Our Shared Shelf discussion

The cause of inequality are many and varied. but to get to the heart of the matter I decided a thought experment would be of use. So if we take one cause and suppose it was the only one, discuss that and see if we can arrive at a concensus then move to the next.

first proposition The casue of the creation and maintenance of inequality is elitism discuss

not sure how long to let this one run see what the response is like.

Elitism is definitely a problem, that's why I'm also critical of the Opera Ball in Vienna.

The important issue is for everybody to be able to get into the elite and that they're functional. Aah, I suck at translating...

The discussions have been interesting and have I think served to show the difference between elite, those achieving the best in there felid and elitist those people and institutions that display an undeserved sense of entitlement.

Where as being elite striving for the best in yourself and others is a good thing and to be encouraged. Elitism can easily lead to inequality indeed can as conjectured be a casual factor.

Technical
Equality is the promise of elitists.
So my point of view is if you feel that you are 100% equal that means you are elite. What of course is impossible. That why we need fight for equality. That is a long way to go. Special in Education , poverty and wage gap sector. I think that three made a starting pack. If we change that we are closer to being equal.

@ Meelie, I may be wrong but your example does not quite fit to my understanding of elitism! Because for me, elitism means being member of a student fraternity or member of an exclusive economic club and such things. But if you have to earn your money by making an exhibition for rich and famous people, I don't think this is elitism. Because you earn a living and it sure is easier to earn a living by inviting people who can afford to buy your photography. But you also say you would open up your photography for all when you have a financial basis. So it only would be elitist if you would say you will always make exhibitions for those who are rich and you will never open it up for all. But you are not saying that. So I don't think this is elitist.

Sascha wrote: "@ Meelie, I may be wrong but your example does not quite fit to my understanding of elitism! Because for me, elitism means being member of a student fraternity or member of an exclusive economic cl..."

Just because I'm curious: Are self-hep groups elitist too lin your understanding? They are not in mine, I just wonder how's your perspective on the matter?

If in any sphere you surround yourself with people of high standing in your community, and are fortunate enough to be able to do so that is not elitist. However if you don't include people on the basis of there lack of standing alone then that would be.

Also in my view we can all fall into the trap of being elitist if we are not careful.

Now let's ask the question, baring mind my original premise this is a thought experiment is "our sheared shelf" elitists

MeerderWörter wrote: "Just because I'm curious: Are self-help groups elitist too in your understanding? They are not in mine, I just wonder how's your perspective on the matter?"

No, I don't think that self-help groups are elitist. On the contrary, I think most self-help groups are founded because a minority - or it does not even have to be a minority - of people are excluded and even discriminated. And self-help groups are often an answer to that problem.

Elitist groups are different because they usually have power which is the main difference in my view. Self-help groups are an aid to people to fight against discrimination. Elitist groups are also helping its members but they are not discriminated. They already have power and through the aid of an elitist group they become even more powerful.

Like for example a student fraternity. It's usually made by men and for men at the university. So these men already have the privilege of studying at the university and they are privileged because there are many fraternities for men but only very few fraternites for women. And the fraternity often helps them in getting a well-paid job after university.

Sascha wrote: "MeerderWörter wrote: "Just because I'm curious: Are self-help groups elitist too in your understanding? They are not in mine, I just wonder how's your perspective on the matter?"

No, I don't think..."

Ah, thanks for explaining. I was just thinking about the exclusionary issue that there is with self-help groups(and that I totally support), and wasn't thinking about the fact that they exist because the people attending it are discriminated against or marginalized by society.
And now I know what a Burschenschaft is in English. I can't stand them, haven't changed my mind on that subject ever.


Ross wrote: "If in any sphere you surround yourself with people of high standing in your community, and are fortunate enough to be able to do so that is not elitist. However if you don't include people on the b..."

I don't see OSS as being elitist. Everyone is welcome here, and can decide how much they want to participate or not. We don't see each other as superior to somebody else within OSS, at least I don't. We value the other's opinion and thought, not whose family they come from or how much money they have or whether they're "good enough" in a certain field of thought. We are all here to learn, and I did so greatly, and, as I already said it, we're inclusive, not exclusive.
The fear that I have with OSS is what it will evolve into. A sociologist called Ferdinand Tönnies distinguished between two forms of living together. Community and society. While the community is something that grew over time, and there are three different types: blood, location and mind (family, village and friendship for example); the society is based on a cost-efficiency calculation, and examples are the modern city, or the financial market or any institution that was founded with a rational choice in mind. That's why the Volksgemeinschaft(Gemeinschaft=Community) is in fact a society in terms of Tönnies, and not a community.
Now, in reality, it's always a mix, but I really hope that we evolve into a community rather than in a society.
Oh, and to not forget it: We started as a Bund, and I don't know how to translate that, but it means that it's from a sudden agreement, and everyone participates because they want to, for example the working class movement. It's a form that will sooner or later transform into either Gesellschaft or Gemeinschaft, so, while learning for my sociology test, I've been asking myself this question for two months now or so.
What do you think, where are we heading? (I hope so much I get to explain this, I'm really good at it, and I could mention OSS as an example.)

