There is no uniform definition as to what the concepts of Egalitarianism and Elitism stand for. However, it would be absolutely appropriate, on our part, to refer to Elitism as qualitative and to Egalitarianism as quantitative worldviews. Elitism implies that different aspects of socio-political reality should be assessed through their objective value, whereas Egalitarianism suggests that the objective properties of such value cannot be measured in principle, because it would lead to “inequality”. The concept of social Egalitarianism had originated during the course of the Enlightenment era in Europe. It was being promoted by such philosophers as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Voltaire, which for the first time in modern history, had suggested that people are being born equal and that the difference in their social status is essentially artificial. The motto of the 1792 French Revolution was “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”. On the other hand, the concept of modern Elitism, the origins of which can be traced to the works of Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger, is based upon the assumption of people’s metaphysical inequality. In his novel “Animal Farm”, George Orwell had expressed this idea in a rather sarcastic manner: “All animals are equal, but some of them are more equal then the others”.
Egalitarianism denies the very possibility that an individual’s racial or gender affiliation might be affecting the essence of his or her existential mode. Egalitarianism is being absolutely serious when they suggest that, for example, there is absolutely no difference in intellectual capabilities between Blacks and Whites and that women are capable of executing traditionally men’s professional duties, with the same degree of effectiveness. On the other hand, Elitists argue that the concept of “universal equality”, promoted by Egalitarianism, is utterly unscientific, simply because it contradicts the laws of nature. According to the Second Law of Thermo-Dynamics, the amount of entropy in the universe is geometrically proportionate the degree of energy’s dissipation throughout the cosmos. Therefore, the notion of equality is basically synonymous to the notion of energetic death. This is the reason why, ever since the hawks of political correctness (equality, tolerance, human rights etc.) were put in position of designing socio-political policies in Western countries, these counties now undergo a process of being turned into a Third World slums themselves.
While being confronted with conceptual inconsistency of their own worldview, Egalitarianism strives for nothing less than adjusting an objective reality to the set of their obscure beliefs (affirmative action). They try to facilitate the notion of equality with whatever the means possible, without understanding that all these attempts are doomed to failure, simply because equality can only exist among truly equal. Elitists, on the other hand, suggest that it is namely due to people’s inequality, that cultural and scientific progress, closely associated with Western civilization, became possible in the first place. They point out to the fact that the very concept of “democracy” is fallacious, because regardless of whether the form of government in a particular country refers to itself as “monarchy” or “people’s republic”, it is necessarily elitist. The notion of “people’s governing” is nothing but a myth.
Egalitarianism confuses the concept of “equality” with the concept of “fairness”. Moreover, it views these two notions as deriving out of each other. Elitism disagrees with such an assumption. It suggests that whatever is natural is necessarily fair. Given the fact that people’s inequality appears to be genetically predetermined (natural), the societies that grade their members according to their objective value, are absolutely fair.
While claiming the promotion of social tolerance to represent their foremost agenda, Egalitarianism appears as being utterly intolerant individuals. They are quite incapable of admitting even a possibility that their philosophy might be wrong. In its turn, this explains why they often resort to applying the labels of “sexism”, “racism” and “male chauvinism” to their opponents. Contrary to this, most Elitists are capable of defending their point of view in calm and unemotional manner, which only strengthens the validity of their suggestions in the eyes of outside observers.
The concept of Egalitarianism is based on emotional assumptions and on wishful thinking. Elitism, on the other hand, is based on hard scientific notions, the validity of which simply cannot be undermined by name-calling, on the part of hysterical advocates of “universal equality”. Elitists know that one’s rate of IQ is an objective category and that the individual with an IQ of 60 will never be able to attain social prominence, no matter how strongly he is being convinced in his equality with those whose IQ rate equals 120.
Egalitarianism is a socially dangerous concept. As we know from the history, ever since they have taken over a political power in Russia, China and Cambodia, Communists, which can be referred to as true Egalitarianism, began facilitating the notion of “people’s equality” by physically exterminating those they considered as belonging to “parasitic social classes”. Elitism, on the other hand, is a socially beneficial philosophy; because it suggests that it is only those truly worthy of being put in position of authority, who deserve the right of exercising political power in a particular country. Thus, Elitism eliminates the chances of odd people gaining social prominence, which in its turn, assures stability within a society ruled by elitist principles.
Bibliography
Levitt, Morton “The Offense of Elitism”. Journal of Modern Literature. (24) 3/4.(2001): 534-538.