This post is not actually about the revitalisation of idealism, which in a world that is largely concerned with conformity, is rare. Instead, the title refers to the fact that for a extended period of time, no one has expressed ideas for others to read and perhaps learn of. In any case, this is a post actually about the notion of Elitism.
Elitism
Now as we all know as far as institutionalised conventions go, Wikipedia.org is not only a secondary source of unreliable information but can also be contributed to by anyone who can operate a computer. However, in any case, it could be claimed that Wikipedia is in fact perhaps the ideal collective subjective perspective that is needed. A ambiguous word such as elitism would mean different things to different people however as defined in Wikipedia:
"Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite — a select group of people with intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern"
Therefore, it could be argued that democracy and any form of representation in any system would be in fact, embracing the notion of elitism. When people choose parties, and members of parliament every election, they elect a representative who best suits the job, a candidate that best displays the values aligned with oneself, or a candidate who has the best ability. In any case, you are electing a select group of people to govern the country. Using this simple example as a basis, discounting donkey voting, informal voting and non-voters in general, you would still be able to claim that the vast majority of people are embracing an elitist ideal.
Then again, the definition given is of course at most a bone fide one that is rarely ever achieved by humans due to morality issues stemming from what most would believe to be instinctual. That is, humans are likely to deceive, and disadvantage a fellow human for self-benefit. Survival of the fittest is claimed as an instinctual defense for such human traits. The argument proposed here is not whether human morality is instinctual or otherwise, rather that human morality causes elitism to not always be one for the benefit of society. "The term elitism is also sometimes used to denote situations in which a group of people claiming to possess high abilities or simply an in-group or cadre grant themselves extra privileges at the expense of others. This form of elitism may be described as discrimination." Such elitism does exist in society, and is much apparent in the dissatisfaction of the working class with the upper class and their abuse of power predominantly their promotion of self-monetary success (sic in other works as the current most accurate measure of success [as far as hedonism goes]) at the expense of the lower classes' monetary demise.
History has always claimed this class struggle, and as far as recorded civilisations have gone, elitism has always existed, and has fulfilled its prophecy to be benefiting to society in the majority of cases. Then again, never has a true egalitarianism system ever been created - or sustained for any reputable moment of time in any large scale. In words, it may be more logical in that more beneficial to more people, however the classic saying that humanity itself is largely illogical is indicative of its impossible outcomes. Human morality will always, until modified which is inhibiting freedom itself, be a hurdle for human evolution. The closest system would be those outlined by Marx, and other communists. Indeed, the ideal world would probably allow the ideals of communism to work and create a harmonious society but as far as real life applications go, it has never risen to much more than a failed Soviet Union, and a China that has now undergone capitalist reform.
Egalitarianism is a belief that many people wish to believe in, as with any human belief and should be respected. However, much like any major religion, its idealism may only lay within the books and rituals. Preaching, forcing or otherwise making it the only form of social determination will only let human morality cause the outcome to be much like the Crusades or the Third Reich. The belief in egalitarianism is like the belief in a omnipotent being, its gospels speak of greatness, but its real-life applications are impossible. Even Christianity speak of egalitarian values of every man being born the same, yet also speak of the inferiority of women, and the unacceptance of those who do not believe in the same god (even though to a agnostic person: all monotheist gods are the same one god). This contradiction exemplifies the simple notion that elitism is clearly abundant even in the bible.) Not to say one cannot somehow gain from believing in such things as religion is a good form of morality, and belief in egalitarianism is highly repututable in a more acceptable society with less descrimination and more acceptance. As long as currency, and money rule the world, and until humans rid themselves of sterotypes, and the so called instinctual mannerisms of self-betterment and selfishness, elitism will rule. Egalitarianism will rule once hell freezes over, and the earth will have more problems with migrating archdemons than with whether one person is actually better than another or not.
[1] Highly biased but interesting read: http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm
N.B. The argument whether or not the evolution of humanity's idealism does affect the evolution of elitism is not discussed. This argument is that elitism will one day be less significant that egalitarianism and is evidenced by less discrimination and more acceptance.
