Elitism - How much is perceived?

Isn't "ask before you touch" one of the unofficial offical "rules" of encountering another person's doll? How is replying in the negative to such a question being elitist? Possibly offputting and unexpected from a grown up, since "big girls and boys share their toys," but so? It isn't your decision to make. It's MY doll so it's up to ME if I want anyone to touch it or not. It is no one's business why my answer is the way it is. I thought the number one unofficial official rule of the abjd hobby, at least according to what is said over and over on DoA, is "buy and do what you like with your dolls, and don't worry about what others think!" If that's going to be true, isn't the real issue more rudeness v. politeness instead of elitism? There is a polite way to say no, you can't touch my doll as well as a rude way.

I haven't met any rude collectors. I thought I had until I stopped and tried to look at it from another perspective. It seemed like I was being looked down on because I don't sew things for my dolls and because mine were different from the others in the group. Then I realized I wasn't. I was jealous of not having the skill level to even attempt a sock dress, first of all, and I was the only one concerned that my dolls didn't fit. The group all knew eachother very well, and their dolls' quirks, so of course they weren't going to prop one with mine. They didn't know the quirks of mine! It had nothing to do with mine not visually fitting in. It was actually really polite, just really subtle and sweet. The elites I know are elite in skill and I'm all for that. Talented tailors, artists, etc. and none of them rude.

 

We are all elitist.

If you were having brain surgery next week and had the choice of surgeons, who wouldn't choose the "best" one (best meaning most successful, most up to date on techniques, etc.)? Who of us would choose the pilot that got a D- in flight school and who falls asleep on duty if we had the choice of a "better model?"

Elitism means wanting and choosing the best. How a person defines best is up to individual interpretation. Some criteria may be measurable (i.e., easiest to pose, quality of fabric and sewing) while others are completely subjective (sculpting style). So if childlike innocence is your main criteria, your might see Volks as the best. If fantasy is your thing, maybe you're led to Soom. And if affordability is your main thing, you might consider another brand as the best. All three examples are elitist, because in each case you've made a judgment about what is best, and you've decided that's what you want.

One problem in this discussion is that people are confusing elitism and exclusivity. Certain universities are considered "elite," meaning they attract the most recognized faculty as well as students who have distinguished themselves. But many of us recognize that those universities are necessarily exclusive and conflate that with elitism. That's what happens in this hobby as well. A person who buys Soom limiteds (I'm not going to use Volks as my example because it is not longer fits the "exclusive and much sought after" category, IMO) just because they are limited, who derives their value in the fact that no one else has the doll (but many others wish they did) is NOT an elitist. They are an exclusivist.

The other problem here is that people are confusing elitism and collective narcissism. Forming groups and a collective identity based on certain shared criteria (like owning doll A), then forming an inflated opinion of their in-group and a negative opinion of out-groups (even attacking them), requiring external validation of their group or insisting their group receive recognition, all of this is collectively narcissistic behavior.

Do some doll owners exhibit this type of behavior? Absolutely. It's all over this board. Is it elitism? Nope.

It's something far worse.

 

best explanation ever.

 

Sooo.... probably my language barrier striking again... but your definition of elitism is not the usual one. Let's take an example from 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; 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.
...
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."

From how I understand it, "elitism" means not simply choosing "the best" - it is believing that a certain group IS or DOES or KNOWS the best, based on the fact that they have certain attributes. In the sense of the second part of the definition, you also have to belong to this certain group while voicing this belief to be considered "elitist".

What you are talking about, is, again, preference.

 

Asked my hubby to chime in since he's got a Master's in English and he did indeed give something very close to this definition. He also said that based on what we're talking about it may be more akin to "prejudice": a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge.b : an instance of such judgment or opinion.c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

It kind of depends on how you look at it but the example given earlier of a collector that likes doll "B" until they learn it is from a certain company, then they hate it does fall under "prejudice".So if someone pines for what they feel is the best but treats other owners okay that's preference. if someone has a preference for doll brand "A" and then hates anyone who does not also have that brand that's prejudice.

