" He defines the New Elite as Oxbridge/Russell Group graduates in managerial jobs with liberal cosmopolitan values who are overrepresented in decision-making and represent about a quarter of the population"
Almost by definition, the managerial classes are going (more likely than not) going to be educated at top universities.
Is this a new phenomena? Maybe if it is, it's because more people are educated at university.
Yep, Goodwin's theory is, well, duh. I'm shocked, shocked to find out that upper middle class people go to good universities and get good jobs.
Turchin is the most interesting of the named theorists in the thread header (sorry, Malmesbury!) because, as the thread header astutely points out, an elite class has always existed. It just changes over time.
Malmesbury's NU10K is interesting in that it attempts to define who those elites are, in the present day. I'd go a little further and say that the UK is cursed by managerialism, by people who think their job is to manage, rather than improve. To keep things ticking over. Essentially the NU10K are all "quiet quitters".
But the reason why Turchin is so interesting is because his theory of overproduction of elites chimes so well with what we're seeing in (and sorry I'm going to say it), woke. When you believe you should have elite status, but your job lacks that kind of status, you resort to alternative signalling. In the past, someone might have worn Cartier or Rolex to signify their 'elite' status. But these days, it's about beliefs. A Washington Post journalist can't afford a Rolex, in fact they're likely living in a four person house share given salaries these days. So instead they adopt the virtues and mores of the 'elite' which Goodwin describes, which is overwhelmingly metropolitan and socially liberal.
And so it becomes a competition among wannabe-elites for who can signal the most 'liberal' opinions. This not only explains the "capture" of the media and universities -formerly high status professions- by "woke", it also explains the shift towards ever more radical opinions, as surplus wannabe-elites constantly try to out-do each other in status signalling.
Those who aren't part of the game - the red wall in the UK or the rust belt in the US, are just baffled by it all. To them it just looks like people who've gone mad, who've lost their sense of common sense. And so the divide between the wokerati and the rest grows year on year. With the inevitable polarisation of politics that comes with it, that we have seen in recent years.
I don't think that this is the correct explanation at all. The "elites" also include Donald Trump and Elon Musk. No doubt some people adopt the beliefs of these people to signify their admiration, but they can't possibly think that they JOIN them in doing so. And it certainly fails to explain how people end up ANTI-woke (are they trying to signal that they're slobs?).
The more likely explanations to me is that this is just normal cultural transmission of a salient generational divide, where one side appeals slightly more to younger / more-educated / more-successful people - and of course, this is far from true about everything in the "woke" bucket - no "elite" in America is hankering to hand the USA back to American Indians, for example.
I suggest you read Rob Henderson on "luxury beliefs" (as opposed to "luxury goods")
Combining that with Turchin, the theory is that if you have an overproduction of elites, the surplus elites will attempt to signal their status with increasingly extreme luxury beliefs.
You're welcome to think it's wrong - I think it explains a great deal of what we've seen in the last decade or so.
" He defines the New Elite as Oxbridge/Russell Group graduates in managerial jobs with liberal cosmopolitan values who are overrepresented in decision-making and represent about a quarter of the population"
Almost by definition, the managerial classes are going (more likely than not) going to be educated at top universities.
Is this a new phenomena? Maybe if it is, it's because more people are educated at university.
Yep, Goodwin's theory is, well, duh. I'm shocked, shocked to find out that upper middle class people go to good universities and get good jobs.
Turchin is the most interesting of the named theorists in the thread header (sorry, Malmesbury!) because, as the thread header astutely points out, an elite class has always existed. It just changes over time.
Malmesbury's NU10K is interesting in that it attempts to define who those elites are, in the present day. I'd go a little further and say that the UK is cursed by managerialism, by people who think their job is to manage, rather than improve. To keep things ticking over. Essentially the NU10K are all "quiet quitters".
But the reason why Turchin is so interesting is because his theory of overproduction of elites chimes so well with what we're seeing in (and sorry I'm going to say it), woke. When you believe you should have elite status, but your job lacks that kind of status, you resort to alternative signalling. In the past, someone might have worn Cartier or Rolex to signify their 'elite' status. But these days, it's about beliefs. A Washington Post journalist can't afford a Rolex, in fact they're likely living in a four person house share given salaries these days. So instead they adopt the virtues and mores of the 'elite' which Goodwin describes, which is overwhelmingly metropolitan and socially liberal.
