From: garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin)
Subject: Re: Cultural elitism as a problem?
Organization: Stanford Law School, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 17:46:48 GMT

   God, I hate to continue this thread, but there's a few tangential
issues I just can't resist following up on.  Forgive me.

In article <Ahn-061092111004@branford-college-node.net.yale.edu> Ahn@pop.cis.yale.edu (Eugene R. Ahn) writes:
>[in response to someone seconding the "cultural elite as paper tiger"
>theory]
>
>Ooohhhhh! What a clever strategy! Compare the issue to another issue
>concocted by the conservatives since we've been exposed to enough phony
>ones in the campaigns! Nice one! And then compare it to the "red scare" as
>empty, irrational fear! NICE!
>
>WHAT!? Gaak! You fools miss the point entirely. By bringing this issue up,
>I will inherently look like a real dick, because I'm making the implication
>"here's something I know, which you probably don't know" which is
>unavoidable since most (the three or so who reponded to this) of you are
>reading into the whole issue wrong.

   Well, I can't say for certain, but it seems to me that the general
take that the country has on the term as used by (mostly) the Vice
President is more of an intellectual-liberal-cultural relativist class
rather than simply those in power over the arts and media.  Now maybe
that's not what he meant; maybe he means what you mean.  Still, I
haven't heard him or anyone else correct this misconception.

   Therefore, you shouldn't be surprised that when you use the same
term, people presume you have the same meaning in mind.  You certainly
shouldn't consider them fools for doing so.  And patronizing is just
plain nasty.

>
>"cultural elitism" is a catch word which maybe I should have avoided
>because it's obviously created responses of misunderstanding. By "cultural
>elites" I'm not referring to a snotty, smarter-than-thou class in general
>(what good does that label do?). Cultural elites refers EXACTLY to what the
>two words mean, and take a look at them again! The top echelon of those who
>determine American culture in the arts and the media. I am hardly one, and
>probably, neither are you. It's an issue of power (which no one got the
>main point, even though I capslocked the whole thing!!!) that we're all
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>subservient to.

   Just a thought: perhaps this is an indication that capslocking
things doesn't make them any clearer?  That emphasizing entire
sentences is usually a waste of time?  That one ought to think more of
the clarity and persuasivness of one's prose and less about its
typography?  Naaah.

>
>This IS NOT an issue of conservatism against liberalism. THE FIRST AND
>FOREMOST QUESTION THAT IS BEING BROUGHT UP IS: IS AMERICAN CULTURE AND THE
>AMERICAN MIND SHAPED DISPROPORTIONATELY BY WHAT HE/SHE SEES ON TV, THE
>THEATRES OR LISTENS TO ON THE RADIO? And if so, shouldn't we address the
>fact that an imbalance exists in Hollywood, and often one POV gets
>predominantly expressed (like I corrected myself, the television news
>networks is a different arena, which actually may be imbalanced by
>conservatism judging by the Gulf War coverage). 

   Perhaps I've been blinded by years of exposure to the cultural
elite's propaganda (or, depending on your definition, perhaps I am
one), but off the top of my head I don't see much of any viewpoint
being expressed in the arts and media as a class, much less a single
one.  (I'm excluding news media, here.)  I'm afraid you're going to
have to point to some examples for me.  The only one that the Vice
President has come up with is Murphy Brown, which I think he
mischaracterized.

>
>If anything else, I personally hate the term "cultural elites". One person
>wrote "Yale is a breeding ground for the cultural elites." Yuck. And yes, I
>believe the name has a negative connotation that MAY be a conservative
>ploy. But like I said, that's not the issue here.
>
>I know this doesn't tell you when to tell your kids to go to bed, but I
>hope someone hears the issue. As for now, I'm forwarding my original
>argument to alt.politics.usa.misc (I think that's it's name) since I'm not

   Well, actually, you're not--which is one of the reasons I posted
this.  There's a line up at the top of each article (if it isn't
there, you can create it with a text editor) which reads "Followup-To:
<blahblahblah>."  That line in the article I'm quoting sent followups
to alt.parents-teens.  Just FYI.


			-Gary
-- 
|Gary Brainin                     |BITNET: garygm%leland.stanford.edu@stanford|
|garygm@leland.stanford.edu       |UUCP: ...decwrl!leland.stanford.edu!garygm |
|"...the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right |
|most valued by civilized men."    Olmstead v. U.S. (Brandeis, J., dissenting)|
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens