A constant theme beaten on the drums of the secular fundamentalists is the idea that there exists some natural parity in the cultures of the world. The desire to conclude in 2000, for example (though this argument had its modern hay day in the mid-eighties), that each and every culture is deserving of equal merit is a nicety, but is bankrupt, thoughtless, intellectually untenable and ultimately very dangerous for mankind. I contend a judgment can be passed on whether any thing is inherently good, benign or bad. For instance, in all things created by man, some versions/models are relatively superior & some are relatively inferior. In the natural world we see the same distribution across the spectrum in relation to the mean (mediocre). When we apply one design to various functions, we can demonstrate that certain designs “test better” (or exceed others in the performance of distinct tasks). Averages across an array of tasks enables us to draw some clear conclusions regarding one design relative to others. Some aircraft designs are faster, some more stable, some more lethal, some are overall better suited to commercial purposes than military purposes. Some trees are suited to colder climates, some to warmer climates & some are tolerant of an extreme array of variant climates. Some provide more shade than others, some withstand fire better than others, some are better for climbing. Some creatures successfully survive transitioning to city life from rural farmland or raw nature preserves, while others are pushed over the edge of extension with little but a slight shift in the oceanic currents. Some peoples have a diet that is better served to the general well being of the physical body. Some people are less stressed as a rule. Some humans process alcohol more readily. Some have a higher average IQ. Some folks live artificially long lives due to technology & diet in formative years. Some people are genetically disadvantaged & bound to die at 45 regardless of their lifestyle choices. Some individuals are more productive than others. Some are more laid back. Some are condemned to a propensity toward criminal behavior & violence, while some have an inherent attraction to the same sex. Some are more likely to become physically addicted to nicotine. This is to say that if we give merit to how the individual performs on one count or another, it is likely we will find some individuals who, for whatever reason, perform better against the test than others. It follows that if we establish an array of criterion across a whole spectrum (re: create a bunch of items to test individuals against), we can apply an aggregate, objective relative score to the individual. Further, when we have tested more than one person against this array of individual criterion, we can demonstrate a relative score between the two. Given a group of individuals against the same exam, we can then rank the individuals in relation to the others in our pool.
In fact, we can and commonly do conduct this type of testing to create relative comparisons of individuals in the form of aptitude testing. Professional football teams do this in the form of physical aptitude testing. College admissions boards do this in their review of applications & attending ACT/SAT scores (which, though only part of most applications for admission, are themselves an aggregate score against a wide array of tests which are then weighted & ranked across the entire testing pool). That is to say that in the aggregate, one applicant is superior to the next, and one football player is more talented/developed while the next is less so. Based on this measure, one applicant is superior to the next for the stated purpose of attending to college and one football player is professional grade, while the next is not. And regardless of how we feel about mental or physical inequities, the results still tell a story: the applicants still have their own unique sets of relative strengths and weaknesses and can be set in side by side comparison.
Before we go further, I should make clear that while scores tell a story, scores are based solely on what is tested. What is tested is based on what the tester is looking for. In the case of college, it could be anything from the best & the brightest quantitatively-oriented minds (RE: MIT) or even the best and most promising musicians or artists (RE: Bard), or simply individuals that fit the profile of someone who will likely do well & complete the curriculum. In the case of the college athletic combines, they are looking for individuals that are likelier than the next to succeed in the National Football League. The form the testing takes on is normally determined by committees & the like (also made up of individuals) who agree on how the test will be administer, yes, but more importantly on how it will be graded… and more importantly what threshold constitutes qualification (what is a “passing” relative rank, and what is “failing” relative rank). Every day, in every way we are being measured & scoped out formally in some cases, but informally in most. From what we wear to what we say to how we act, human individuals are subject to and are always treated to objective (in the case of formal) and subjective (in the case of informal) ranking. Is he attractive? Is he more attractive than the guy next to him? Is she too heavy for my tastes? Are her boobs too big/small? Does he have an annoying laugh, does she walk funny, does he wear out-dated clothes, does she drive a nice car???? All day long judgment is being passed. And all tests are rooted in seeking out strengths & weaknesses & passing judgments. We are hard-wired in the humanist sense & even called upon in the spiritualist sense to pass judgment. This will seem to some to run contrary to the popular “argument” employed by those who seem to know no better that would call Christians, for example, hypocrites when they point to injustices or point out behaviors that are contrary to their Christian beliefs. But the truth remains.
We are measured & held to account every day & in every way, both institutionally & socially, in our acts & in our refrain, in what we profess & what we fail to profess. While a dictator may be above the law, he can still be judged to be in violation of it. Similar to excommunication of self from a given church, the judgment passed can be, and in most cases is, carried out in absentia and outside of any court. By your thoughts, words and actions you are known to those around you. But even if you speed through a stop sign unobserved, you are still breaking the law. And in breaking it, you break the covenant of trust & the contract you have written with those who enforce it. Whether or not you are brought to justice on the individual transgression matters not.
On Elitism
One thing I would like to mention here is that I am an elitist in the truest sense of the word. I do believe that the crème generally rises, and should rise, to the top. I believe that the elitist approach in its truest sense serves the general welfare far better than a system based on favoritism and/or quotas. Anything that takes competition out of the equation… anytime one person is given a position based on anything other than relative ability, experience and willingness to fulfill a stated purpose, is in my opinion, a crime against all of mankind. Any measure which clouds an accurate measurement of one individual’s value versus another’s to fulfill the stated purpose is a criminal act against the whole.
There is, to be sure, a place for everyone. But every place is not for everyone. When the founders said that all men were created equal, they meant equal in the eyes of God &, therefore, in the eyes of the law. What they were not saying is that everyone was born with the same gifts, or even endowed with an equal measure of gifts, by the Creator. Indeed, no matter how much I practice nor how much I will it to be so, I will never match the basketball abilities of Michael Jordan, nor the musical prowess of Bach, nor the conceptual abilities of Mills, nor the engineering abilities of my-brother-in-law, nor the painting abilities of Van Gough, nor the architectural abilities of Frank Lloyd Wright.
The idea that we will all shine like diamonds or even excel to a modest extent in all of the activities we pursue is ridiculous and dangerous. I believe it results in a lot of wasted resources being attributed to chasing shadows down dark alleyways. A perfect case in point is the phenomena of televised “talent-based” contests that serve to embarrass the flocks of self-diluted “performers” in front of millions of television viewers. It also has resulted in a whole bunch of expensive drum lessons for kids who do not posses the raw ability to drum at any competitive level. Add to that the amount of time & energy wasted on photos for young women who are very pretty, but are not pretty enough to warrant a cover on Cosmopolitan magazine and you have a lot of people spending enormous amounts of resources on fantasies, as distinct from dreams. This does not mean I do not feel that we all have something profound to contribute to the bottom line, as it were. I do, in fact, believe we are all here for a reason & a unique purpose. But, having said that, knowing how far one’s abilities extend & knowing one’s own limitations is the first step in “figuring it all out” and spending your resources wisely. I tell my reports all the time that half of the battle is in knowing where your talents lie and the other half is in knowing your blind spots. This reinforces the wisdom we hear bantied about before every football game by every sportscaster; one should play to their strengths and away from their weaknesses. It is the best use of one’s resources & the best way to contribute & fulfill your obligations. To those who have been given much in the way of gifts, much is expected… but no one is off the hook. And for progress to be made expeditiously, every individual is called to pursue his own objective(s). Determining what one’s objectives are starts with one’s own self-inventory of one’s own talent & skill-set. That is, in the aggregate, tested against all of the options presented to you, determining how & where to spend your own personal capital to have the biggest impact.
In short, the connotations that spring to mind when Americans are presented with the word “elitism” are sadly misplaced. Elitism is in its truest form in accordance with the plan of God or, if you prefer, the Master Plan of the Creator. Or, if one prefers yet another expression, elitism is the surest way to ensure that one fulfills his obligation to the goal of advancing humanity & the Greater Good.
Elitism & Absolutism
I have made the argument that given a set of independent criterion to perform against, one can objectively make a judgment about the individual in the aggregate. That is to say, if an individual is scored on his abilities against of set of various criterion, we may demonstrate how he ranks (or stands in absolute relativity) against another by applying a weighted average to the individually scored criterion to determine one aggregate score.
I contend that all things may be measured, no matter how crudely, in this fashion and that only in religiously devoting ourselves to this measure can be fulfill our individual obligations to the “greater good” or destiny of self. In addition, in conducting relative strengths & weaknesses, we can establish on a defined continuum where one item stands in absolute and relative terms against the whole.
Further, I contend that Moral Relativism is the chief antagonist to Elitism & serves to cloud the individual from discerning his place in the world & fulfilling his obligations and thus condemning him to toiling in vain.