And so it becomes a competition among wannabe-elites for who can signal the most 'liberal' opinions. This not only explains the "capture" of the media and universities -formerly high status professions- by "woke", it also explains the shift towards ever more radical opinions, as surplus wannabe-elites constantly try to out-do each other in status signalling.
Those who aren't part of the game - the red wall in the UK or the rust belt in the US, are just baffled by it all. To them it just looks like people who've gone mad, who've lost their sense of common sense. And so the divide between the wokerati and the rest grows year on year. With the inevitable polarisation of politics that comes with it, that we have seen in recent years.
I don't think that this is the correct explanation at all. The "elites" also include Donald Trump and Elon Musk. No doubt some people adopt the beliefs of these people to signify their admiration, but they can't possibly think that they JOIN them in doing so. And it certainly fails to explain how people end up ANTI-woke (are they trying to signal that they're slobs?).
The more likely explanations to me is that this is just normal cultural transmission of a salient generational divide, where one side appeals slightly more to younger / more-educated / more-successful people - and of course, this is far from true about everything in the "woke" bucket - no "elite" in America is hankering to hand the USA back to American Indians, for example.
I suggest you read Rob Henderson on "luxury beliefs" (as opposed to "luxury goods")
Combining that with Turchin, the theory is that if you have an overproduction of elites, the surplus elites will attempt to signal their status with increasingly extreme luxury beliefs.
You're welcome to think it's wrong - I think it explains a great deal of what we've seen in the last decade or so.
There's quite a bit of unacknowledged prejudice if his own in that piece, and not a few strawmen. Along with some good points.
I'm not particularly convinced by the thesis.
Clearly members of social groups or classes use beliefs (along with other things) for signalling purposes, but 'luxury beliefs' as an analogy to Veblen goods ? I don't really buy it.
And you very obviously don't have to be one of the elite to hold views which are the opposite of utilitarian.
" He defines the New Elite as Oxbridge/Russell Group graduates in managerial jobs with liberal cosmopolitan values who are overrepresented in decision-making and represent about a quarter of the population"
Almost by definition, the managerial classes are going (more likely than not) going to be educated at top universities.
Is this a new phenomena? Maybe if it is, it's because more people are educated at university.
Yep, Goodwin's theory is, well, duh. I'm shocked, shocked to find out that upper middle class people go to good universities and get good jobs.
Turchin is the most interesting of the named theorists in the thread header (sorry, Malmesbury!) because, as the thread header astutely points out, an elite class has always existed. It just changes over time.
Malmesbury's NU10K is interesting in that it attempts to define who those elites are, in the present day. I'd go a little further and say that the UK is cursed by managerialism, by people who think their job is to manage, rather than improve. To keep things ticking over. Essentially the NU10K are all "quiet quitters".
But the reason why Turchin is so interesting is because his theory of overproduction of elites chimes so well with what we're seeing in (and sorry I'm going to say it), woke. When you believe you should have elite status, but your job lacks that kind of status, you resort to alternative signalling. In the past, someone might have worn Cartier or Rolex to signify their 'elite' status. But these days, it's about beliefs. A Washington Post journalist can't afford a Rolex, in fact they're likely living in a four person house share given salaries these days. So instead they adopt the virtues and mores of the 'elite' which Goodwin describes, which is overwhelmingly metropolitan and socially liberal.
And so it becomes a competition among wannabe-elites for who can signal the most 'liberal' opinions. This not only explains the "capture" of the media and universities -formerly high status professions- by "woke", it also explains the shift towards ever more radical opinions, as surplus wannabe-elites constantly try to out-do each other in status signalling.
Those who aren't part of the game - the red wall in the UK or the rust belt in the US, are just baffled by it all. To them it just looks like people who've gone mad, who've lost their sense of common sense. And so the divide between the wokerati and the rest grows year on year. With the inevitable polarisation of politics that comes with it, that we have seen in recent years.
I don't think that this is the correct explanation at all. The "elites" also include Donald Trump and Elon Musk. No doubt some people adopt the beliefs of these people to signify their admiration, but they can't possibly think that they JOIN them in doing so. And it certainly fails to explain how people end up ANTI-woke (are they trying to signal that they're slobs?).
The more likely explanations to me is that this is just normal cultural transmission of a salient generational divide, where one side appeals slightly more to younger / more-educated / more-successful people - and of course, this is far from true about everything in the "woke" bucket - no "elite" in America is hankering to hand the USA back to American Indians, for example.
