Elitism - How much is perceived?

This to infinity and beyond!

I have been in the hobby since 2006 and I have never had anyone demean me or say anything rude about my dolls. I think that most of us (BJD people in general) are also mature enough to keep truly negative and hurtful opinions to themselves. We share a basic, unspoken understanding that "my doll is the coolest thing since sliced bread." If we all remember that, then elitism really doesn't count for much in this hobby.

 

Second this. That's why I stick at the DOA so much. It's amazing friendly place for everyone, with every type of doll or any type of interests inside this hobby.

 

Just to add what Harlequin Elle stated, Herman Cain used the quote on numerous occasions during his candidacy. First he said it was the closing song to the 2000 summer Olympics. Then he introduced it as "a poet once said..." It was the fact that neither he nor his staff bothered to look up the source of the lyrics (a 5 second google task-- it's Donna Summer) that made him the butt of late night jokes. That and the fact that former employees were crawling out of the woodwork to say this "values" candidate had sexually harassed them...

But it's not my definition. I pointed out two references of the use of the term in current discourse. You dismissed one because you believe a "neo-reactionary" said it (look up his history and get back to me on that) and you ignored the other. But as a student of English, certainly you understand the following-- English is a dynamic language and in it new words are constantly being coined. Some de novo, and some as new usages and combinations of current words, prefixes and suffixes, based on the rules of English. The suffix -ist does not only mean "one who subscribes to a political worldview that ends with -ism", but "one who does a job related to," or simply "related to." So alternate meanings of elitist include "related to the elite, or the idea of elitism."

Currently, besides the "official" political definition of "elitist" there are alternate meanings-- you can find them in newspapers, magazines, and all over the internet. As I stated earlier, a very popular one (IMO incorrect as we already have several English words that precisely describe the phenomenon) is that elitists are those that look down on other people. It's been defined that way by an ill-educated anti-intellectual who was running for vice-president, and apparently that definition is subscribed to by quite a few people on this board. The other meaning is "one who looks for or strives for the best." (e.g., foodie elitism, the elitism parents show in trying to get their child into the "best" school, choosing the "best" doctor, etc.) That definition utilizes the other meaning of the suffix -ist. Whether or not this meaning gets picked up by dictionaries depends on how many people are using it, and the wishes of the editors of dictionaries. But whether or not it is an "official" definition is moot. Leet meant "elite" long before it made it into the dictionary, as did "internet," "computer" and even "telephone." So call it "my" definition if you like, although this ignores the fact that it's not my definition. And disagree with it if you like, as well. That doesn't negate its existence.

As for your Wikipedia comment, please note that I was not the person who criticized your use of that source, and I'm puzzled that you chose to direct your response at me. I will say however, that I agree that Wikipedia has its strengths, but it has also been rather famously abused. That appears to be what the other poster was pointing out, when she said that it is not a legitimate academic source.

As for your comments relating to the inability to divorce politics from the idea of "elitism," you are right. They can't be totally separated, as politics and the extant power structure certainly influence a person's income. But (and this is a big but), this is a luxury hobby. The people who are buying these dolls are buying something that by definition they don't need. So income is controlled for, which removes the political aspect from the equation. Cries of elitism in this hobby ring hollow to me. It's like a group of Mercedes owners complaining that Ferrari owners are looking down on them, in that it completely ignores the fact that to own either car (sensibly) you have to be in a higher income bracket. In other words, you ARE the elite (income-wise). Yes, one car costs substantially more than the other, and owners may feel strongly that their type of car is the "best," but so what? No one is being held down here, or being excluded or kept from power. It's simply insecurity masquerading as a stand against injustice.

 

Well... I personally haven't seen it but... all this so called "elitist attitude" is is rudeness and immaturity. Plain and simple. You are going to encounter rude a**holes any and everywhere, and it should warrant no attention.

