When is elitism justifiable?

[ForumSafari]

I don't see saying "Listen, let me do my job here, I'm qualified to do this, you're not" as elitism, it's just a simple fact. Elitism would be you assuming that people you fix the systems for wear underpants on their head when they're home and don't know what copy/paste means.

Not really, some have demonstrated the second one.

However, by the dictionary definition I am an elitist. I am proud to know what I know and I am selective as to whose opinions I treat with merit or engage with based on their knowledge base. I am selective about who I treat as being on my level and worthy of joining us (job interviews and all) and I believe in the leadership of our business section by people that belong to our group since they are the only ones able to make informed decisions.

That's why elitism is so tricky to actually condemn; we both know what you mean but in a lot of cases supposed elitism is actually people that don't understand a field mouthing off, being treated with the disdain they've earned and not much liking it.

 

[Vigormortis]

Even though elitism is frowned upon by many people, is it ever justified given the right circumstances?

Sure! People really ought to avoid weighing in with their uninformed opinions of high level physics, for example.

Mmm, while I agree giving too much stock in uninformed opinions is a very stupid thing to do (regardless of whether you're giving or receiving that opinion), I don't think even those situations necessitate the need for elitism. Not within the context of the common parlance of the word.

Going by your example above, it's the difference between saying, "You're wrong, but let me explain why." and "You're an idiot and you should stay out of things you don't understand."

One is constructive. The other not. And while the broad, general definition of elitism could 'validate' both responses, the common usage of the term would only really include the latter. And as I usually prefer constructive discussions and criticisms, I do not believe elitism is entirely justified in most situations.

This is not to say I believe it's never justified. There are some situations wherein elitism is one of only a few options for response to a given situation. I'm just not convinced these instances are anything more than the rarest of situations.

Of course, on the other hand, going by the broad definition of the term as seen in a dictionary, elitism is quite often justifiable. Even beneficial, at times. So I suppose it depends on which specific definition of the word we're going with. And even this is contextualized by the culture within which the term is used.

...No. Fandom elitism is not justified. I mean, maybe in the specific discussion of esoteric knowledge thereof, perhaps, but looking down on people for being fans of the best parts of a fiction rather than all of it is patently ridiculous.

This, though, I couldn't agree with more. Elitism with something that is by definition subjective is so absurd it's laughable.

 

[Mumbly]

I don't see saying "Listen, let me do my job here, I'm qualified to do this, you're not" as elitism, it's just a simple fact. Elitism would be you assuming that people you fix the systems for wear underpants on their head when they're home and don't know what copy/paste means.

Not really, some have demonstrated the second one.

However, by the dictionary definition I am an elitist. I am proud to know what I know and I am selective as to whose opinions I treat with merit or engage with based on their knowledge base. I am selective about who I treat as being on my level and worthy of joining us (job interviews and all) and I believe in the leadership of our business section by people that belong to our group since they are the only ones able to make informed decisions.

That's why elitism is so tricky to actually condemn; we both know what you mean but in a lot of cases supposed elitism is actually people that don't understand a field mouthing off, being treated with the disdain they've earned and not much liking it.

Okay, I'll rephrase.

Elitism is assuming that someone is worse than you in in all aspects of life because you happen to be better than them in one field. For example, if I was a world class footballer and treated you like a second-class citizen solely because I know how to kick the ball around better than you do, I'd be elitist. Or if I actually kicked your ass in football, and then proceeded to be an ass about it myself. Sore winners are the only thing worse than sore losers.

If I just told you that you have little chance against me on the pitch, that's not elitism.

It's not wrong to be proud of what you know, after all, that's an accomplishment. But if you're an ass about it, that's another story.

 

[K12]

I think the idea that being a fan of something makes you an elite is kind of weird.

You can be very familiar with something without being at all critical or analytic about it. Just look at the way parent's often have ridiculous conceptions of their own children's abilities.

The only way that "elite" makes sense when you're talking about entertainment is when it comes to analysis and critique. Critics should be an elite but fans don't have to be. Breadth of experience trumps copiousness of experience every time.

And fundamentally it's all subjective opinion anyway so no-one is more correct than anyone else.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Honestly, I don't understand your attitude here. Looking down on people for not knowing as much about a subject as you do is really not a good thing most of the time.

It's unwarranted, and I don't understand why it bothers you what other people know about something.

They like it.

You like it.