And sorry for that lengthy comment, but sometimes I jut can't stop myself:)

MeerderWörter wrote: "I was just thinking about the exclusionary issue that there is with self-help groups(and that I totally support), and wasn't thinking about the fact that they exist because the people attending it are discriminated against or marginalized by society."

What do you mean with an exclusionary issue of self-help groups?
And at least that's what I think that many self-help groups are an answer to oppression, discrimination and marginalization. The LGBTIQ-community is built on self-help and mutual support, or not? And I guess the same is with the worker's movement - many unions were founded in a sense of self-help because the situation of workers was so poor especially in the 19th century.

MeerderWörter wrote: "That's why the Volksgemeinschaft(Gemeinschaft=Community) is in fact a society in terms of Tönnies, and not a community."

Okay I will be leaning wide out of the window now because my opinion is different than the studies of an expert in sociology and I'm just an amateur.. but I think after that definition the "Volksgemeinschaft" is whether a community nor a society. Because you don't have ties like in a family, village or friendship. But you also don't decide to be part of the "Volksgemeinschaft". Your membership is forced on you by the regime. It's a racist power structure, an oppressive and very deadly, Apartheid style power system that includes or excludes people because of racist patterns. And excluding people from the "Volksgemeinschaft" usually meant killing people. So I don't agree with Tönnies here, the "Volksgemeinschaft" is whether a society nor a community.

And regarding to the question by Ross: I also hope that OSS will remain a community of people who share some principal goals, that is to say: gender equality and Feminism. And I enjoy the athmosphere here because discussion and education is crucial at OSS. And I don't see any tendencies of elitism at OSS.

MeerderWörter wrote: "What do you think, where are we heading?"

Difficult to answer for me. But if I'm allowed for a wish, I would wish that OSS will connect with discussions on the web but also with social struggles in the non-virtual world. It would be nice if there will be developping networks and connections with other Feminist communities and groups and movements like the Women's March.

Sascha wrote: "MeerderWörter wrote: "I was just thinking about the exclusionary issue that there is with self-help groups(and that I totally support), and wasn't thinking about the fact that they exist because th..."

Now, my answers:
Exclusionary as in only those who are affected are allowed to "join." And then you have another group for parents/partners and so on. In this sense. But I don't have a problem with that, often only the people in the self-help group can really understand your troubles...

In reality, the two are always a mix. So yes, the Volksgemeinschaft is more of a society than a community, but still has traits that are typical for a community. It's more a thing to classify something, not that it actually is that.

My question was more towards the society/community issue, but I agree with you and say that it would be nice to do more than "just" reading books.

MeerderWörter wrote: "Exclusionary as in only those who are affected are allowed to "join." And then you have another group for parents/partners and so on. In this sense. But I don't have a problem with that, often only the people in the self-help group can really understand your troubles..."

Oh okay, now I understand what you mean! Yes, this kind of "exclusion" actually does make sense and I have no problem with it either. It's like with "women only" spaces. These spaces seem to be necessary because otherwise, some men may behave ugly. And often these spaces are the result of experiences with men behaving ugly. So "women only" spaces totally make sense. And I don't understand why so many men argue against these spaces. They should accept it and stop behaving ugly.

Sascha wrote: "MeerderWörter wrote: "Exclusionary as in only those who are affected are allowed to "join." And then you have another group for parents/partners and so on. In this sense. But I don't have a problem..."

EXACTLY! As long as we don't reinforce segregation, I'm totally pro "women-only" spaces.

Anything concentrated is 'elitist'

So deulde society. Done. Sounds familiar.

Ross wrote: "Now let's ask the question, baring mind my original premise this is a thought experiment is "our sheared shelf" elitists."

I don't think so?
Anyone can join, everyone has the right to speak and join in book discussions. It's very much an inclusive book group, you don't need (for example) to pay $1000 to join (therefore excluding those that couldn't afford it).

Jo wrote: "I don't think so"

I agree it was the reason chose OSS as an example, little devils advocacy, it is in fact the least elitist entry I have come across in a long time.

if we compare it with other organisations and even other book clubs it is inclusive without exception. Maybe that is a good definition of elitism the presence of exceptions.