The behavior is honestly funny to me. It makes me laugh that one could develop a sense of superiority just because they have a doll from a certain company. Really, it's like bashing a painting because of the paint or canvas that was used: an absolutely stupid endeavor. But if they want to foolishly pursue such an endeavor, I say let 'em. Let them sit in their little bubbles of self-superiority and fawn over their lovely, "high class" dolls. If that's what the hobby is to them, then let them waste their time, while the rest of us enjoy our dolls and one another. In the end, *they* are the one's missing out, they are on the losing end.

 

I encountered someone at a convention who kinda had the whole "my doll and I are better than your and yours." She was carrying a volks doll and both of them were dressed in the exact same outfit, with the exact same wig and eye color and same shoes. She looked at my doll and kinda turned her head away not really wanting to talk and when I did attempt to talk to her she was pretty much like "You know Volks is this and Volks is that..." And it got to the point where I just walked away.

Of course I have met Volks doll owners who are awesome and interested in my dolls just as I am in theirs. But those doll elitists are out there...and they can be rude, snobby, and hurtful.

 

Maybe she just really liked Volks and wanted to talk about them? Did she actually say anything derogatory about you or you doll? I mean, if someone were to engage me at a con, I'd go on and on about Bluefairy and Volks since they are my fave companies. You really can't get me to shut up about Bluefairy. I know, I did it this weekend at Katsucon. Other companies? Yeah, not so much, and if it's a company I don't like, then I am in the tough situation of saying nothing at all or having to be blunt about not liking the company. Which in turn becomes a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I just go with the assumption that people at cons or doll meets will 9 times out of 10 have no social skills or tact and take everything they say and do with a grain of salt.

 

Did I really? Why should I dismiss anything? You, and W. A. Henry, and everybody else, is as entitled to an opinion as I am. I am very interested in discussion, and to be honest, the main reason why I write things that contradict your opinion is the fact that you seem to be an interesting debate contrahent/partner and that your opinion is different than mine. It is more fun than agreeing, I think - it is possible to learn more about the world and the people in it this way, and truth is best found in a discussion.

I said that using a term forged by a neo-reactionary cannot be seen as devoid of politics - does this mean that I dismiss the term in general? No. It means that using this term is something political. Also, I had looked up some of W.A. Henry's writings before I answered you, and some more now, just in case I missed something important – summaries of his book that you mentioned, quotes from him, some articles he wrote for the Time - and critique of his writings. They show either his politically neutral or semi-neutral attitudes or what I would call neo-reactionary. By the way, the fact that I am not into neo-reactionary politics doesn't mean that they are per se automatically bad or a reason to dismiss anything said by a follower or practitioner of those. And the way William A. Henry uses the word is actually not that different from „my“ definition. So I don't even see an argument against „my“ definition in his writings.

Now, why did I use the „political aspect of elitism“-argument in my reply, when disagreeing with your opinion?

Because you wrote that you are using the &#8222;social&#8220;, and not political&#8220; meaning and/or context of the word &#8222;elitism&#8220;. Because you used this as an argument to support your prefered definition of &#8222;elitism&#8220;. Because you said Henry's definition would refer to the social context of the word &#8222;elitism&#8220; as opposed to the political context. But if there is no merely social meaning of elitism, and every meaning of elitism is, by its nature, political (which I tried to show with my argumentation), then you cannot use a merely social meaning of the word elitism. Hence, your prefered definition loses the biggest part of its support. Q.E.D. (<= joke! I am aware that we are not talking mathematics here )

But no, I didn't in the slightest intend to dismiss your first reference, and actually, I didn't dismiss it. Disagreeing with something doesn't necessarily mean dismissing it. Actually, taking some time to think about something, and writing a reply that uses arguments against something instead of simply saying &#8222;na-ah, I don't think so, period!&#8220; in a foreign language is quite the contrary of dismissing (at least in most senses of &#8222;dismiss&#8220;...sigh...).

About the other reference... Do you mean the "food elitism" in the blog you provided the link for? I don't know much about food elitism, but from my first impression, in this blog I see only a personal opinion of a single person.

I am but a lowly hobbyist in the studying of the English language.^^ My degree (ooops, elitist) is in a different field. Of course, I agree that there are alternate meanings of words, and that a living language is dynamic. And yes, alternate meanings of words exist. This still doesn't invalidate the fact that the -usual- meaning is different to those.