You know more about it than them. Is that a reason to be an asshole about this though? You're talking fandoms here. There is no right or wrong way to be a fan of something. All it means is you like something.
How much you know about what you claim to like is really rather irrelevant.

Elitism really isn't a good thing in any way. It mostly comes across as one group trying to claim they are superior to another for some contrived arbitrary reason.

You aren't. But you'll cling to anything, no matter how contrived, to make yourself feel more important, more dedicated, better or whatever than someone else.
What that really indicates is often the opposite. You're so scared of being considered inferior, you try and put others down to prove you are better.

And that's the main reason it's disliked so much. Elitists tend to be horrible people to be around. Because it isn't about being better, or more knowledgeable, it's about constantly shoving it in people's face, and looking down at them, being abusive, etc. that defines elitism.
Not anything about who you really are in relation to these other people, but rather how you behave.

Is it OK to be elitist? No. Because being elitist is by definition being an asshole about something.

For instance,
Science is meant to be an objective, rational pursuit, and thus, it makes it relatively easy to demonstrate that indeed, some people's knowledge of certain scientific topics IS superior to that of others.
And yet, even where this is demonstrably true, if this person develops an elitist attitude about this fact, people would still generally rather avoid dealing with this person.

Knowing more than others is fine. Being an asshole about it, attacking others for their lack of knowledge, and so on, is not. The former is simply being knowledgeable. The second is what defines someone as being elitist.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Well this is less...anime related...than the OP but in my field I'm well qualified. I have a high classification bachelors degree, years of experience and several secondary qualifications. My field is computing and more specifically network and Windows system administration so since my field involves computers nerds of all stripes think they know about it.

Largely they do not.

I have been known to simply tell people they do not know what they are talking about because they don't, but for some reason they think everyone is entitled to an opinion that others will consider and they get angry, even if they demonstrate that they don't know what they're saying. I think when you're having a discussion with some actual necessary knowledge it's fair to be elitist, the last thing you want to do is treat every opinion as equal and end up with reams of useless bullshit.

When it comes to things like that I find it's more about attitude than anything else. Then again I've had the enfuriating situation of someone who claims to have qualifications and experience with a specific subject say such blatantly stupid things, and then having the gall to tell me "You are just trying to sound smart, and don't know what you're talking about"

When I made no claim to 'expert' knowledge, and they did, and yet they blatantly ignore any and all evidence that proves their position to be objectively wrong. There is nothing more irritating that someone pulling 'I am an expert therefore I know better', when it is blatantly obvious they are wrong.
They usually refuse to back this up with any kind of verifiable fact, they just expect me to blindly go along with whatever they say, no matter how stupid. Worse still, they lean on their 'credentials' in contexts where it isn't even possible to verify if they are who they say they are, or what their credentials actually are.
They expect you to take it on faith that they are an expert (because they say so), then expect you to take it on faith that, in a factual argument, they are correct, and you are not, even though you have evidence to the contrary (eg. Research papers, real-world examples of things they say "Don't work", and so on.)

That's elitism at it's finest, and it's very, very annoying to deal with, because you end up dealing not with any kind of facts, but merely with this person's own ego and 'reputation' (which often they cannot prove either).

Of course, it can get worse.

I've on occasion asked a genuine question, and acknowledged I don't know the subject very well (usually this is science questions). Now, it sometimes happens that someone comes along and says "I am an expert, and you are wrong".

Fine. I acknowledge both the possibility that I am wrong, and indeed, that it is quite likely for certain subjects.
What is frustrating about those conversations is not being told "You are wrong."

But that that is the sum total of what you end up being told. No details. No explanation of what it is, that is wrong, or what it should be instead. Nothing. Just "I am an expert, and you are wrong." (And again, usually in a context where you can't even verify what their expertise actually is).
And I do understand that having to explain yourself to someone with little knowledge on a subject can be frustrating.
But if someone starts a conversation, and an 'expert' shows up uninvited (essentially), and goes "I am an expert, and you are wrong", do you think it unreasonable for this 'expert' to have the basic decency to explain themselves?
They weren't asked for an opinion, they gave it anyway, yet they don't wish to offer any clarification...

Anyway... I guess that's just my own frustration. It happens.

But there is a difference between 'elite', and 'elitism'. And thinking you are correct, merely for who you are, and taking it for granted that everyone should blindly accept anything you say just because you were the one that said it is the worst kind of behaviour an 'expert' can have. No-one is all-knowing or infallible, so if you are going to argue about something factual, where your only contribution to a discussion is mentioning your own qualifications, then that is elitism at it's worst.