So if anyone is in doubt about wither some entity they are delaing with is elitist compare it with OSS :)

Ross wrote: "Jo wrote: "I don't think so"

I agree it was the reason chose OSS as an example, little devils advocacy, it is in fact the least elitist entry I have come across in a long time.

if we compare it ..."

OSS is always worth mentioning when you want to compare anything/explain something - because it makes more people aware of its existence and we hold it so dear to our heart that we won't forget the comparison/explanation.

Sascha wrote: "I may be wrong but your example does not quite fit to my understanding of elitism! Because for me, elitism means being member of a student fraternity or member of an exclusive economic club and such things. But if you have to earn your money by making an exhibition for rich and famous people, I don't think this is elitism. Because you earn a living and it sure is easier to earn a living by inviting people who can afford to buy your photography. But you also say you would open up your photography for all when you have a financial basis. So it only would be elitist if you would say you will always make exhibitions for those who are rich and you will never open it up for all. But you are not saying that. So I don't think this is elitist."

Agreed with all that Sascha wrote on all of his commentaries. I like his concept of Elitism or What is Elitism. Quite sure it is all correct.

:)

Keith wrote: "So, charging to enter museums and art galleries - elitist or not?...."

Hi,
I just joined this group yesterday, so I hope you don't mind me jumping in and throwing my two cents worth.
I live in Kansas, about 20 minutes from a wonderful museum/art gallery called the Nelson Atkins Museum of Fine Arts. Not too long ago, the museum stopped charging an entrance fee except for the special exhibits. Now they just have donation boxes near the entrances and you can donate or not as you see fit.
It is amazing what a difference this has made in the nature of the clientele. Although the entrance fee was nominal (I think it was a couple of dollars), it was apparently enough to deter some people from attending. The elimination of the entrance fee has resulted in a large increase in attendance of minorities and families with young children. It's just wonderful to see.
So, in answer to your question, I think charging an entrance fee for museums and art galleries (unless it is a special exhibit) is elitist. Art should be accessible to everyone, regardless of income level. I think it is particularly important nowadays because funding for arts programs in public schools in the U.S. is being slashed. And it looks as if the situation is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.

Keith wrote: "Hi,
I just joined this group yesterday, so I hope you don't mind me jumping in and throwing my two cents worth...."

Hi Tamara,

Just do what you have done and join in. The more the merrier.

It is..."

Keith, Thank you for your kind words of welcome.

Emma wrote: "Tamara wrote: "Hi, I just joined this group yesterday, so I hope you don't mind me jumping in and throwing my two cents worth...."

Welcome to the group!

I never would have thought that charging a..."

Thanks for the welcome, Emma.

I think that museums can do away with entrance fees by encouraging membership so that those who can afford it pay an annual membership fee. This will help subsidize some of the museums' costs so that they can give up their entrance fees and allow access to everyone.
I am also a believer that a portion of our tax dollars should subsidize museums. Art should be accessible to everyone, and society has an obligation to ensure that it is by contributing some of the tax dollars towards funding museums.

How can you sustain a group without a form of payment? (completely free? Nothing is free...)

Ok, so if you don't use money, then trading? So a potluck is also considered 'elitism' ;)

Groups that charge money are considered 'elitist' because they need to sustain their building, maintenance and personal?

So a 15$ subscription fee on a game like World of Warcraft is 'elitism'? How much power an authority they have on society and the world around them ;)

Now I understand the idea of having to pay to be in an order of rich fellows can be seen as 'elitism' but the thing is, then poor people who come together and chip in their money for a cause is also 'elitism'. Everything transcends.

If so, then taxes are a form of payment/subscription/etc. and everyone that is connected to a form of country/government is an elitist.

If everyone is an elitist, nobody is, right?

Sigh, is this 'elitist' thing again connected with the marxist ideology? Because there are ALWAYS going to be an 'elite'. The 'ruling' class is then the elite. The 'working' class is then a different form of an elite. etc.

Interesting stuff though!

Eternal wrote: "How can you sustain a group without a form of payment? (completely free? Nothing is free...)

Ok, so if you don't use money, then trading? So a potluck is also considered 'elitism' ;)

Groups that ..."

Hm, the interesting thing Marx said tho, is that in communism and in the primitive society. Now, it would make way more sense to argue with another concept, the concept that there is always an elite because after a revolution the revolutionists become the new elite (at least some of them, think about communism as it was in the Sowietunion).

Keith wrote: "Just to show that it is possible to have free entrance to major museums and galleries, a little known fact is that most of the museums of Paris are free to enter on the first Sunday of each month. When I say 'most', I do mean places such as Museum D'Orsay and The Louvre (warning - having done this, I have to say the queues are very, very long, if good natured). If Paris can do it, why not New York, London, Vienna etc? Food for thought.

