Elite overproduction has been observed throughout history.
When too many people compete for too few positions of
power and influence, problems follow. These are often
exacerbated by the fact that entry into the elite is based on
ambiguous or evolving criteria, leading to intense or even
desperate competition among those vying for the few
remaining positions. The standards for who 'deserves' to win
are as varied as the societies themselves, and the competitions
the would-be elites engage in are constantly adapting.
In many cases, competitions for status were formalized and
ritualized and involved a range of physical, intellectual, or
artistic skills. In the Aztec empire for example, the ballgame
ōllamalitzli was played for high stakes by members of the elite.
The game was highly competitive, requiring a range of physical
and mental abilities including agility, strength, speed, strategic
thinking, and teamwork. This rough but strategic game is believed
to have served as a proxy for warfare between rival nobles. The
standardized exams that allowed anyone of sufficient learning
and self-control to enter the mandarinate in China are a
similarly formal competition with a rich history.
Other forms of status competition were less well-defined. In
Victorian England, scandal and gossip were often used as a
means of eliminating surplus aspirants for limited places in the
elite. In this context, exposing the weaknesses and flaws of
individuals vying for positions of influence was one means of
disqualifying them in the eyes of the gatekeepers for these
positions.
Today, we see a similar style of status competition in the forms
of virtue signaling and "cancel culture" (these terms may change
between when I wrote and when you read this). Virtue signaling
refers to the practice of publicly aligning with popular moral causes for
social status or approval while cancel culture refers to the
practice of publicly shaming and cutting off economic ties with
individuals who are perceived to have violated social norms or
values. The intersection of social media with public commerce
or politics can make these competitions feel hectic indeed!
While the use of formal competitions, scandal and gossip,
virtue signaling, and cancel culture appear wildly different,
they are all solutions to the same problem.
Most analyses of cancel culture that acknowledge its role as a
filtering function for membership in the elite assumes its
presence is a negative for society. This is consistent with many
instances where our culture has difficulty distinguishing
between an underlying problem, a symptom, and a coping
mechanism. In the early twenty first century, elite positions
are highly desirable compared to the alternatives, which have
fewer and fewer rewards. Positions in the elite are no longer
seen as a challenging opportunity for the truly privileged to
give back to society. Rather, they are seen as the only reliable
way for a family to maintain its privilege – this is the underlying
problem. Elite overproduction is the symptom. Cancel culture,
far from being a root cause of any social ills, is simply a coping
mechanism.
If we accept the necessity to deal with elite overproduction as
a given, cancel culture has several features to recommend it as
a coping mechanism. For one thing, it requires an ability to
appear compassionate - which while distinct from posessing
actual compassion is positively correlated with it. Self-reflection
is another important skill for successfully navigating this sort of
competition - the ability to know how one would be
stereotyped by others and what one's first impressions would
be is a key theme of these competitions. The paradoxical
nature of the moving target at the center of intersectional
social justice - the least respected by society being the most
respected by its would-be rulers - requires a comfort with
paradox and wicked problems. And the prominence of
historical trauma in cancel culture requires an ability to take
responsibility for messes not of one's own creation, a
necessary skill for responsible members of any elite.
All or most of these requirements are positive qualities for a
culture's ruling elite to possess - the only point that might be
controversial being the comfort with Paradox. Rand famously
found it a sign of dishonesty, but though she was an influential
author she consistently spoke from a stance of rebelliousness –
her work’s relevance to members of the elite is questionable.
To offer a counterpoint, leadership consultant Jocko Willink
wrote an entire book on paradoxes in leadership like the need
to be resolute but not overbearing, or caring for one's team while being
ready to replace low performers. Aristotle, whose work
informed much of the elite classes after the decline of his own
civilization, also spoke at length about the golden mean, that
every virtue was a balance of two unhealthy extremes. Seen in
this light, holding a paradox in tension until it resolves into a
compromise is a necessary skill for anyone in positions of
leadership.
Once we separate it from the problems it addresses,
status competition in the form of cancel culture actually has a
lot of positive qualities. Its poor reputation is mostly due to
being conflated with the problem it evolved to manage as well
as the visible brutality of what happens to the losers. Given the
prominence of compassion as a virtue prized in status
competition, this latter point does require a lot of tolerance for
paradox to bear. But the harsh reality of elite overproduction is
such that not everyone who enters the competition can win,
no matter what form the competition takes or what the consolation
prizes may be.
Whether that means a better form of competition is available
is a worthwhile question. But even if one believes that cancel
culture and virtue signalling are the worst possible means of
competing for elite positions, it is still the standard our society
has set. Elite schools spend copious time teaching skills
relevant to this form of competition because it is relevant to
their alumni's success - and if you aspire to advance in social
status, it is relevant to yours.
There are two techniques which I believe could be tailor made to
this form of competition. One is Marshal Roseberg's technique
of Nonviolent Communication, while the other is Morihei Ueshiba's
martial art of Aikido. I've termed the fusion of these techniques
'Verbal Aiki' and I believe this will be an important feature of our
political terrain as we move through the fourth turning. More on this
subject to come.
Comments