I... Should shut up now, I think... This is getting out of hand. XD

 

[Mumbly]

This is a retarded attitude. So you wouldn't mind eating literal trash over gourmet food every day, given the same nutritional value, because taste in food is subjective? Trash has no less of an inherent universal value than gourmet food, but from the human perspective, which is in practice inescapable, it is correct to say that gourmet food is better than trash.

But that's because trash objectively tends to have worse nutritional value, or actually be a health hazard even if not consumed consistently. With "everything else being the same", it would indeed come down purely to taste.

I'll take my home-made spaghetti over lobster and caviar any day, thank you very much, by the way.

 

[BoredRolePlayer]

I'll admit that for my immense knowledge of anime, its sub mediums, and decent understanding of the gaming industry, I never come off as elitist or high and mighty; I actually despise this behavior, and always try to be polite. In recent times though, I don't know if it's spawned out of being a loner, but I have developed some issues. To put it into better perspective, I feel extremely uncomfortable around those sort of people that proclaim themselves to be fans of something, but don't have the same level of understanding as I do...or at all. Examples...

A: I've been a Type-Moon fan for quite a long time, before their collaboration with ufotable; many, many people do not know Type-Moon is a visual novel/literature company. Since Fate/Zero, which cleaned up after DEEN's supposed mess with Fate/Stay Night, Type-Moon's popularity has skyrocketed in the anime medium. This has spawned many ignorant fans with no knowledge or interest in TM's origins, which leads to conflict with people like myself. This is made worse by the fact that the UBW anime is doing so well right now, and the influx of new people just pour in.

B: I'll admit, I did get into Megami Tensei through Persona 4 and 3, but unlike many people, decided to immerse myself in the franchise as a whole. Through my experience with Nocturne, I can now definitely see the animosity SMT fans have for Persona...it created many self-proclaimed fans that have no interest in the franchise beyond Persona. Yet, these Persona exclusive fans claim they are still fans of MegaTen, and understandably, this PISSES OFF veterans that were around before Megami Tensei even surfaced to semi popular levels.

I mean, is it justifiable in the way I am describing it? Plain and simple, I hate these people, but never express it properly because I am too nice. Even though elitism is frowned upon by many people, is it ever justified given the right circumstances?

I am going to talk about the persona thing, because I've seen the anger SMT fans have to them. GET THE FUCK OVER IT. How hard is it for SMT fans to notice Atlus is going to put more focus on a feanchise that sales. Every game company tends to do that. And honestly you said you got in the franchise as a whole, I hope you also
Read the Digital Devil Saga books
Played Megami Tensei 1 and 2
played Shin Megami Tensei 1, 2, 3, and if...
played Jack Bros
played Revelation Demon Slayer and all its games
played devil children and all its games
plahed the smt game on the xbox
played smt imagine
played devil survivor 1 and 2
played digital devil sega 1 and 2
played the Riduo games
played Soul Hackers and the prequel to that
played all of the persona games
and read all the, manga adaptations
and watched the anime adaptations
plus all the other games I know I missed

Persona fans are SMT fans, it's all a apart of the same series. Hell persona start as a what if game originally with "if...". The reason why SMT is a great series is because it tries different ideas, persona just seemed to be the one that most people like. It's honestly no different from how Final Fantasy 7 gets so many games added to it yet the others don't. The only issue I have with people commenting on games is when they didn't play it and that has nothing to do with fandom. Face it Persona was what helped SMT take off like it did in the states. And for all these SMT "vets" I would be more impressed if they played the original smt games when they were new in japan. All this elitism from smt fans is dumb given the persona fans helped atlua bring over, more smt games. And note I'm not a huge persona fan, I think the games (3,4) have weak dungeon crawling and a ok story.

Added Note: Maybe persona fans don't like how the other smt games played? Maybe they like the visual novel style game over the minimum style story. I like both, but I understand dislike for them both.

 

[visiblenoise]

I'll put it bluntly - this is the sort of thing that the negative "nerd" stereotype was right in ridiculing. Elitism over being a better fan of something? It doesn't matter how well you can justify it, that doesn't stop it from being absolutely silly.

 

[K12]

And fundamentally it's all subjective opinion anyway so no-one is more correct than anyone else.