I don't think it is moot &#8211; in the sense of &#8222;irrelevant&#8220;, which you probably mean - whether it is an official definition or not. Because while we are on a forum where English is used as the only language, it is still a forum with a lot of members from different countries (and I think this is a very cool thing). To non-native-speakers, these &#8222;non-official&#8220; definitions in English might be much less accessible. But I think I already mentioned that my disagreeing with your words could be an effect of the language barrier in my very first answer to your words, didn't I? By the way, when I wrote &#8222;your definition&#8220;, I of course meant &#8222;your preferred definition&#8220;, not &#8222;a definition created or owned by you&#8220;. I am sorry if it wasn't clear. Also, I am not negating its existence. I merely stated that from what I perceive (and everything is going through the filter of our perception, doesn't it?), it is not the usual definition. Meaning that it is not the definition that I see used most in the current discourse of &#8222;elitism&#8220;.

In this case... I wasn't disagreeing with you. You, like me, had used Wikipedia as a quote here before, despite your academic degree. So I just wanted to say that sometimes, academic education doesn't mean one should automatically reject Wikipedia, since it makes pretty good sense to use it for certain purposes. And that in both your and my case of Wikipedia use in this thread, it did make sense.

There is not only black and white. Insecurity? Maybe. Injustice in such cases? I would say, mostly not. So far, I agree.

But what about relative deprivation? This concept, which implies that subjective perception of own happiness can, for individuals or groups, depend on the state, wealth, or access to priviledge by comparable individuals or groups, has been known in social science since the middle of the last century, beginning with the works of Samuel A. Stouffer and Robert K. Merton, among others. I don't think you can simply remove income from the equation when there is a relative difference...

Still, basically I agree with you on that last point, and I already stated in previous posts in this thread that I, personally, don't perceive any differences in being "elite" between owners of different brands, since we are all already priviledged to be able to buy these dolls at all, no matter if the doll costs 100 or 1000$.

 

I hear you! Tact is hard, but everyone has an opinion. There have been a few occasions where I've started a sentence with "I'm not a fan of this company/sculpt/etc, but..." because there's something about one, individual doll that I like. (Impl doll's robot girl, for example.)

 

I don't know if this is appropriate, but I feel it pertains to the elitism discussion (and honestly, every discussion where it involves "You shouldn't care about what others think!")

I feel if I didn't see cheap Elitists ragging about how I've wasted my money buying expensive sculpts when I could have bought two cheap ones or how I'm apparently an elitist for liking to buy stuff I like that happens to cost more (and personally, I see 10 of those for every rich 'Volks' elitist), I wouldn't have to defend myself. Yes, we shouldn't care what other people think, but if it never happened in the first place, we wouldn't have to be told not to care, y'know?

Why not tackle the problem at the source (the elitists) than telling us who are defending our preferences with "Stop caring about what others think!"

I honestly don't care what others think. But I do care about what people tell me what I think or should think.

 

I can agree with you on this wholeheartedly. But the reality is: people love finding ways to feel better than others. It give a sort of validation... at least that is what I have observed (Not in this hobby, mind you). You will not be able to go into a hobby or anything for that matter an not find someone who think they are superior in some way and that what does not conform to them is wrong and should be cast out. If anything this endeavor is just as fruitless as being this so called "elitist."

Because it can't be done. Stopping it at it's source cannot happen, and there is no place in which it does not exist. As long as we have the capacity for free will and free thinking, people will have this "elitist" mindset. You are better off leaving those who have that arrogance to freely embrace it in their own little worlds.

Isn't "stopping the problem at it's source" telling others what they should think? In order to "stop the problem" these elitists should either be told to be silent, banned, or have their ways of thinking altered, all of which infringe on rights. Saying that it is wrong to think the way they do is telling them they should change their way of thinking... so you sound just a bit hypocritical when you make your suggestion but then take offense when one suggests that you just don't pay it mind.

If you wish to have the liberty of not being told what to think, really, these elitist should as well. You are very much free to defend your preference... and these elitists are as well. But either way both sides are only going to continue to clash until finally people just say "whatever, think what you want. I don't care."

