This is an excellent article, of course (we expect, and receive, nothing less). But I would add one other underlying problem: the liberal dream of restricting inequality to meritocracy. In reality, as compared to any of the utopian fever dreams that plague our world, communities always have elites that are there because they are there -- inherited the job, rose up on some sort of merit, or knew the right people. The pretence -- that complex societies do not need a network of elite people (some of whom will be fools and/or slime, because "knowing the right people" is a task that is largely, although not always, done by ambitious fools or crafty slime) -- is dangerous.
It is certainly dangerous for the moral character of the elite. They almost always operate behind a cloak of invisibility -- all good liberals know that there is no communicating elite, only a meritocracy, so these good liberals cannot see something that they do not think could exist in the liberal society. As Plato suggests, invisibility invites bad behaviour. The Epstein tell is an exception, but the concept of an elite that is nothing special (other than talents that are mostly irrelevant to the current functions of the people involved) is so alien to the liberal imagination that I would be astounded if there are more than a few token cancellations or prosecutions before life goes back to normal. As you say, the power of rationalisation is strong among them...
For the world, probably not so much. Our elites are no worse than any elite would be when it is not constrained by some sort of shame in the face of God or some other sacred thing (honour, the fatherland, the spirits). And I would argue that our elites are pretty competent at the things we really care about, which is certainly not high ethical standards. The world is prosperous, much of it is peaceful, and we keep getting new technologies. What more could a modern person ask from the elite?
If we accepted that we do need an elite that is not meritocratic, we might try hard to impose ethical standards on them. But such acceptance is not going to come easily, and not because of a wicked conspiracy. To impose ethical standards you have to have standards that are perceived as universal and that are never lower than aspirational. Both of those conditions are so far from the current social imaginary that no scandal, no matter how repellent or widespread, is likely to have much effect.
Thank you, Edward. Illuminating response. You are right. I don't see any such ethical standard in sight. Even the return of interest in the "strong gods," by which people really mean ideological paganism, is likely to diminish rather than bring restraints.
Reading this, I was struck by how closely it echoes something my mother used to say about actors—and now, influencers. People treat them as if brilliance in one domain somehow spills over into every other. The moment someone becomes famous, or merely visible, we start listening to them as though they’ve been granted wisdom in every facet. But as my mother would put it, “Take them out of the script, out of the studio lights, and they’re as wrong as anyone else—sometimes more so.”
She usually made remarks like that right after the Academy Awards, especially in response to some of the winners’ speeches. It's likely she would have made similar observations after the recent Grammy Awards, judging by things a few artists said.
I think it is actually a tiny bit worse than you have stated it. I keep running into people who sincerely believe that Wisdom is nothing more than heuristics ... a crutch for people who aren't sufficiently intelligent.
Hussein Aboubakr Mansour is wise beyond his years and understand us so well.
This is an excellent article, of course (we expect, and receive, nothing less). But I would add one other underlying problem: the liberal dream of restricting inequality to meritocracy. In reality, as compared to any of the utopian fever dreams that plague our world, communities always have elites that are there because they are there -- inherited the job, rose up on some sort of merit, or knew the right people. The pretence -- that complex societies do not need a network of elite people (some of whom will be fools and/or slime, because "knowing the right people" is a task that is largely, although not always, done by ambitious fools or crafty slime) -- is dangerous.
It is certainly dangerous for the moral character of the elite. They almost always operate behind a cloak of invisibility -- all good liberals know that there is no communicating elite, only a meritocracy, so these good liberals cannot see something that they do not think could exist in the liberal society. As Plato suggests, invisibility invites bad behaviour. The Epstein tell is an exception, but the concept of an elite that is nothing special (other than talents that are mostly irrelevant to the current functions of the people involved) is so alien to the liberal imagination that I would be astounded if there are more than a few token cancellations or prosecutions before life goes back to normal. As you say, the power of rationalisation is strong among them...
For the world, probably not so much. Our elites are no worse than any elite would be when it is not constrained by some sort of shame in the face of God or some other sacred thing (honour, the fatherland, the spirits). And I would argue that our elites are pretty competent at the things we really care about, which is certainly not high ethical standards. The world is prosperous, much of it is peaceful, and we keep getting new technologies. What more could a modern person ask from the elite?
If we accepted that we do need an elite that is not meritocratic, we might try hard to impose ethical standards on them. But such acceptance is not going to come easily, and not because of a wicked conspiracy. To impose ethical standards you have to have standards that are perceived as universal and that are never lower than aspirational. Both of those conditions are so far from the current social imaginary that no scandal, no matter how repellent or widespread, is likely to have much effect.
Thank you, Edward. Illuminating response. You are right. I don't see any such ethical standard in sight. Even the return of interest in the "strong gods," by which people really mean ideological paganism, is likely to diminish rather than bring restraints.
Reading this, I was struck by how closely it echoes something my mother used to say about actors—and now, influencers. People treat them as if brilliance in one domain somehow spills over into every other. The moment someone becomes famous, or merely visible, we start listening to them as though they’ve been granted wisdom in every facet. But as my mother would put it, “Take them out of the script, out of the studio lights, and they’re as wrong as anyone else—sometimes more so.”
She usually made remarks like that right after the Academy Awards, especially in response to some of the winners’ speeches. It's likely she would have made similar observations after the recent Grammy Awards, judging by things a few artists said.
I think it is actually a tiny bit worse than you have stated it. I keep running into people who sincerely believe that Wisdom is nothing more than heuristics ... a crutch for people who aren't sufficiently intelligent.
wisdom literature, as always.
Read:
https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/how-the-world-betrayed-virginia-giuffre
It almost made me physically sick. But force yourself to read it.