This is a retarded attitude. So you wouldn't mind eating literal trash over gourmet food every day, given the same nutritional value, because taste in food is subjective? Trash has no less of an inherent universal value than gourmet food, but from the human perspective, which is in practice inescapable, it is correct to say that gourmet food is better than trash. The fact that everything is subjective means that nothing is. Or would you honestly say that The Room is as good a movie as Citizen Kane? You can't, because the criteria that we develop to judge things has a basis in our nature that we fundamentally can't deny even if we choose to close our eyes to it. Neither is better than the other from the perspective of the fly on the wall, but saying that is pointless because we are humans and can't escape our humanity.

I don't know why people struggle with this distinction so often. I also don't know why people make the leap from "it's subjective" to "I don't think any opinion is better than any other" or "there's no way of arguing about it".

It is the overwhelming consensus that "Citizen Kane" is a masterwork and "The Room" is hilariously awful but they aren't facts the same way that "the Earth is round" is a fact. If someone really likes "The Room" then you can't prove them wrong. You can give reasons why you disagree and explain why every else does as well. You could even prove that they aren't judging the quality of movies with the same criteria that most other people are but you can't prove that they are factually mistaken.

Value judgements can never ever be objective facts for the same reason that objective facts do not change because you want them to. Values relate to your experiences and facts relate to the outside world. I agree that it's acceptable to say that Citizen Kane is great without having to qualify it with "in my opinion" (I actually really hate it when people do this) but in this context I felt it worth mentioning that no matter how "Elite" someone is considered to be you can still dismiss their opinion without being wrong.

To but it simply, you can contradict me on whether I have a knife in my arm but you can't contradict me on whether I'm in pain.

 

[Haerthan]

As far as I am concerned, elitism isnt justifiable, ever. Doesnt matter. I dont give a flying crack about your connection to a specific thing,/religion/game/movie/etc, you are not going to suffer cause you get extra people in your little fandom. So yea.

Also elitism in real life needs to go away.

 

[Risingblade]

I can see where you're coming from. However elitism does more harm than good to your cause in the long run. Really the only time I can think of where it might be justifiable is when the non-elite has no idea what they're talking about yet has influence or control over the subject matter.

 

[TallanKhan]

In order to answer your question we need to first define elitism . If we turn to the trusty Oxford English Dictionary we get the following definition:

"The belief that a society or system should be led by an elite"

Ok, good. So what's the answer? Well that rather depends, and what it depends on is how you define an Elite. Elitism based on Gender, Race or Hereditary Privilege? Never justifiable. On the other hand the idea that intitutions or even governments should be run or influenced by an elite comprised of people possessing a superior level skill, intelect and/or understanding, and yeah, at the very least there is a logically consistent argument which could be made in favour of an Elitism like that.

 

[Mumbly]

Ok, good. So what's the answer? Well that rather depends, and what it depends on is how you define an Elite. Elitism based on Gender, Race or Hereditary Privilege? Never justifiable. On the other hand the idea that intitutions or even governments should be run or influenced by an elite comprised of people possessing a superior level skill, intelect and/or understanding, and yeah, at the very least there is a logically consistent argument which could be made in favour of an Elitism like that.

Too vague. "Superior skill, intellect and/or understanding" is too vague. I'd rather have an accountant as a minister of treasury than a rocket scientists who never saw how a financial report is made, and I'm pretty sure that the rocket scientist has, on average, a higher level of intellect and skill and is more "elite", compared to the accountant.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

Elitism is justifiable if it's used to inspire other people to improve; and not to draw lines in the sand and act like a douche towards the ignorant.

PS captcha: 1.21 gigawatts Great Scott!

 

[sageoftruth]

From reading a bunch of the comments, I'm getting the impression we don't all agree on what elitism is exactly. Personally, I'm a bit confused myself.

Anyway, elitist or not, I do think it is good to know what is intended for the mainstream and what is intended for those with an intense interest in something, especially when trying to welcome a newcomer, since you don't want to scare that person away with material that expects them to already be well-versed in it.

 

[RaikuFA]

Is more fans of something you like really a bad thing? This sounds very hipster-ish.
This is like music fans who get upset that someone found out about their favourite bands through a movie or, heaven forbid, guitar hero.

There are always other people who are going to be less knowledgeable than you regarding you cherished franchises. We all have to start somewhere. Does it somehow impede on your ability to still enjoy them? You were a rookie once too you know.

This. This this this this x1,000,000.

Will it kill these people to have more fans of something? This reminds me of what I'm frequently told by fighting game veterans how horrible it is that newcomers come to arcades because it ruins everyone elses fun.