I suggest you read Rob Henderson on "luxury beliefs" (as opposed to "luxury goods")
Combining that with Turchin, the theory is that if you have an overproduction of elites, the surplus elites will attempt to signal their status with increasingly extreme luxury beliefs.
You're welcome to think it's wrong - I think it explains a great deal of what we've seen in the last decade or so.
I think the problem is that definition is incredibly hard: because there are many different "tribes" of elites, that don't have a whole bunch of crossover.
" He defines the New Elite as Oxbridge/Russell Group graduates in managerial jobs with liberal cosmopolitan values who are overrepresented in decision-making and represent about a quarter of the population"
Almost by definition, the managerial classes are going (more likely than not) going to be educated at top universities.
Is this a new phenomena? Maybe if it is, it's because more people are educated at university.
Yep, Goodwin's theory is, well, duh. I'm shocked, shocked to find out that upper middle class people go to good universities and get good jobs.
Turchin is the most interesting of the named theorists in the thread header (sorry, Malmesbury!) because, as the thread header astutely points out, an elite class has always existed. It just changes over time.
Malmesbury's NU10K is interesting in that it attempts to define who those elites are, in the present day. I'd go a little further and say that the UK is cursed by managerialism, by people who think their job is to manage, rather than improve. To keep things ticking over. Essentially the NU10K are all "quiet quitters".
But the reason why Turchin is so interesting is because his theory of overproduction of elites chimes so well with what we're seeing in (and sorry I'm going to say it), woke. When you believe you should have elite status, but your job lacks that kind of status, you resort to alternative signalling. In the past, someone might have worn Cartier or Rolex to signify their 'elite' status. But these days, it's about beliefs. A Washington Post journalist can't afford a Rolex, in fact they're likely living in a four person house share given salaries these days. So instead they adopt the virtues and mores of the 'elite' which Goodwin describes, which is overwhelmingly metropolitan and socially liberal.
And so it becomes a competition among wannabe-elites for who can signal the most 'liberal' opinions. This not only explains the "capture" of the media and universities -formerly high status professions- by "woke", it also explains the shift towards ever more radical opinions, as surplus wannabe-elites constantly try to out-do each other in status signalling.
Those who aren't part of the game - the red wall in the UK or the rust belt in the US, are just baffled by it all. To them it just looks like people who've gone mad, who've lost their sense of common sense. And so the divide between the wokerati and the rest grows year on year. With the inevitable polarisation of politics that comes with it, that we have seen in recent years.
I don't think that this is the correct explanation at all. The "elites" also include Donald Trump and Elon Musk. No doubt some people adopt the beliefs of these people to signify their admiration, but they can't possibly think that they JOIN them in doing so. And it certainly fails to explain how people end up ANTI-woke (are they trying to signal that they're slobs?).
The more likely explanations to me is that this is just normal cultural transmission of a salient generational divide, where one side appeals slightly more to younger / more-educated / more-successful people - and of course, this is far from true about everything in the "woke" bucket - no "elite" in America is hankering to hand the USA back to American Indians, for example.
I suggest you read Rob Henderson on "luxury beliefs" (as opposed to "luxury goods")
Combining that with Turchin, the theory is that if you have an overproduction of elites, the surplus elites will attempt to signal their status with increasingly extreme luxury beliefs.
You're welcome to think it's wrong - I think it explains a great deal of what we've seen in the last decade or so.
I think the problem is that definition is incredibly hard: because there are many different "tribes" of elites, that don't have a whole bunch of crossover.
If there are many different definitions, then they can be listed. It's egotistical to think that I can do it in the time I have available, but I can add some more and people here have suggested a few, with some asperity. Wikipedia is based on the presumption that if you ask people to help you they will laugh, but if you say something that is wrong they will cross deserts to correct one's mistakes. The article is OK but too small: the upgraded version will be a bit better. Hopefully...
Comments
Along with some good points.
I'm not particularly convinced by the thesis.
Clearly members of social groups or classes use beliefs (along with other things) for signalling purposes, but 'luxury beliefs' as an analogy to Veblen goods ? I don't really buy it.
And you very obviously don't have to be one of the elite to hold views which are the opposite of utilitarian.
https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1745891404952350745
Even when it was clear where the battle over wrongful convictions was heading, the government did not act
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alan-bates-letters-show-tories-ignored-the-postmasters-too-jc7bgxmqr (£££)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/13/blair-warned-scrapping-horizon-scheme-damage-japan-ties/
This thread is closed due to an unexplained shortfall