 

that was not anyone's point in the slightest. see below.

Yep, It's not immature to love Pokemon but it is immature to not properly cite your sources and hope no one calls you on it, especially when you're making on air live speeches to thousands. Heck I think everyone should play Pokemon.

 

There is a difference between preference and "elitist" behaviour ( I am using the word in the sense of "a group of individuals who share certain characteristics, and based on these characteristics grant themselves or have the opinion that they should be granted, extra priviledges" - in the way adhara used the word and applied to the case of our hobby, these extra priviledges would be: being considered sensible, better collectors, being not ridiculed, being included in a social network etc. as opposed to being excluded, being attacked or made fun of or not taken seriously because of not meetuing the criteria ---- just mentioning it because as former discussion showed, there are different alternate meanings for "elitism").

The way adhara used the word, elitism is behaviour that, to a certain extent, harms others. This way, it cannot be included in the concept of equal liberty - that you are only free to do something as long as it doesn't harm others.

Let me give an example how "elitism" can harm others, and how preference doesn't:

Person Y is an owner of fifteen "cheaper" (yeah, as if these dolls were cheap at all xDDD) dolls made by a famous Chinese company. These dolls are of high quality, but the main reason why Y bought them is because Y loves a bargain, and sees spending more money as unnecessary, despite having the extra change, since Y is an adult with a well-paid job. Y is a person with several crafty hobbies, is a well of creativity, and very talented with every kind of handiwork she/he tried so far. Y is also very proud of her/his ability to sew them clothes, has refined her/his skills to paint face-ups for years, is a modding expert, and pursues a general DIY attitude. Y doesn't really understand why other people buy dolls from more expensive companies, since Y has compared different dolls during meet-ups very often and came to the conclusion that there isn't much difference, at least not enough to raise the price as high. Y is also a member of an innofficial circle of other admirers of the dolls of the same company.

Person X is an owner of three "cheaper" dolls from three different companies. These dolls, too, are of good quality, but this was not the reaon for X to buy them. X did aquire "cheaper" dolls because X has a limited budget - X is very young, is still a school student and hence, has only a part-time job. X doesn't know yet how to sew, and since she/he wanted to shell her/his three main characters first so that they could "interact", X didn't purchase clothing for them yet - this means, sock dress and no shoes. X was able to acquire wigs for her/his dolls though already. X is not perfect at face-ups, if not to say, quite bad at them, till now - but knows that practice will change that one day. X doesn't know much about different brands of dolls and clothing, but X tries to learn evberyday and desperately wants to find friends among other hobbyists. X doesn't know anybody into these dolls in her/his RL and is new to DoA, too.

Person Z owns ten limited dolls produced by a two well-known Korean companies, with several outfits of brand doll clothing for each, and either company face-ups or face-ups commissioned from fantastically skilled and "in" face-up artists. Z bought the dolls because Z likes the rarity and exclusivity of the limited releases, along with liking the sculpts. Z thinks that it only makes sense to buy "the very best", and since Z comes from a financially priviledged household, has a university education and earns lots of money, Z is able to, and already was during the last five years. Besides, Z strongly dislikes the style of all Chinese compnies so far - and Z also isn't impressed by the all-admired japanese dolls at all. Basically, Z dislikes dolls from every company besides the two that she/he das dolls from. Z belongs to a clique of doll owners, whose dolls are all from the same or comparable companies.

Person W owns five dolls, three from a Japanese company, one from a Korean, and one from a Chinese one. Four of these were limited fullsets, and W had a hard time searching for them second-hand, and was indefinitely happy and proud to acquire them. The fullset dolls have their default face-ups and clothing, and the non-limited doll has a face-up done by a friend of W who is not a famous face-up artist but reasonably skilled. Two of the dolls have several additional clothing sets. W cares about her/his dolls tenderly, putting them in their boxes when not playing, and only touching them with cotton gloves on. W is in the hobby for ten years, has been there from the beginning, is an expert in every possible knowledge field about BJDs, can name all existing companies in one breath when you wake her/him up in the middle of the night, and is very proud of her/his knowledge and experience. W is friend with many people in the hobby online and in RL, attends all meet-ups she/he can go to, and is fairly active in the community. W belongs to a group of doll owners who are all at least seven years in the hobby, but own dolls from different brands.

