that “unearned” may need to be part of this discussion. For example, consider the class distinctions associated with Victorian England, where those born into a particular family of landholders were considered inherently superior to the “commoners” just by right of birth. This attitude has largely disappeared (at least publicly); it’s hard to imagine anyone today really thinking that simply being born into one family rather than another actually imparted any superiority in and of itself; far more important is what one does with their life.

Americans rebelled against this attitude in our Revolutionary War against the British as much as we rebelled against taxation without representation, forced billeting of British Army regulars in civilian households and the other stated issues of the time. The ability and freedom of Americans to “rise above their birth” (another anachronistic phrase representative of the attitudes of the time) and through hard work and persistence, make of ourselves whatever we chose is one of the hallmark characteristics of American culture (and pride). And I think justifiably so.

It’s a shame to me that this attitude has been extended to intelligence. The ability to think clearly, to critically evaluate information and arrive at a reasoned and thoughtful position and not be ruled exclusively by emotion, should be sought after and valued, not disparaged.