Author: Draco Leo
Link: http://www.zhihu.com/question/21053772/answer/21994786
Source: Zhihu
The problem with elitism is that it is easy to lose sight of who you are. Think of yourself as a ruler, a master. In fact, the elites are the stewards of this society. Many "elites" do not have this awareness at all. This is the essence, and the rest are external manifestations.
The elitism in our country should be called old elitism, which is manifested in the spirit of the gentry, taking the world as its own responsibility, first worrying and then enjoying the traditional spirit. But the concept of "people are equal" is lacking. In the previous answer, all kinds of people are not as good as the elites, so the world is ruled by the elites, etc. It is a concrete manifestation. Today, your IQ is 180, my IQ is 100; your monthly income is 100,000, and I move bricks on the construction site; you are handsome and handsome, I am a wretched chicken thief, etc., etc., it is only called the difference between people. All differences between people do not affect equality between people. Everyone's vote has the same weight. In the eyes of some "elites", it has become a distinction between superior and inferior. This "elite" has lost the right to govern the world from the very beginning. Because it is impossible for such a person to make a judgment fairly. For the sake of self-esteem, such people think that many things are due to them, they will confuse the boundaries of their own interests, and they will inflate themselves. This kind of person is only suitable for existence in feudal society. This kind of person will think, I have paid so much and so much hard work to get through, and you, a bricklayer, actually want to be equal to me? What a common idea this is.
From an ideal point of view, true elitism is to realize that the reason why you become an elite is because you have received more help and more resources from this society. We are grateful for the society, and therefore, out of the most basic human contract spirit, we consciously take responsibility for this society. It is a spirit of dedication. Therefore, in the West, there will be a tradition of wealthy business families burning money to engage in politics (of course, you are right to say that they are actually conspiring), and business and excellence are officials.
Unfortunately, in a society like China that pursues materialism and personal struggle, no one will attribute their success to the society, but think that they are fighting for it in the struggle between themselves and the society. The so-called elites are just looking for a high-sounding excuse to elevate themselves, or even a fig leaf to cover up their sinful primitive accumulation practices.
The role the elite should play is to govern the world, not to rule the world. Anyone with a little contractual basis will know that humans do not need masters. Life is born free.
===================================Separation line================ ===================
Q: Is there a problem with elitism? Is universal suffrage necessary? Is it reasonable for the minority to obey the majority?
1. Elitism means that decisions are made mainly by "elites" in society
Elites are a group of people who are a minority in society but have high "decision-making legitimacy".
"Legitimacy": The degree to which the decision-making authority is respected by the public, which can also be said to be "the rationality of the authority", which has nothing to do with the law.
2. The biggest problem of elitism is "the determination of elite qualifications.
3. Populism does not believe that there is a group of "elites" who are above the people. The legitimacy of any decision should come from the permission of the people.
4. The strength of populism is that the people are affected by decisions, so the people should have the right to make decisions, which is precisely the weakness of elitism
Where is the "legitimacy" of elitism? Professionalism, which is the weakness of populism
For example: a normal person will not randomly select 12 people on the street to form a "consultation team" when they are uncomfortable, and collectively vote to decide whether you should take medicine or have surgery. A normal person would definitely find a doctor. The more professional and experienced the doctor is, the better his grades, the more popular he is. If a doctor who just graduated from a third-rate medical school has a different opinion than a doctor who graduated from a top medical school with 20 years of practice experience, we often listen to the latter's diagnosis.
Therefore, in real life, we are willing to give greater authority to more professional people. This is based on a simple benefit judgment: more professional people are more likely to make the right decisions, so having these people to make decisions may bring us more benefits.
5. The problem with elitism:
First, authority in one field is not authority in all fields
example. Should a doctor have greater authority in diagnosis? not necessarily. Because he may be a dentist, and the diagnosis is cardiovascular disease. In this case, a senior professional may not necessarily have more decision-making ability than an ordinary person who reads himself. In this case, the former is no more "elite" than the latter. But among elitists, serious mistakes are often made on this issue.
Because, in the concept of ordinary people, the identity of "elite" is fixed, regardless of field. There is always a feeling that someone who has made outstanding contributions in a professional field should be placed in a wider decision-making position. This is a completely wrong idea. An authority in one field may no longer be an authority in another field. Therefore, the status of the elite is limited to a very narrow professional field. Outside their own field, they should no longer enjoy the legitimacy of decision-making. Some people are keen on "Einstein's view on a certain issue" and "Napoleon said that China is a sleeping giant", but in fact, they have made mistakes in this regard.
Second, the vulnerability of the "downward authentication" mode
The determination of authoritative identity takes two forms. The most common is the endorsement of a higher authority. For example, a company wants to hire a mechanical design engineer. A is a mechanical engineering graduate, but has not done actual mechanical design. B is a graduate of the Academy of Fine Arts and has never done mechanical design. Neither of them performed. The reason why the company will recruit A but not B is because A's professional ability has been recognized by a higher authority (a teacher of the mechanical department of a university). That is, one way to achieve elite status is to be recognized by senior elites. However, this obviously has its natural problems. First of all, no one can give recognition to the most advanced elites. Because there is no elite more senior than them. Therefore, in a field, the identification of "highest level" and "highest authority" can never be produced by this approach. Second, elite circles can always control their numbers, multiplying their worth. This phenomenon is clearly seen in the American medical profession. There is an association of physicians in the United States, they can test, certify new doctors, and can effectively control the number of medical schools. The standard of practice for doctors in the United States is extremely high, resulting in a shortage of doctors. In this way doctors can always be paid extremely handsomely. This partly contributes to high medical costs. In the end, it is society as a whole who pays the price. Third, it is always the old elite who judge the new elite, which leads the old elite to certify the new elite according to their own interests rather than professional ability.
