This wasn't what I was saying. The argument is that there are two separate rich elites and they have been fighting each other for decades. Its a civil war. Culture is window dressing.
This wasn't what I was saying. The argument is that there are two separate rich elites and they have been fighting each other for decades. Its a civil war. Culture is window dressing.
Ironically the term 'elite' is used in the same sloppy and imprecise way as 'luxury belief' sometimes tends to get used "in the wild". It's impossible to have productive discourse without establishing and sticking to precise definitions of terms from the very beginning. Plenty of third-quintile folks are going along with and parroting many of these harmful proposals enabled by similar degrees of delusion and insulation from the consequences, and to call such people 'elite' is ridiculous.
My own opinion this kind of "personally costless sanctimony" is a widespread phenomenon in human social psychology and a form of status signaling that is hardly confined to 'elites' at all. That would be like saying that sartorial 'fashion' is mostly or exclusive a thing for 'elites', when in fact the incentives, impulses, and behaviors related to trying to conform to or surpass peer competitors and be perceived to be as impressively 'fashionable' as possible are clearly powerful and observable for all classes.
Just like with the brilliantly-scripted "cerulean sweater" monologue in "The Devil Wears Prada", fashion of all types is for everyone, but trickles down in tiers of social class in cycles of imitation of above, and thus must keep changing at the top, for differentiation from below.
But note it's actually *not* from the very top, and I think this is what Henderson gets really wrong, needing to bone up on his Orwell. The problem is (or at least, was), not the true 'elite', but the *near* (thus aspirational) elites frustrated with being unable to get to the very top (for a number of possible reasons) and to either join or replace the existing class of top elites. That's kind of like Henderson himself, so perhaps the insight hits a little too close to home.
Unlike the Marxist model of class struggle, the proletariat never matter to any of this, and the main event is the rivalry between these two groups of elites which is a universal and perpetual feature of the human condition and the dynamics of these struggles has been a major driver of history everywhere since the dawn of civilization.
The typical person's perception of one's overall social status is like an index aggregating values from a lot of distinct variables including intelligence, athleticism, physical attractiveness, fame, popularity, wealth, power, character, righteousness, socially-recognized 'rank', and so forth.
If you are trying to compete for status with a rival and for whatever reason simple can't win where they are strongest (e.g., wealth, aristocratic heritage, etc.) then that opens up the possibility of winning by getting a lot better than they are where they are weakest.
This subconscious perception of opportunity and drive for class-leapfrogging is what motivates near-elites when they are trying to be ideological entrepreneurs and using their surplus cognitive talents to come up with and conspicuously preach new extensions or modifications for novel fashionable beliefs is how they to achieve superiority over rivals they cannot surpass in other ways.
The fundamental problem is that this whole process is vulnerable to falling into a number of pathological and destructive "Social Failure Modes", something that has recurred over and over in many societies for centuries and especially western or intellectually-westernized ones.
One of those modes is the one Henderson is trying to highlight - of members of the influential classes incentivized to adopt and espouse normative principles and social reforms with negative consequences because they benefit personally in their circle but have no skin in the game for the fallout - though I think he places far too much emphasis on the "class gatekeeping" function, again, perhaps exaggerating the importance because feeling this particular aspect of it a bit too keenly given his personal experiences.
Frankly we would all be much better off if these impulses were forcibly channeled into private and harmless contests and elites were forced to jockey for relative status by competing with Paul Allen to have the perfect business card.
Sorry if I was unclear. I was not trying to restate what you were saying. I was disagreeing (not obviously enough). There is a rich elite - which generally defers to the non-rich elite. Sure, the latter often has ways of enriching itself, and has - but there is no war in my view. I don't know what "culture is window dressing" means so I won't speak to that.
This wasn't what I was saying. The argument is that there are two separate rich elites and they have been fighting each other for decades. Its a civil war. Culture is window dressing.
Ironically the term 'elite' is used in the same sloppy and imprecise way as 'luxury belief' sometimes tends to get used "in the wild". It's impossible to have productive discourse without establishing and sticking to precise definitions of terms from the very beginning. Plenty of third-quintile folks are going along with and parroting many of these harmful proposals enabled by similar degrees of delusion and insulation from the consequences, and to call such people 'elite' is ridiculous.
My own opinion this kind of "personally costless sanctimony" is a widespread phenomenon in human social psychology and a form of status signaling that is hardly confined to 'elites' at all. That would be like saying that sartorial 'fashion' is mostly or exclusive a thing for 'elites', when in fact the incentives, impulses, and behaviors related to trying to conform to or surpass peer competitors and be perceived to be as impressively 'fashionable' as possible are clearly powerful and observable for all classes.
Just like with the brilliantly-scripted "cerulean sweater" monologue in "The Devil Wears Prada", fashion of all types is for everyone, but trickles down in tiers of social class in cycles of imitation of above, and thus must keep changing at the top, for differentiation from below.
But note it's actually *not* from the very top, and I think this is what Henderson gets really wrong, needing to bone up on his Orwell. The problem is (or at least, was), not the true 'elite', but the *near* (thus aspirational) elites frustrated with being unable to get to the very top (for a number of possible reasons) and to either join or replace the existing class of top elites. That's kind of like Henderson himself, so perhaps the insight hits a little too close to home.
Unlike the Marxist model of class struggle, the proletariat never matter to any of this, and the main event is the rivalry between these two groups of elites which is a universal and perpetual feature of the human condition and the dynamics of these struggles has been a major driver of history everywhere since the dawn of civilization.
The typical person's perception of one's overall social status is like an index aggregating values from a lot of distinct variables including intelligence, athleticism, physical attractiveness, fame, popularity, wealth, power, character, righteousness, socially-recognized 'rank', and so forth.
If you are trying to compete for status with a rival and for whatever reason simple can't win where they are strongest (e.g., wealth, aristocratic heritage, etc.) then that opens up the possibility of winning by getting a lot better than they are where they are weakest.
This subconscious perception of opportunity and drive for class-leapfrogging is what motivates near-elites when they are trying to be ideological entrepreneurs and using their surplus cognitive talents to come up with and conspicuously preach new extensions or modifications for novel fashionable beliefs is how they to achieve superiority over rivals they cannot surpass in other ways.
The fundamental problem is that this whole process is vulnerable to falling into a number of pathological and destructive "Social Failure Modes", something that has recurred over and over in many societies for centuries and especially western or intellectually-westernized ones.
One of those modes is the one Henderson is trying to highlight - of members of the influential classes incentivized to adopt and espouse normative principles and social reforms with negative consequences because they benefit personally in their circle but have no skin in the game for the fallout - though I think he places far too much emphasis on the "class gatekeeping" function, again, perhaps exaggerating the importance because feeling this particular aspect of it a bit too keenly given his personal experiences.
Frankly we would all be much better off if these impulses were forcibly channeled into private and harmless contests and elites were forced to jockey for relative status by competing with Paul Allen to have the perfect business card.
The cerulean sweater monologue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja2fgquYTCg
Sorry if I was unclear. I was not trying to restate what you were saying. I was disagreeing (not obviously enough). There is a rich elite - which generally defers to the non-rich elite. Sure, the latter often has ways of enriching itself, and has - but there is no war in my view. I don't know what "culture is window dressing" means so I won't speak to that.