4 ms·

The method used means any conclusion says more about the selection process of Who's Who and how it has evolved over time than any reasonably objective determina

The method used means any conclusion says more about the selection process of Who's Who and how it has evolved over time than any reasonably objective determination of who or what constitutes eliteness.

vintermann 3y ago
"Objectively elite" is a questionable concept. This paper deals with elites defined as those mentioned in a notable prestige catalog of people (Who's Who), and that's a perfectly fine limitation. I would like to see this type of analysis extended to other prestige people catalogs. In my country, I know there were catalogs for educators ("Norske skolefolk") and physicians ("Norske leger"), I've had some use of them in my genealogy work. My great-grandmother, who had a single year at the teacher's seminary, was included in one of those books and felt it was important that the country should know she was a knitter.
- randomcarbloke 3y ago
  In principle I agree that "objectively elite" is questionable but there's no question that the measure merely assesses the institutional whims of Who's Who - I can say from experience that Henley, the polo world cup, the game fair, and the rest of "the season" is as popular as ever, if anything the non-u representation is larger than previous years. Where perhaps inclusion in Who's Who or roles that ordinarily grant inclusion have become more egalitarian I'd argue that is a dilution of elitism, not a societal shift in it or in elite-values.
  - vintermann 3y ago
    The dilution of who's who-elitism one can easily measure by counting how many people there are in it per year (maybe you want to divide by the total population too).
    - randomcarbloke 3y ago
      I'm not looking to measure dilution, but if that is your proposed method I think you've missed my point entirely (or are simply rejecting it I guess).
  - gumby 3y ago
    But is not a “dilution of elitism” (which happened, differently, also in 1900-1920, as noted in the article), not inherently a “societal shift in it”? Am I missing your point?
    - randomcarbloke 3y ago
      You could make that argument and yes I agree with you that that is what the article is trying to do, I think I am awkwardly trying to reconcile meritocratically elite and aristocratically/socially elite. The paper seems to be angling at the former while equating the two in class-terms and I think that is where it falls flat, the behaviours, shopping habits, and pastimes of the socially elite don't appear to have changed much (speaking anecdotally of course) but if assessed in terms of the meritocratic elite then yes obviously tastes have changed because the two groups are divergent when we look at trends in appointment to positions favoured by Who's Who when deciding who to include. That last sentence is a bit of a run-on but I think it roughly conveys what I'm saying.

vintermann 3y ago

"Objectively elite" is a questionable concept. This paper deals with elites defined as those mentioned in a notable prestige catalog of people (Who's Who), and that's a perfectly fine limitation. I would like to see this type of analysis extended to other prestige people catalogs. In my country, I know there were catalogs for educators ("Norske skolefolk") and physicians ("Norske leger"), I've had some use of them in my genealogy work. My great-grandmother, who had a single year at the teacher's seminary, was included in one of those books and felt it was important that the country should know she was a knitter.

randomcarbloke 3y ago
In principle I agree that "objectively elite" is questionable but there's no question that the measure merely assesses the institutional whims of Who's Who - I can say from experience that Henley, the polo world cup, the game fair, and the rest of "the season" is as popular as ever, if anything the non-u representation is larger than previous years. Where perhaps inclusion in Who's Who or roles that ordinarily grant inclusion have become more egalitarian I'd argue that is a dilution of elitism, not a societal shift in it or in elite-values.
- vintermann 3y ago
  The dilution of who's who-elitism one can easily measure by counting how many people there are in it per year (maybe you want to divide by the total population too).
  - randomcarbloke 3y ago
    I'm not looking to measure dilution, but if that is your proposed method I think you've missed my point entirely (or are simply rejecting it I guess).
- gumby 3y ago
  But is not a “dilution of elitism” (which happened, differently, also in 1900-1920, as noted in the article), not inherently a “societal shift in it”? Am I missing your point?
  - randomcarbloke 3y ago
    You could make that argument and yes I agree with you that that is what the article is trying to do, I think I am awkwardly trying to reconcile meritocratically elite and aristocratically/socially elite. The paper seems to be angling at the former while equating the two in class-terms and I think that is where it falls flat, the behaviours, shopping habits, and pastimes of the socially elite don't appear to have changed much (speaking anecdotally of course) but if assessed in terms of the meritocratic elite then yes obviously tastes have changed because the two groups are divergent when we look at trends in appointment to positions favoured by Who's Who when deciding who to include. That last sentence is a bit of a run-on but I think it roughly conveys what I'm saying.