 

From the very same wikipedia article:

"Personal attributes commonly purported by elitist theorists to be characteristic of the elite include: rigorous study of, or great accomplishment within, a particular field; a long track record of competence in a demanding field; an extensive history of dedication and effort in service to a specific discipline (e.g., medicine or law) or a high degree of accomplishment, training or wisdom within a given field. "

Note that the first definition of elitism given in this article is a political one. But we are not talking politics here, as the people being labelled as elitists (both sides!) are not claiming a special right to power or granting themselves extra privileges at the expense of others. Rather, we are talking about the idea of people preferring certain dolls and allegedly berating the owners of other dolls. And this berating of others is mistakenly being called "elitism," when it is no such thing.

I am very much an elitist in that I judge my physician by his/her abilities and accomplishments. I believe in judging based on merit, and I use a personal system to define what "best" means in those situations. I am not using the political definition, but the one put forth by authors like William A Henry III who attacks the ideas of mediocrity and "all things are equal" in "A Defense of Elitism." A provocative book, even if I don't agree with his politics.

As for your second point, that you have to belong to an in-group to be an elitist, that simply is not true. There are plenty of people in the US who believe the wealthy should have special privileges (such as paying less in taxes) who are not wealthy themselves. They just identify with that social group.

 

There's a reason Wikipedia can't be used as a college level source. Elite is what you're talking about but elitism (the ism has to be in there, it changes the meaning completely) is purported my Merriam-Webster as being :

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1: leadership or rule by an elite[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2: the selectivity of the elite; especially : snobbery <elitism in choosing new members>[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3: consciousness of being or belonging to an elite[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So you are only being elitist if you believe that that physician has a greater right to rule than you do, or he's being elitist if he feels that his abilities means that he has a greater ability to rule XD. In short the people that are considered elite in this hobby need only be going by their own opinions (since there is no concrete thing that makes any one doll collector any better than any other). If in their opinion they are the elite then they can act in an elitist manner. It's not comparable to surgeons or scientists as these are graded abilities, art is not gradable as it's worth lies in the viewer, not the artist. No one has a doctorate in dolls.

though if we take this to it's second supposed definition I suppose we are in fact talking about doll snobbery coupled with outright rudeness, prejudice, or unjust discrimination. Pretty much, pick a term they're all valid for this discussion if you look at them the right way.[/FONT]

 

People do get advanced degress (even doctorates, recently) in art, though, so there must be something to grade. And as someone who has a Ph.D. herself, I am well aware of the (non)usefulness of wikipedia for academic discussions. I'm also pretty well aware of the rules of grammar. But thanks for pointing them out!

As I wrote previously, I am referring to William A Henry's discussion of elitism in the social context, not its political connotation (which is what both you and the previous poster have brought up). Henry's definition applies more closely to what we are discussing here than the original, political definition. And as Henry won two Pulitzer prizes, including one for cultural criticism it might be worth reading what he has to say. (<-- elitist statement, based solely on merit, with no judgment about his ability or duty to govern the rest of us.)

Edited to add:

Here's a brief article about "food elitism" that mirrors the conversation in this thread. Note that the author is not talking about governance!

 

I was not trying to comment on your grammar, sorry it came off that way as I'm genuinely enjoying this debate but it's very hard to convey this over the interweb. In general I always love a good debate.

Don't get me started on art degrees, (she says while holding one herself XD) I understand the academic necessity of such things yet it's so subjective and treated so differently from one campus to the next or even one specialization to another, that they contain no assertions that a holder can or will create great art. Even so we are not in an academic setting, assuming that all of us in the hobby participate in the artistic facets of BJD collecting. If someone buys fullset dolls and merely plays with them, not sewing, painting, or doing photoshoots are they any less of a BJD enthusiast? You see why I say it would be impossible to grade us all.

As for William Henry, ahh grrr... sociology my weakness (okay math is my bigger weakness... well more like my silver bullet)! XD As a pessimist in general I shy away from Sociology as I always seem to focus on the negative aspects of human behavior. I am merely saying that even if the political definition fails to apply that individuals within a hobby can label themselves the elite and then purport rude behavior on others in the hobby which through common definition (pejorative)of the term could be called elitism. It could be called a number of other things as well, with no term being any less valid then any other depending on your viewpoint so in effect we're both right because you are arguing for the sociological definition and me the pop culture pejorative use. But at this point I realize we've steered this boat horribly off course as we were supposed to be discussing whether or not this behavior does exist or whether it is merely in the perception of others. XD

 

Ha! You were up even later than I was!

