Elitism

From Thurber finalist and former star Time columnist Joel Stein comes a "brilliant exploration" (Walter Isaacson) of America's political culture war and a hilarious call to arms for the elite. "I can think of no one more suited to defend elitism than Stein, a funny man with hands as delicate as a baby full of soft-boiled eggs." —Jimmy Kimmel, host of Jimmy Kimmel Live! The night Donald Trump won the presidency, our author Joel Stein, Thurber Prize finalist and former staff writer for Time Magazine, instantly knew why. The main reason wasn't economic anxiety or racism. It was that he was anti-elitist. Hillary Clinton represented Wall Street, academics, policy papers, Davos, international treaties and the people who think they're better than you. People like Joel Stein. Trump represented something far more appealing, which was beating up people like Joel Stein. In a full-throated defense of academia, the mainstream press, medium-rare steak, and civility, Joel Stein fights against populism. He fears a new tribal elite is coming to replace him, one that will fend off expertise of all kinds and send the country hurtling backward to a time of wars, economic stagnation and the well-done steaks doused with ketchup that Trump eats. To find out how this shift happened and what can be done, Stein spends a week in Roberts County, Texas, which had the highest percentage of Trump voters in the country. He goes to the home of Trump-loving Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams; meets people who create fake news; and finds the new elitist organizations merging both right and left to fight the populists. All the while using the biggest words he knows.

From the Pulitzer Prize-winning culture critic for Time magazine comes the tremendously controversial, yet highly persuasive, argument that our devotion to the largely unexamined myth of egalitarianism lies at the heart of the ongoing "dumbing of America." Americans have always stubbornly clung to the myth of egalitarianism, of the supremacy of the individual average man. But here, at long last, Pulitzer Prize-winning critic William A. Henry III takes on, and debunks, some basic, fundamentally ingrained ideas: that everyone is pretty much alike (and should be); that self-fulfillment is more imortant thant objective achievement; that everyone has something significant to contribute; that all cultures offer something equally worthwhile; that a truly just society would automatically produce equal success results across lines of race, class, and gender; and that the common man is almost always right. Henry makes clear, in a book full of vivid examples and unflinching opinions, that while these notions are seductively democratic they are also hopelessly wrong.

Education and Elitism discusses polemical debates around privilege, private schools, elitist universities, equal access to education and underlying notions of fairness. The overarching question that runs through the book is about the future of education worldwide: how can schools and universities tread the tightrope between access and quality? This book investigates the philosophical positions that characterize elitism and anti-elitism to establish three types: meritocratic, plutocratic and cultural. These types of elitism (and their counter-positions) are used as reference points throughout the book's analysis of successive educational themes. The conclusion leads to suggestions that bridge the worlds of elitism and egalitarianism worldwide. The book covers critical questions related to the sociology and philosophy of education with particular focus on contemporary disruptors to education such as the COVID-19 pandemic and protest movements for social justice. With an attempt to offer readers an objective overview, this book will be an excellent compendium for students, academics, and researchers of the sociology of education, education policy and comparative education. It will also be of interest toschool leaders, university provosts and professionals working in curriculum design.

First published in 1980, this book presents an important critique of prevailing political doctrine in Western societies at a time of major change in circumstances of Western civilization. G. Lowell Field and John Higley stress the importance of a more realistic appraisal of elite and mass roles in politics, arguing that political stability and any real degree of representative democracy depend fundamentally on the existence of specific kinds of elites.

The populist right have marshalled public anger against the real elites – corporate and financial power – and turned it onto those who represent us in Parliament, uphold our rights, treat us when we're sick, and create and curate the best books, art and ideas. Culture and education have been made into symbolic arenas of 'democratisation' while gross inequality remains intact. This important book argues that the real elites escape scrutiny while everything that makes our lives worth living becomes worthy and diluted. Meanwhile, liberals have lost their nerve, accepting the anti-elitism slur at face value. But social privilege is not the same thing as excellence. For too long conservatives have had a monopoly on upholding standards of beauty and truth. But now that they've become ruthless modernisers, it's time for progressives to take on that task. This book provides the ammunition for a timely rebuttal.

Today, examples of the public’s engagement with political issues through commercial and communicative mechanisms have become increasingly common. In February 2012, the Susan G. Komen Foundation reversed a decision to cease funding of cancer screening programs through Planned Parenthood amidst massive public disapproval. The same year, restaurant chain Chic-fil-A became embroiled in a massive public debate over statements its President made regarding same-sex marriage. What exactly is going on in such public engagement, and how does this relate to existing ideas regarding the public sphere and political participation? Is the public becoming increasingly vocal in its complaints? Or are new relationships between the public and economic and political leaders emerging? Timothy Kersey’s book asserts that the widespread utilization of internet communications technologies, especially social media applications, has brought forth a variety of new communicative behaviors and relationships within liberal polities. Through quick and seemingly chaotic streams of networked communication, the actions of these elites are subject to increasingly intense scrutiny and short-term pressure to ameliorate or at least address the concerns of segments of the population. By examining these new patterns of behavior among both elites and the general public, Kersey unearths the implications of these patterns for contemporary democratic theory, and argues that contemporary conceptualizations of "the public’" need to be modified to more accurately reflect practices of online communication and participation. By engaging with this topical issue, Kersey is able to closely examine the self-organization of both elite and non-elite segments of the population within the realm of networked communication, and the relations and interactions between these segments. His book combines perspectives from political theory and communication studies and so will be widely relevant across both disciplines.

Political analyst and strategist Jeff Bell redefines American politics in this thoughtful and eminently readable book. According to Bell, labels such as liberal vs. conservative, left vs. right, socialist vs. capitalist, even Republican vs. Democrat do not explain much anymore. Instead, the dominant philosophies are populist (rule by the public) and elitist (rule by a select few).

This book reconsiders Joseph Schumpeter's democratic elitism in light of the directions that recent theories of democracy have taken, and it analyzes democratic elitism's workings in western and eastern European states early in the 21st century.