Let's say, they all meet during a meet-up. Now just imagine Y, Z and W would begin discussing their preferences loudly in front of X, in the following way:

- Y would say sock dresses are awful and ugly and the people who dress their dolls like that are horrible, and that she/he is appaled by the face-ups that look like done by a two-year-old.
- Z would say that only the dolls from her/his favourite companies are worth buying, and all the other dolls are hideous, of low quality, and only poor people and "cheapies" would buy other dolls.
- W would say that if you don't know how to use Y!J, don't wear cotton gloves when touching your doll, you mistreat it and are not worthy to be considered a part of the hobby - and you were not there from the start, anyway.

They would say all that, because they would be of the opinion that only they, as the superior ones, deserve to be taken seriously, treated with respect, and to belong to the doll hobby <= "elitism" in the mentioned meaning.

This is the moment when X feels terribly hurt, and maybe never goes to a meet-up again. This is harm - psychological harm.

Now a different situation: They all meet during a meet-up. Y, Z and W see that X's doll is not up to their taste/standards. And just keep it to themselves, treating X in a friendly way - depending on X's behaviour, of course. Which wouldn't mean that they like X's doll - and they don't have to. <= preference.

X feels a bit bad because the others have better doll clothing and face-ups, maybe is a bit jealous - but then goes home inspired and practices more, or saves for some good quality doll clothing. No harm is done.

_____________
Disclaimer: I am using the word in the sense how it is mostly used in the hobby. I am aware that there are other meanings.

 

I have to wonder how much 'elitism' is because we're mostly nerds, and nerds tend to be socially awkward penguins when it comes to meeting one another and knowing how to talk about their hobbies. So, I'm thinking some of the 'elitism' is actually mistaking social awkwardness for elitism. The hobby rarely talks about social awkwardness, but 'elitism' gets tossed around like a baseball. Maybe the people who are off in a corner with their Volks aren't doing it because they're Volks, but because they don't know how to 'break the ice' with the other owners. Or they don't have the social graces to know giving a speech on why they like Volks looks bad to the other owners.

Just thinking about myself, some doll people were trying to have a conversation with me at Anime Detour while I was on radio, and as I was talking I got a radio call telling me I needed to be in place to act as a liason, so I had to break the conversation off quickly. I felt bad about it, especially since I didn't get a chance to run into them again, but I'm thinking situations like that could be mistaken as 'elitism' if they had thought I was running off because of their dolls, not because I was called to do my staff duties.

 

Lol, I did preface that sentence with 'Ironically', but for some reason I thought it looked ok without it!

I think you may have missed my point. I never said that these elitists should be told on what they should think. On the contrary, we 'defenders' don't tell others what they should and should not like or buy, as I said, I don't care what you do with your dolls. But like dollblue said, Liberty and Freedom of Speech does not give elitists the right to shove their opinions down my throat. They can have their opinions, and they can keep their way of thinking. But it infringes on my rights to have them telling me what I should and shouldn't buy shoved down my throat. Coupled with everyone else telling me "Stop caring about what others think!", there's a lot of people telling me what to think, and very little of me telling them what to think.

I'm a little confused, because by your post, a racist bigot could go to a convention and tell everyone that [insert ethnic race of your choice] is wrong and should be exterminated from the earth. Are you seriously telling me that telling him to keep his opinions to himself is an infringement on his rights??? Because it seriously infringed on everyone else's rights hearing him.

Here's another example; if one kid bullies another, would you say telling the bully off is wrong because it infringes on his rights? It's not going to solve anything if you just tell the bullied kid "It's ok, everything's alright, just ignore him".

I suppose that's what I mean when I say tackle the problem at the source. If we tell the elitists that it's not acceptable to be rude as opposed to telling the 'defenders' "Stop caring about what others think!", instances of elitism happening will probably decrease and stop altogether. I honestly think it's less of a clash and more of attacking snobs and defensive normal collectors.

