R: Elites Should be Elitist

In our modern parlance, the term ‘elitist’ is almost always given a negative connotation. The “elitist” Yalies who ride around on their motorized scooters listening to AirPods while wearing their Canada Goose™ jackets should feel ashamed to be so privileged. Or at least, that seems to be what campus culture would have them feel. Many Yalies who come from elite families often hide this fact, reveling in the adoption of a “lower-class aesthetic” perhaps as a form of penance or perhaps as a way to virtue signal to their non-elite peers that they disavow their privilege and support attempts to end class division. This week, we will consider whether this abandonment of one’s status is correct or whether it is rather the case that elites should be elitist.

            When we say elites should be elitist, it has applications in many areas. First, in the realm of aesthetics and social standing, that one should not hide one’s status of privilege or attempt to concede one’s own achievement and success. Those from elite families should embrace their family name rather than attempt to change it. Legacy admits should be proud of the tradition and history they carry on at Yale. If you can afford a Canada Goose jacket and wish to wear one, do so without shame. Indeed, the often-painful experience of struggling as a lower-class citizen (or immigrant) in the US is not “simply a game for a rich young boy to play.” Secondly, in the realm of value and duty, those who are born into or achieve elite status in terms of society, wealth, or knowledge, have an obligation to use it. This is partially a sense of noblesse oblige but more nuanced. To be elitist is to recognize and exercise one’s authority to make value judgments even when the “ideals” of post-modernity would have us all say there are no winners or losers and everyone and everything has equal merit.

            Yet, as a gut reaction, the idea of encouraging an elitist mindset seems wrong. Many would say the problems in modern society stem from an elite upper class exploiting the lower class. The promise of a future where prosperity and happiness are granted to all seems unreachable so long as the elites who set the course of our nation remain out of touch with the experience and hardships of every-day Americans. It would seem that we have arrived at precisely at this harshly stratified state because the elite embraced elitism and used their power to further their own gains rather than turning a helping had to those who had little. Perhaps it is, in fact, better that the elite attempt to deny their nature by giving away their trust funds to those who do in fact live paycheck to paycheck.

            This debate is not about precisely what qualifies a person as an “elite” but rather revolves around the question of whether or not someone who is an elite should openly embrace that identity and what subsequent duties this entails. In considering this issue, we must ask ourselves several questions. What is the value of aesthetics? Is it better for society if everyone’s social status is clearly discernible? Does this give us more autonomy to hold those in power responsible for fulfilling their duties? Does it undermine genuine class struggles for elites to “play” at being not-well-off? In a representative government, should we elect elite leaders or those who best represent the average of the population? Must we demand that those who are well-educated “dumb themselves down” so as not to offend those who did not have access to the educational institutions others did? Is it right to demand elites to assume their responsibilities as those with power, wealth, and authority in society? Do we dare let them do so?