I don't think the boat is off course. It makes sense for all of us to define what it is we are talking about. In the last US presidential election, one candidate said that elitism is when one person thinks they are better than another. Unfortunately that is the definition of snobbery, not elitism, but it seems to be what a lot of people think of when they hear the words "elitism" and "elitist."

 

I stopped being "forced" to deal with this sort of behavior after high school and I never looked back. It's a part of almost every hobby/sport/etc I have been a part of and I 'd go insane if I took time to worry about it.

Whatever the characteristics of "elitism" in this context, rude behavior persists everywhere. Until everyone can feel really good about themselves and confident in who they are, stuff like this will always go on. It's really not a big deal unless you put your attention on it and then it's like 'spitting into the wind'- it's never going to end well.

Better to busy yourself with the happy things in your life rather than the unhappiness of others.

God, no. As I mentioned earlier in this post: all hobbies have behavior like this involved. If you're lucky enough not to encounter it, then that's fabulous but it does lurk about and rear its ugly head from time to time.

The doll hobby has inspired one of the most competitive communities I've ever seen! There are so many really beautiful creative expressions come from it as well as some really fugly emotions.

First off, internet trolls are everywhere, in all aspects of the internet. I don't think people on DoA are really trolling- the mods have that stuff fairly tightly locked down and the community won't tolerate it.

I feel like the semi-trolling behavior stems from an individual's tendency to "pick fights" or discuss topics that are familiar because they aren't comfortable enough with themselves to talk with authority on other subjects. Tons of people are terrified of looking stupid to strangers on the internet and want to belong badly enough that their dumb behavior winds up alienating others. I always try to have compassion for these people, as annoying as they are, because I'm sure at one time or another in my life I felt similarly.

No, I think people don't learn how to express themselves properly and desire attention. I don't think people are out to get me on forums because despite how much info we put on our profile pages, we're basically all still strangers. I also believe that people can change and folks who initially need the l33t persona will eventually calm down (sometimes it can take years) but everyone evolves and changes.

Additionally, sometimes people just lack social skills and never learn them. Maybe they're just really slow about it or it's not at the top of their priority list. Whatever. lol

No- at least not by me. I really don't like labeling people because it generally makes me feel as though I am not much better than the people trying to establish themselves as "l33t".

I generally take it on a person by person basis. I welcome the interactions that make me feel good and avoid the ones (& people) who make me feel bad. If someone can grow out of it, great. If someone can't grow out of it- no big deal. At the end of the day their behavior is, thankfully, not my problem.

I hope all of everyone's feedback truly helps. You know your worth and it shouldn't matter a fig what anyone else says about dolls, jobs, hobbies, height, weight, skill, intelligence, (insert whatever in life here) etc. No one can make you less than what you are unless you let them.

 

Yep, I stay up wayyyyy too late. XD And that certainly is a false definition on that we can agree! reminds me of earlier this year when a candidate running in the primaries quoted a Pokemon movie and attributed it as "a great man once said...". You would think these people would have someone stopping them from saying idiotic things, but I suppose that would be far less entertaining to watch. XD

 

LOL I guess that depends on which Pokemon character said it. They could have in fact been a great Poke Master.

 

Trust me... It wasn't.

 

This is what elitist theorists say about the attributes the elite supposedly possesses. Hence, this is not an absolute statement, but a description of the opinion of the elitist theorists which they have about a hypothetical elite. This doesn't in the slightest describe elitism itself, though, as in "elitist behaviour" - neither in its social, nor its political, nor its ethical aspect.

First of all, before I begin bringing up contra- arguments: I agree with you that the term "elitism" is often used mistakenly in the doll hobby. I have stated so previously in my posts in this thread.
I just don't agree with your definition of elitism, neither .

