Intellectual Elitist

Intelligence, wisdom and enlightenment are the most important aspects of human progressive evolution

“My name’s Eduardo and I’m an intellectual elitist.”
“Hi Eduardo.”

In the six plus years I’ve been writing this blog I have said little about myself, although some characteristics might be evident in my writing. I’m not changing this, but I will readily own that I’m an intellectual elitist. I consider intelligence, wisdom and enlightenment the most important aspects of human progressive evolution. I have no patience with ignorance or those who disdain expertise. I am intensely curious, a moral relativist and comfortable with complex, multilayer concepts. This blog is only possible because of these characteristics.

I agree with Voltaire that it’s the questions asked, not the answers offered, that reveal the quality of thought in others. Intellectual elitism represents a variety of characteristics — education, critical thinking, curiosity, openness to ideas — that are essential to human progress in multiple ways. Universities, originating in Italy in the sixth century and evolving from there, are acknowledgement that intellectual excellence is central to humanity…or at least some of humanity. The term “university” is derived from the Latin universities magistrorum et scholarium: community of teachers and scholars.

Human society has always been stratified, with a modest percentage being the “elite” for a variety of reasons. Elites represent the exceptional among us. This doesn’t make them better than others as humans, but it does make them important to their societies for what they offer — new perspectives, alternative ideas, innovative suppositions. Intellectual elites help drive change in how we think about many aspects of life. Change, of course, is both inherent to human existence (and existence in general) and also a source of conflict. Not everyone likes change, particularly if it is perceived as negative or threatening.

Anti-intellectualism has been the response of those most anxious and angry about change. Thus the disdain toward academia by many conservatives, who see intellectuals as a source of unwanted liberal change. Less educated conservatives distrust experts and those who are more open-minded because they represent threats to tradition, privilege and long-held values. Ironically, more educated conservatives with strong ideological beliefs are hostile toward intellectuals, whose facts, information and data undermine ideological principles. The “war” on science is a bizarre example of blaming the messenger for the unwanted message.

Intellectual elites tend to be pragmatists. I’m one of them. Yes, there are issues that need resolution, but the details of these and rational solutions to them won’t be found with emotional generalizations and oversimplifications. Intellectuals can disagree on the details, yet still retain a broad view of the realities. We know change is inevitable, economic disruptions are inevitable, some socio-economic inequity is inevitable. How we deal with these and other issues is where intellectualism brings value to discussions. These discussions are also open to citizens — which is ultimately what makes democracy and self-governance successful, but this requires intellectual honesty to be functionally effective.

Moderate and center-left intellectuals ask lots of questions and then begin the process of developing answers. Conservative intellectuals too often lead with answers (ideological principles) and thus undervalue questions. However, as long as there are serious discussions and a willingness to compromise (our society was founded on the principle of compromise), we can still make progress. And that is what has become increasingly lost. Derisive, corrosive, either-or, anti-factual posturing has replaced getting things done for the greater good. Scoring political points has taken the place of trying to do better.

Intellectuals are a society’s greatest resource. They bring concepts and possibilities to life, and they are also the voters who make thoughtful choices. The problem with being really smart is one can see what needs to be done, should be done, can be done…but isn’t. One can observe that those who should be making a difference are instead engaged in pointless political games that simultaneously make voters ever more cynical while undermining the very processes we need so much. Yes we can has been replaced by no we can’t. How anti-pragmatic is that.

[The terms elite and elitist are misused and abused by those with an agenda, particularly far-left/right populist ideology. The origin of the term elite is “being chosen” (as in elected or selected), but now it is a pejorative term used indiscriminately in meaningless broad strokes to denote anyone in a position of influence that someone else thinks they don’t deserve. The term elitist is meant to negatively denote anyone who thinks too highly of them self for one reason or another. Again, applied simply because of some perceived ability, power or influence that most do not have. All societies, organizations, institutions have elite members, including those that claim otherwise.]