4 ms·

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

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

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.