Nice post. I've pondered the elite status of Jake Sullivan, who you mention, because he was my class at Yale. I didn't know him, but I knew of him as the editor in chief of the Yale Daily News, and had a vague sense of him as a super high achieving square. I sort of still have that sense of him, which makes it harder to imagine him as a really good avatar of the elite, though by your measure he's passed through two or three of the four gates (doesn't come from money, but has the schooling, the influence, and maybe the money).
About mid-way through a longer post on this topic that focused no Shamus Khan's book Privilege, which you should read. It's really brilliant.
Thanks Daniel! And thanks for the food for thought of this piece! I've been kind of fascinated by Sullivan actually. What comes through from a book I read - The Internationalists by Alexander Ward - jibes with what you're saying. That he's really not that interesting, actually. That it's all analysis and kind of conventional thought. Interesting where he's ended up in life as the minder to Netanyahu.
Your essay made me think about the difference between an individual and a family in terms of elite. Someone may have money and social capital, but if they're culturally clueless, I find it hard to call that person elite. Perhaps their money and connections will last for many generations and they may create an elite family whose members can have it all. But the only historically reliable solution to avoiding the division and frittering away of wealth and influence was primogeniture.
Then, too, I wonder if celebrity and fame acts against being elite. With celebrity comes so many constraints on freedom. And what's the point of being elite if you don't have freedom to do as you please?
Maybe the elite are hidden. Anonymity may itself be a form of and condition precedent for elitism.
All very interesting points. A great deal of being 'elite' tends to be the protection of elite status against all possible poseurs and upstarts. Yes, 'social capital' is a way of preserving elite status - Bourdieu's analysis on this is very interesting but is somewhat contradicted by the bobo wealthy in contemporary American life who pick up various elite credentials but not so much elite tastes. And, yes, elite snobs really know how to disdain celebrity, fame, or for that matter working for a living. Snobbery is so infinite that it makes the term 'elite' very contested.
I really liked Tara Isabella Burton's book Self-Made, which posits two very different conceptions of the self - a European and an American version. The European version is 'je ne sais quoi' - the idea that some people are born with 'it' while everybody else isn't - and the American version is pulling-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps. And those who have done well in the different societies are often at pains to construct a narrative for how they got there - Americans by claiming to have been working all the time and Europeans by claiming to have never worked at all. That argument may intersect as well with trying to figure out what 'elite' means.
We can lean on Thomas Sowell who reminds us that there is greater diversity among the rich than between the rich & the poor.
Let’s say that “poor” is below $100,000 in annual income. Everyone above that level is “rich”.
Sowell reminds us that there is a far greater diversity, in dollar terms, AMONG the rich than there is BETWEEN a “poor“ person and rich person.
There is greater diversity among people making $250,001 per year and multi-millionaires.
There is greater diversity among multi-millionaires and billionaires.
And, there’s even more diversity between a billionaire and a multi-billionaire.
The diversity among the poor stops when you get below zero while there is no upper limit on a multibillionaire.
This is the most common type of Elite power holders in America. These are the financial Elite.
Peter Turchin, author of UltraSociety, and End Times, describes an Elite as someone who holds power. Turchin describes four types of power:
1) Financial power is wealth, usually quantified in dollar terms. America is emblematic of a country which legitimizes financial power in its citizens.
2) Coercive power is military or police power. Cartels may also utilize coercive power in lawless states such as Mexico or Afghanistan. Military coercive power is the most ancient type of power and is becoming quickly de-legitimized as evidenced by the recent pushback against Israel in Gaza.
3) Administrative power is the most common type of power. This is found in bureaucracies, both public and private, where middle managers and frontline DMV employees, schoolteachers, etc. attempt to exert their rule-making authority. Administrative power grows linearly with the growth of the State.
Ideological power is the power of ideas. Ideological power has been used by everyone from Jesus to Hitler to Jordan Peterson and even online influencers today. Ideological power is often seen as soft but, under the right circumstances, can be very powerful.
So, in summary, Elites, or anybody who wields one of the four types of power listed above.
Thanks Tim. I need to read Turchin. That schematic of power seems intelligent although I'm not exactly sure that 'elite' equates with 'power.' People talk about 'elite' students and 'elite' schools all the time and in that context what they're referring to are tastes and sensibilities as opposed to one day growing up to have power. In normal discourse, people have something very different in mind when they discuss 'elitism' - that was the initial jumping-off point for this post.
Your $100,000 threshold for poverty is an elite statement if I've ever heard one! I think the usual threshold for poverty is around $30,000 for a family and $20,000 for an individual. Is there a middle class in your schematic lol?!
That's interesting to think about 'diversity' among the wealthy. I also haven't read Sowell! Although I'm a little suspicious of what he's saying. Above a certain income level, money really becomes just a number and I'm not sure that it correlates with identity in the way that Sowell seems to be suggesting. 'Diversity' doesn't seem like quite the right word to use. But appreciate the food for thought! - and happy to argue this out!
Nice post. I've pondered the elite status of Jake Sullivan, who you mention, because he was my class at Yale. I didn't know him, but I knew of him as the editor in chief of the Yale Daily News, and had a vague sense of him as a super high achieving square. I sort of still have that sense of him, which makes it harder to imagine him as a really good avatar of the elite, though by your measure he's passed through two or three of the four gates (doesn't come from money, but has the schooling, the influence, and maybe the money).