 

Well in terms of the racist, sadly, yes he can. He has every liberty to say what he thinks, but another has the same right to tell him to "eff off". It is only if he threatens to hurt someone of another race, or does so that he is infringing on another's rights. Freedom is a double edged sword and freedom of speech is the sharpest. Sure, one can put in the effort to try and convince someone that they shouldn't think that way... but you can't do it by force.

In the terms of the bully, well that's a grey area, but no, telling that bully off does not infringe on rights for the same reason I mentioned above. And you're right, telling the bullied kid to "just ignore" the bully won't solve much... but depending on the setting in which this bullying takes place, there isn't much you can do but ignore or tell them off. In school, it's different because kids and teens are bound by school rules in addition to law.

Back to dolls, your rights are not infringed upon just because someone turns their nose up at you for having a certain doll. It doesn't keep you from enjoying the hobby because you can easily turn the other cheek and go off somewhere else. Yes, it is insulting, yes it can be hurtful... and yes, you can attempt to stop the problem in a diplomatic way, perhaps... but the whole point is, neither side is infringing on rights, and both sides have the equal freedom to think as they want. So if your diplomacy fails, you can either let them bother you, or disregard them.

 

Well, in some places, certain racist statements are illegal and not only that, also other things that one can say are.

Where I live, libel, insult, threatening, and expecially racist/nationalist symbolism and paroles are felonies/criminal acts, and can even get you into jail. Freedom of speech has certain limits. Speech can very well infringe on others' freedom.

 

Well I can certainly agree that censors should exist within reason. Especially here in America where people tend to abuse the **** out of their freedom of speech... I can admit that I neglected to consider other nations, where there are limits-reasonable limits, but limits nonetheless. I know that here, someone can call me any sexist, racial, or homophobic slur in the book, or in the case of this hobby, can say I and my doll are inferior and don't belong all they want and can do so freely unless I can prove I suffered some sort of mental anguish.

 

But it's not convincing them they shouldn't think that way - I'm all for him being a racist if that's who he wants to be. But it crosses the line when he decided he has the right to tell others to think like he does. Thinking does not equal Saying. For instance, I think a lot of things that I know people do not agree with. That doesn't mean I have the right to say it wherever or whenever I feel like.

Yes, you're right that my rights are not infringed because someone hates my doll. But surely my rights must be infringed if that person tells me how much they hate my doll when I definitely did not ask for their opinion. It's apt that you call Freedom of Speech a double edged sword, because while it respects the right to have opinion, it sounds like it allows anyone to be rude, insulting and everything (I feel) a society shouldn't find acceptable.

Edit: Lol, totally posted this after you did!

 

Well...it does allow anyone to be rude and insulting. It sucks, I will readily admit... but its reality. At least it is here.

And sadly, if someone wants to say they hate your doll...they can. It can feel as if your right to enjoy your doll has been infringed upon (I know if someone up and said horrible things about my doll, I'd feel a bit down even as I tried to let it go), but from a practical standpoint, you have not lost your right to turn the other cheek and continue with what you were doing.

Now, if that person then snatched your doll away and proceeded to bash it into a wall (I hope something like that never happens to anyone BTW), THEN your rights are being infringed upon because someone is damaging your property. I just hope no one would be that stupid to go to a meet and try to destroy someone else's doll and feel justified in doing so because it came from China or something...

 

From personal experience at least some of elitism is perceived. I went to several meet-ups and no one was any sort of snob about it and my GF who was with my had two dolls from a company that some people 'look down upon'.

Now I saw on (what I think was a tumblr thing I am not sure) anonymous pictures with opinions posted with them and I saw at least one post that I would consider VERY elitist and almost offensive.

So while I don't think elitistism is a huge problem in this hobby, there are elitist in every hobby (I had someone stick their nose up at me for watching most of my anime on Netflicks rather then buying the uber premium suber duper collectors edition o0).

While it might upset me for someone to snub my dolls, once I got over being upset, I wouldn't really care.