Anyway, what this has highlighted for me is that you can find elements of elitism anywhere, if you look hard enough. "

I confirm that most Parisian museums are accessible for free on the first Sunday of the month. Which is great when a single entry costs 10-15 euros! We're a family of five, having free entrance makes a huge difference in the cultural budget.
Now the free entrance has been extended to everyone under 25 who's a citizen of the European Union (whatever the day) :-)

In New York, you also have many museums that open "for free" (on donation) at some times of the week, ex. Tuesday 18-21, or Wednesday 8-11... This is also a nice system. Although the queues are gigantic.

Of course, this "free entrance" must be paid by others. Not so many choices there: either the museum usually makes benefits that are large enough to cover this, or this need to be subsided by the State/associations/donators. I think that French people are very attached to Culture and agreeing that a part of their taxes goes to an easier access to museums, theater (e.g. cheaper tickets for students or unemployed people), etc.

MeerderWörter wrote: "Hm, the interesting thing Marx said tho, is that in communism and in the primitive society. Now, it would make way more sense to argue with another concept, the concept that there is always an elite because after a revolution the revolutionists become the new elite (at least some of them, think about communism as it was in the Sowietunion). "

I agree, after a revolution, the old elite will be replaced by a new one (in France, aristocrats were replaced by the bourgeois in the 19th century).
However, the original purpose of communism was to erase classes, and no elite should have formed after the Soviet revolution... this is why I think the Soviet Union didn't fit with the original idea of communism as wished by Marx and Lenine.

(I'm no history expert though, please correct me if I'm wrong ^^)

Laure wrote: "MeerderWörter wrote: "Hm, the interesting thing Marx said tho, is that in communism and in the primitive society. Now, it would make way more sense to argue with another concept, the concept that t..."

You're absolutely right! Marx fled to Paris after the revolution, and finally landed in England. I asked my professor the question about communism and the Sowietunion, and she said that this was not at all what Marx intended communism to be. Marx also speaks of the bourgeoisie(wuh, you definitely have a tricky language).

But the sociologists who explored elite and mass were actually in Italy. Their thoughts are quite interesting, especially when it comes to causes of inequality.

Uuh, exciting discussion! Well, when it comes to Marx and Engels and their idea of communism - as far as I know, they didn't really say much about this. The reason is that their main aim outlined in their works was to analyze and critizice capitalism. Marx and Engels simply didn't tell much about their views on a communist society. They were materialists and not utopians.

But I remember one quote by Engels in "The civil war in France" where he says: "Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. "
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...

I think this quote is especially interesting because many people claim that Marx and Engels wanted a violent and repressive system as later was the case in the Soviet Union. But knowing what Engels says here, we see a different picture. The Paris Commune of 1871 was a short period of liberation from any state repression and a way of grassroots democracy by the citizens of Paris. If you wanna know what Marx and Engels have meant when they spoke about the "dictatorship" of the proletariat you have to look at the Paris Commune where no new elite was established after the revolution but a radical democracy by the citizens of Paris was established. It has not the sligthtest to do with the Soviet Union!

Actually, you may know that there was a conflict between Marx and Bakunin during the First International. It was often depicted as a conflict between communists and anarchists. But actually, and this is something I can not prove, I have the impression that Marx was kind of an anarchist, too. The irony of history is that the repressive state "communism" and not the anarchist communism free of any domination was successful within the worker's movement. The anarchists have been quite influential within the worker's movement before the Russian Revolution of 1917 but after this revolution the authoritarian "communism" lead by the leninist kadre party was more influential in the world. Unfortunately!

Because I think the combination of communism (an economy with shared means of production) and anarchy (no domination and no elite in any form) sounds very exciting to me! But in history, we only know quite few examples of actual anarchist societies like in Spain during the war 1936-39 or more often on a local basis like factory and land occupations and squats and citizen assemblies during many revolutions (Portugal 1974, Chile 1970, the global 1968 uprising,..)

I need to learn more to keep up with this particular discussion lol

Thank you for pointing these things out, need to look more into these types of systems and social structures.

Interesting stuff. Dangerous, but very interesting indeed!

Eternal wrote: "I need to learn more to keep up with this particular discussion lol

Thank you for pointing these things out, need to look more into these types of systems and social structures.

Interesting stuf..."

My thoughts are exactly the same. One of my student colleagues is in the communist party in Austria, and the university's library should also be able to serve my need of knowledge. LET'S READ!

We had to read Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life by Annette Lareau and The Social Construction of Difference and Inequality: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality by Ore, Tracy in my graduate program. Highly recommend looking at both.