About mid-way through a longer post on this topic that focused no Shamus Khan's book Privilege, which you should read. It's really brilliant.
Thanks Daniel! And thanks for the food for thought of this piece! I've been kind of fascinated by Sullivan actually. What comes through from a book I read - The Internationalists by Alexander Ward - jibes with what you're saying. That he's really not that interesting, actually. That it's all analysis and kind of conventional thought. Interesting where he's ended up in life as the minder to Netanyahu.
I mean I guess being interesting shouldn’t be one of the criteria, but somehow it feels like it matters. Maybe I’m confusing elite with cool.
It’s a slippery term lol!
My non-elite status is now confirmed by my never having heard the names Jake Sullivan or Shamus Khan. I have heard of Yale, though! 🎉🎉🎉
Haha! Only super-elites like Daniel Oppenheimer have heard of Shamus Khan!
I pretty much define elite as being in possession of precisely the same set of cultural references as me. It’s a very small club.
🤣🤙
Sam,
Your essay made me think about the difference between an individual and a family in terms of elite. Someone may have money and social capital, but if they're culturally clueless, I find it hard to call that person elite. Perhaps their money and connections will last for many generations and they may create an elite family whose members can have it all. But the only historically reliable solution to avoiding the division and frittering away of wealth and influence was primogeniture.
Then, too, I wonder if celebrity and fame acts against being elite. With celebrity comes so many constraints on freedom. And what's the point of being elite if you don't have freedom to do as you please?
Maybe the elite are hidden. Anonymity may itself be a form of and condition precedent for elitism.
David,
All very interesting points. A great deal of being 'elite' tends to be the protection of elite status against all possible poseurs and upstarts. Yes, 'social capital' is a way of preserving elite status - Bourdieu's analysis on this is very interesting but is somewhat contradicted by the bobo wealthy in contemporary American life who pick up various elite credentials but not so much elite tastes. And, yes, elite snobs really know how to disdain celebrity, fame, or for that matter working for a living. Snobbery is so infinite that it makes the term 'elite' very contested.
I really liked Tara Isabella Burton's book Self-Made, which posits two very different conceptions of the self - a European and an American version. The European version is 'je ne sais quoi' - the idea that some people are born with 'it' while everybody else isn't - and the American version is pulling-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps. And those who have done well in the different societies are often at pains to construct a narrative for how they got there - Americans by claiming to have been working all the time and Europeans by claiming to have never worked at all. That argument may intersect as well with trying to figure out what 'elite' means.
Cheers,
Sam
Sounds like I need to read "Self-Made." Thanks Sam.
Good news!
We can lean on Thomas Sowell who reminds us that there is greater diversity among the rich than between the rich & the poor.
Let’s say that “poor” is below $100,000 in annual income. Everyone above that level is “rich”.
Sowell reminds us that there is a far greater diversity, in dollar terms, AMONG the rich than there is BETWEEN a “poor“ person and rich person.
There is greater diversity among people making $250,001 per year and multi-millionaires.
There is greater diversity among multi-millionaires and billionaires.
And, there’s even more diversity between a billionaire and a multi-billionaire.
The diversity among the poor stops when you get below zero while there is no upper limit on a multibillionaire.
This is the most common type of Elite power holders in America. These are the financial Elite.
Peter Turchin, author of UltraSociety, and End Times, describes an Elite as someone who holds power. Turchin describes four types of power:
1) Financial power is wealth, usually quantified in dollar terms. America is emblematic of a country which legitimizes financial power in its citizens.
2) Coercive power is military or police power. Cartels may also utilize coercive power in lawless states such as Mexico or Afghanistan. Military coercive power is the most ancient type of power and is becoming quickly de-legitimized as evidenced by the recent pushback against Israel in Gaza.
3) Administrative power is the most common type of power. This is found in bureaucracies, both public and private, where middle managers and frontline DMV employees, schoolteachers, etc. attempt to exert their rule-making authority. Administrative power grows linearly with the growth of the State.
Ideological power is the power of ideas. Ideological power has been used by everyone from Jesus to Hitler to Jordan Peterson and even online influencers today. Ideological power is often seen as soft but, under the right circumstances, can be very powerful.
So, in summary, Elites, or anybody who wields one of the four types of power listed above.
Thanks Tim. I need to read Turchin. That schematic of power seems intelligent although I'm not exactly sure that 'elite' equates with 'power.' People talk about 'elite' students and 'elite' schools all the time and in that context what they're referring to are tastes and sensibilities as opposed to one day growing up to have power. In normal discourse, people have something very different in mind when they discuss 'elitism' - that was the initial jumping-off point for this post.
Your $100,000 threshold for poverty is an elite statement if I've ever heard one! I think the usual threshold for poverty is around $30,000 for a family and $20,000 for an individual. Is there a middle class in your schematic lol?!
That's interesting to think about 'diversity' among the wealthy. I also haven't read Sowell! Although I'm a little suspicious of what he's saying. Above a certain income level, money really becomes just a number and I'm not sure that it correlates with identity in the way that Sowell seems to be suggesting. 'Diversity' doesn't seem like quite the right word to use. But appreciate the food for thought! - and happy to argue this out!
- Sam