For example, U.S. Ivy League graduates are often seen as "more elite" than the average school graduate, but in reality, successful people can subsidize their underachieving children into Ivy League schools. That's not to mention the common problem of cronyism in government. Fourth, even if we assume that the certification of old elites to new elites is always fair, it cannot solve the problem that many elite certifications require special procedures. And meeting these procedures requires a huge investment. This leaves some people who might meet elite standards not certified. For example, a professional diploma from a regular university requires long-term study in school to get it. It is possible that someone has reached the relevant standards through self-study, but only gets a self-study exam diploma. Getting a formal diploma requires spending money, time, going to classes, doing homework, doing experiments, and taking exams. Third, the unreliability of performance certification If we want to avoid the problems existing in the certification of superiors and subordinates, we cannot leave the certification of the elites to the management itself, which can only give the power of certification to the public. The public's certification of elites is carried out through their achievements. Those who make better grades are elites of higher level. This is performance certification. With or without senior elite certification, if a person has multiple success stories, then people tend to confer authoritative status in the relevant field. Even if a person does not have a degree in mechanical engineering, as long as he has designed good mechanical equipment many times, everyone will naturally recognize his identity as a mechanical engineer and think he has professional ability and authority.
However, performance certification is always extremely difficult. Because the acquisition of performance requires material and social conditions. In some cases, the possibility of performance certification does not exist at all until authority is granted. Let's say, it's time to elect the president of the United States. Of the two candidates who came out, neither of them had the experience of being president, and neither of them had any achievements in governing the country. Like Obama, who doesn't even have the governing experience of the state government, how can it be possible to identify its authority/elite status through performance and give it higher decision-making power? If performance certification is not feasible or timely, there is no way to certify the elite at the highest level. Since elites often certify their subordinates from high to low, if such a problem occurs in a field, the actual professional ability of all elites in this field may be a big question mark. On the other hand, performance certification is always based on material and social conditions, and these conditions are not distributed equitably. Therefore, a person who has made good grades may not necessarily have strong professional ability, but may also have material and social conditions that are far superior to others. To give a simple example, two bureaucrats are both in charge of environmental protection work, one in a coastal city and the other in a basin city. Seaside cities have far less smog than basin cities. So the bureaucrats in the coastal cities must be more capable, more "elite", and more worthy of promotion? not necessarily. This question arises more in the business world.
Therefore, the issue of authoritative authentication is full of loopholes. To sum up: 1. Except for performance certification, no one can certify the elite at the highest level. 2. Performance certification is not reliable. In many fields, the physical and social conditions required for performance certification are inherently unfairly distributed, so performance certification cannot fully confirm the professional competence of the parties. 3. If the highest level of elite certification itself is not reliable, then the actual professional ability of the entire elite circle of certification may be questioned. 4. Elites may not certify some qualified people, so as to control the number of elites and ensure the scarcity and profitability of elites. 5. Elites may certify unqualified people as elites for their own self-interest, so that unqualified people have the opportunity to make decisions. 6. Certification pathways for elites are often not equally open to all.
So even if all the elites are certified without problems, there is still a fundamental loophole in elitism. That is, the decisions of the elites themselves may not be right. Elites may deliberately make wrong or suboptimal decisions for their own benefit or for other reasons. Doctors may deliberately prescribe expensive and ineffective drugs for their own cut. Scholars may deliberately falsify data in order to produce papers. Politicians may make deals with companies to raise campaign funds. Therefore, simply assuming that a more professional person would make a better decision is unreliable in itself. Psychological experiments have shown that the richer people are, the more they like to encroach on profits.
This is human nature. Therefore, it can be said that the self-enrichment of the elite is a problem that cannot be solved by elitism. It's not something that can be avoided by preaching "true elites."
Returning to the definition of elitism, the problem of elitism becomes clear. Modern elitism believes that elites are those with professional authority and professional ability. However, the certification of professional authority and professional competence has the above six problems. On the other hand, modern elitism assumes that people with higher expertise make better decisions, an assumption that itself is often unreliable. In many fields, however, elitism is clearly necessary (eg, no one would find a "clinic group" instead of a doctor). And for the problem of elitism, the solution is often to resort to populism to some extent. Of course, that's not to say populism is better. From a certain perspective, it can be said that the struggle and complementarity of elitism and populism have written the history of modern political evolution.
Why is universal suffrage necessary (besides taking care of minority rights)? Is it correct for the minority to obey the majority? There is no need for universal suffrage. Universal suffrage is a protective measure for major population groups and interest groups. Under the conditions that both populism and elitism have fatal flaws, universal suffrage can play a role in restraining the ruling elite. It has its own problems. The referendum is, plainly, a populist measure. It inevitably makes blind decisions.
It is not always correct for the minority to obey the majority, and requires special qualifications and context. Each of the political systems that human beings have developed so far has fundamental loopholes. Don't expect to say that there is one system that is particularly good, everything is basically reasonable, and there are no major problems. There are each, and the difference is who has the bigger loopholes and whose loopholes are more unavoidable. There are also many problems with the republic in the United States, but they have been well avoided. Now the US Congress is becoming more and more antagonistic, and the legislative efficiency is getting lower and lower. This is not accidental, but caused by many fundamental problems in the design of the US system.
6. Do not agree with the argument of blindly denying elitism. Any society is constantly drifting between "efficiency" and "fairness"; in many cases, "eliteism" represents efficiency, while "democracy" and the like represent fairness. I believe most people can agree that extreme and stable "elitist" societies and "democratic" societies are only ideals. In the real society, excessive strangulation of any party will lead to many social problems. Isn't that what "tyranny of the majority" says?