If we say that elitism - or what is called such in this discussion - has no political aspects, we would forget that money, wealth, and the ability to afford something have a political aspect. Because the biggest part of the discussion goes about somebody who "can afford doll A, buy 100 outfits from label B for it, get it the most expensive face-up possible" as opposed to somebody who "buys cheap dolls and dresses them in a sock dress, painting a face-up themselves". I see a difference which stems from material wealth, or perceived material wealth, and I also see the hint of relative deprivation. You might not see the political implications of this - but I do. And I am sure I am not the only one.

Again, you divide so strictly between the political and the social aspects. In my opinion, both are related, rather a gradient than black and white. Their relationship is carried by media, which bring the political into the private life, enabling influence on social behaviour.

If you use the vocabulary forged by a neo-reactionary who thinks that certain cultures are better than others, how can you say that you are being unpolitical?

Between "all things are equal" (yeah, W.A.Henry would prefer "some animals are more equal than others" - just to quote a writer whom I find much more likeable, Orwell - and no, this is not elitism, it is preference) and "you cannot judge someone's general value just by their material possessions, heritage or education (priviledge)", there are worlds. The first is a simplification that leads ad absurdum, while the second is a political, and ethical, statement.

Those who identify with a priviledged group often do so to appear as belonging to this group, out of fear of being singled out as not-belonging, or because they hope that they will gain priviledge from this behaviour. Sometimes they do so because they believe the fairy-tales that they are served to them by those priviledged. Sometimes they, mistakingly, believe that they belong to the priviledged group. Sometimes they have a religion that tells them that it is their own fault that they are not wealthy... The reasons are myriad, and in most cases, these people are not elitists in the second sense that I had mentioned in the post you were replying to. Which, by the way, doesn't make the definiton itself untrue. It simply makes the people you mentioned not elitists by this second definition.

By the way, they are elitists in the first sense that I mentioned. I think I had made it clear enough that these are two distinct senses of the word (according to Wikipedia).

While I could also give you more scientific definitions for this social and political phenomenon, I am also in awe of the way modern technology allows knowledge to accumulate by being brought together globally by individuals connected through a web of cables, radio-waves, machines and data, and hence chose to quote the Wikipedia article in all its glorious simplicity. Sometimes, Wikipedia is better in simple definitions than academic literature (and believe me, I have read my share of that - there is a lot of senseless and absurd stuff there too, after all, science is just business for most people too, just think of the publication machinery and "sexy" theories).

By the way, all this degree talk just made me aware of the fact that we, again, are in the middle of a discussion that could be classified as "elitist", as well

 

I love you for linking that article! That actually made me laugh on a really depressing day.

 

I come from the Netherlands and I have no idea who Herman Cain is and have no idea what his politic ideas are.

This said, I also do not understand why a grown man should not enjoy Pokemon.

Also if i look at the exact sentence he quoted,

"Life can be a challenge. Life can seem impossible. It's never easy when there's so much on the line. But you and I can make a difference. There's a mission just for you and me."

I can see nothing childish, wrong or strange in that, no matter what the original source is.

Now im putting my hand in the fire here, but isnt it slightly elitist to say:
"Life can be a challenge. Life can seem impossible. It's never easy when there's so much on the line. But you and I can make a difference. There's a mission just for you and me." is wrong because it came from a pokemon movie?

 

Also this is the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clI1Fe4-LMo

 

I'm British, but I've read about Herman Cain and watched one of his speeches (the one where he announced he was stepping down) and judging from his language and the manner in which he expressed himself, he's hardly brimming with intellectual vigour. In one interview when he was asked about his thoughts on Obama's policy towards Libya, he said, "OK.... Libya...", then checked with the interviewer what Obama's policy actually was, then proceeded to stare at the ceiling for several minutes before telling the interviewer "I got all these thoughts twirling round in my head."

In a sense you're right, it IS elitist to expect all quotes to come from Dostoevsky or the Dalai Lama. After all, it's not as if we can only gleam wisdom from those in the upper echelons of celebrated academic society. There's plenty of wisdom to be found in ordinary people too.

Having said that, the phrase he quoted is a mindless cliche and doesn't actually mean anything. It IS childish, not because of its source, but because of its reductivism. This man aimed to become President of America, one of the most powerful political positions in the world. That he thought this shallowness of thought and empty rhetoric meant he was fit to govern the country is quite scary, really.