Are You An Elitist?
The consensus view is that thinkers are elitist if they intend their work to be studied only by a small cadre of initiates. Philosophy is for the few.
Populists (or humanists), by contrast, are those who believe that, in theory, everyone can and should benefit from engaging with their work. Philosophy is for the many.
Of course, elitism and populism are two ends of a spectrum, not a binary.
But I question the premise that believing your work is only for the few makes you an elitist. In a crucial way, most elitists are crypto-populists and most populists crypto-elitists. Here’s why:
Elitists don’t believe in lowering their standards to accommodate people—excellence/wisdom is real and anyone can, in theory, achieve it, even if few do in practice. Moreover, philosophical elitists don’t believe that one’s birth station or social class determines one’s capacity to philosophize. The philosophical elite can include people from all stations of life. That philosophy is for the few doesn’t mean that it ought to be.
Populists, meanwhile, believe philosophy is for everyone. But the philosophy that is for everyone is undemanding, obvious. But philosophy that’s undemanding is patronizing because it assumes that people can’t rise to the occasion. It also contributes little delta the more obvious it is.
I would make the same argument about the arts. Difficult work is often truly populist while pop art is often elitist—even though in popular culture we get it backwards.
Therefore, I propose dropping the words populist and elitist altogether.
Do you agree?
Why am I wrong?
What is Called Thinking? is a practice of asking a daily question on the belief that self-reflection brings awe, joy, and enrichment to one’s life. Consider becoming a subscriber to support this project and access subscriber-only content.
You can read my weekly Torah commentary here.