Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Aren't These People Supposed to Write Well?
Hat Tip: James Taranto
Anne Applebaum has a cringeworthy piece in today's Washington Post. Most of it is the sort of self-congratulatory drivel we've come to expect from the political class. But there's one bit that really, really sticks in my craw:
"Elite" and "elitist" are not interchangeable. They have different meanings. One can be part of an elite and not be an elitist. And one can be an elitist, yet still not qualify as part of an elite. An elite is something or someone of exceptional worth or merit. Elitism is the belief in rule by a select group. The distinction between these two concepts renders Applebaum's entire thesis a failure. Objection to someone's presumption to rule hardly negates a valid recognition of their accomplishments.
A second point also needs mentioning, however. Ms. Applebaum seems to toss around the term "meritocracy" quite liberally in her column. However, the only distinction Ms. Applebaum treats as at all relevant for her discussion is the receipt of a top-tier education. Are we to accept, then, that the sign of a meritocracy is that people are judged by their alma mater? Are we to suppose then, that the pinnacle of human achievement are between the ages of 16 and 24?
Words, Ms. Applebaum, have meanings. Just because two terms seem kinda' sorta' alike, does not mean that they are the same thing. When you fail to draw distinctions in the meaning of terms, you fail to distinguish between their underlying concepts. I'm not sure what they call this phenomenon at Yale, but in the rest of the known world, it is called "sloppy, sloppy thinking".
Hat Tip: James Taranto
Anne Applebaum has a cringeworthy piece in today's Washington Post. Most of it is the sort of self-congratulatory drivel we've come to expect from the political class. But there's one bit that really, really sticks in my craw:
these modern meritocrats are clearly not admired, or at least not for their upward mobility, by many Americans. On the contrary -- and as Bell might have predicted -- they are resented as "elitist." Which is at some level strange: To study hard, to do well, to improve yourself -- isn't that the American dream? The backlash against graduates of "elite" universities seems particularly odd given that the most elite American universities have in the past two decades made the greatest effort to broaden their student bodies.
"Elite" and "elitist" are not interchangeable. They have different meanings. One can be part of an elite and not be an elitist. And one can be an elitist, yet still not qualify as part of an elite. An elite is something or someone of exceptional worth or merit. Elitism is the belief in rule by a select group. The distinction between these two concepts renders Applebaum's entire thesis a failure. Objection to someone's presumption to rule hardly negates a valid recognition of their accomplishments.
A second point also needs mentioning, however. Ms. Applebaum seems to toss around the term "meritocracy" quite liberally in her column. However, the only distinction Ms. Applebaum treats as at all relevant for her discussion is the receipt of a top-tier education. Are we to accept, then, that the sign of a meritocracy is that people are judged by their alma mater? Are we to suppose then, that the pinnacle of human achievement are between the ages of 16 and 24?
Words, Ms. Applebaum, have meanings. Just because two terms seem kinda' sorta' alike, does not mean that they are the same thing. When you fail to draw distinctions in the meaning of terms, you fail to distinguish between their underlying concepts. I'm not sure what they call this phenomenon at Yale, but in the rest of the known world, it is called "sloppy, sloppy thinking".
