I don't want to push the point farther than it can bear, but this Isaac-Daniel exchange, concerning the criticism of commoners versus the criticism of elites, could use a closer look:
But this whole controversy should serve to remind people that in this country you are allowed to make fun of “elites” for being cosmopolitan or intellectual or whatever else. Yet if you dare say something about “small town America,” watch out. -- Isaac Chotiner
Chotiner’s observation is correct [says Mr. Larison], though I’m not sure what the point is, except to complain that there is an inherent political advantage in belonging to a larger group of people. Most Americans live in cities and suburbs, so there are not that many small town Americans in terms of sheer numbers, but there are enough of them that the political consequences of offending or alienating them are much greater than if you take a stab at the much less numerous elites. Besides, mocking elites is more widespread and widely accepted because it ultimately has no effect on anything and threatens no one. The elites remain just as they were–on top–and it is mostly a way of letting off steam and venting frustrations.
I'd like to suggest that criticism of elites works so much better than criticism of commoners (at least nowadays in America, though the scope can be expanded) in large part because elites are constantly criticizing themselves and one another, whereas nonelites don't enjoy this luxury nearly as often or exercise it half as enthusiastically. Part of this is mere economics -- self-referential criticism is a good that many simply can't afford, because of where they live and what they do. But this is less interesting than the part of this that has to do with the fall of aristocracy in Europe, the absence of an aristocratic history in America, and the weird results that obtained when America developed its pseudo-aristocracy as human nature did what it does in prosperous situations and straggling waves of European refugees brought aristocratic ideas and attitudes, in various states of decay, to American intellectual and cultural shores.
In short, one simply lacks credibility as a member of the social elite today in contemporary America if one is not very good at either making fun of oneself or making fun of others in one's own social class. It is not hard to see the way in which the rise of 'Society' itself in Europe, as the aristocracy lost its political power and rushed to construct a tolerably convincing simulacrum of exclusive hierarchy, hinged precisely on the capacity to wield social power through the refinement and spectacular use of the art of deprecation. The phenomenon, however, is general to the practice of elitehood in a variety of different cultural milieux. Consider the ruthlessly ridiculous pecking order of gay male Society, from which vaster and vaster numbers of pop culture critics have been taking all their stylistic and attitudinal cues. And then think of celebrity culture today across the board, in which degrading yourself more or less voluntarily is a combination rite of passage, act of tithing, and food stamp program.
I could go on and on, but probably the important thing for the purposes of this meme is that Daniel's insight as to the inherent meaninglessness of elite self-criticism in power terms actually dovetails on my account into a bizarre recognition that precisely that meaninglessness allows its continued use as a tool to maintain the power of particular elites within the elite social structure. Politics complicates things a little, but it seems clear to me that Hillary's great weakness, which both elites and commoners can see with mirthless clarity, is her total inability to successfully make fun of herself or others. Hillary in this mode is Hillary at her most forced, phony, grating, and dull.
Whereas Obama in this mode -- despite his almost constant performance of speech acts of great piety toward elites and commoners alike -- always hits it out of the park aesthetically, just like the Bill Clinton of old, when speaking at the expense of himself or other elites. This reflects a fullness of self capable of spending disposable psychological income on the luxuries of making fun and having fun made; Hillary appears as someone who is unable to raise that kind of 'money' -- who, if that's the game, can't afford the entry fee, or at least would repeatedly make embarrassing and rube-like bets at the table. Hillary's deadly seriousness and type-A commitment to outworking the competition is embarrassing to elitehood today. On the other hand, for elitehood today, Obama's totally different style, attitude, and bearing is grounds for perpetual celebration.
"Consider the ruthlessly ridiculous pecking order of gay male Society, from which vaster and vaster numbers of pop culture critics have been taking all their stylistic and attitudinal cues. And then think of celebrity culture today across the board, in which degrading yourself more or less voluntarily is a combination rite of passage, act of tithing, and food stamp program."
While you're at it, consider the sight of aristocratic libertarians silently bopping around the Jefferson Memorial to campy pop music...
Posted by: Matt Frost | April 17, 2008 at 10:14 AM