Recently there have been waves of anger, lashing out, disdain and open disrepute online amongst a very, very small percentage of Internet users in SA.
The main focus of this disdain has revolved around the concept of elitism. One blogger today wrote that there are less than 200 active social media users in SA. Huh?
Anyways, that’s not my point. I want to ask the question: “Does elitism actually stifle growth and development?”
My immediate answer is no and I think it’s one that I am going to stick to forever. Why? Simple. It’s because the “elitism” that “everyone” is talking about is simply providing a driving force for so many to push themselves harder, faster, futher and aid in their growth and development.
I don’t know about anyone else but when someone excluded me, told me I couldn’t, shouldn’t, wouldn’t, I did, evertime. And not only did I do what they told me I couldn’t or shouldn’t but I made sure that I creamed them at it. I made a point of standing up and having people notice me.
Now if something as silly as a perceived elitism is going to get under your skin, knock you down and make you go home and give up then maybe you should just become an employee at someone else’s company. There’s nothing wrong with that. Not everyone can be evangelists, leaders, gurus, geniuses, experts and the like… or can they?
Wogan 10:30 am on October 16, 2008 Permalink
The “perceived elitism”, as you call it, is far from knocking us down. The last line in my post mentioned that we’ll have to find a way to set that elitism aside in order to grow as a sphere.
I’m all for taking over South Africa and getting everyone on Twitter/blogging (dream that’ll probably never come true, oh well), but if we stop now, and consider ourselves “there” in terms of growth, we’ll never get beyond 0.01% penetration.
Elitism shouldn’t be a driving force. It basically means you want to get better and bigger so you can show it off to the rest of the world. That’s not the right way to do it, imo. Because then, everything you do feeds back into your own ego, it’s all about you, and eventually, people move on – what you got left, then?
Andre 10:35 am on October 16, 2008 Permalink
Nic, facing up to a bully in school is admirable. Removing the bully from school is far better.
)
Glad to see another blogger that I admire, throw his hat in the ring. Robust debate. Bravo.
ExMi 10:35 am on October 16, 2008 Permalink
too true, wogan, too true.
instead the focus should be on collectively achieving something. Not as an individual, but as a gathering. Creating an elitism, your own, or attempting to fit into others’ is based on exclusion, and from what i gather, that’s not what blogging/twitter etc is about.
it’s about inclusion – getting as many people as possible sharing opinions on something, learning from each other and growing.
How does an elitism, in any way, shape or form contribute to that?
Nic 11:55 am on October 16, 2008 Permalink
Wogan – You seem to be speaking and leaning towards socialism. Unfortunately socialism does not exist. Altruism is also a fallacy. That doesn’t exist either. I need to do the best for myself – but that must NEVER involve destroying someone else or their reputation. That part I 100% agree with you on.
Andre – Agreed to a point. I personally much prefer making my point with actions. So if I can begin to do well for myself and my clique or support structure and in the end through my action remove the “bully” from the game, then so be it. Someone once told me “The best revenge is to live well”.
Wogan 2:32 pm on October 16, 2008 Permalink
@Nic Socialism? You’re leaning towards extremism, lol. Socialism is a far cry from collaboration, which is what I’m talking about.
Yes, I agree that you must do the best for yourself, but only to an extent. At some point, the best thing you could possibly do for yourself, is work with others, enter into collaborative projects, and sacrifice a little time to create something bigger than yourself.
Elitists only focus on themselves, and what’s best for them, disregarding the core values of the sphere they’re trying to be elitist in. In 2008, you just can’t do that anymore.
Nic 2:37 pm on October 16, 2008 Permalink
Wogan, I see your point, but who ever said that elitism is necessarily exclusionary?
Andre 3:42 pm on October 16, 2008 Permalink
EXMI said it quite clearly:
“Creating an elitism, your own, or attempting to fit into others’ is based on exclusion”, two comments up.
And, she’s right on the money, in the pejorative use of the word, Elitism that we’re discussing. In fact some sources (Wikipedia, for one) go as far as to suggest that “discrimination” could be a more accurate term for this kind of Elitism.
“The term elitism is also sometimes misused to denote situations in which a group of people claiming to possess high abilities or simply an in-group or cadre grant themselves extra privileges at the expense of others. This debased form of elitism may be described as discrimination.”
Discrimination = Exclusionary. Fact.
Wogan 5:16 pm on October 16, 2008 Permalink
@Nic I’m all for getting good at what you do – but that’s “skilled” and “professionalism” – in some cases, that’s “passion”.
The very nature of anything elite is that it’s a closed-doors, highly exclusive “club” – the polar opposite of the core of social media, which is openness and transparency. You can’t have your cake and brag about it.
Top 9 stops on the web « Witness This 9:27 am on November 10, 2008 Permalink
[...] 10, 2008 · No Comments There’s been a lot of talk on the interweb about elitism and how a few have come to dominate the web space and dictate what counts as [...]