My elite is not your elite. And avisdebatten about who can be said to be at the top of Norway is frustrated and frustrating. It kjekles of the index finger directed towards the elite is timely maktkritikk or misleading populism. But there are different ways to be elite at. And since elitestempelet is something you try to wash off as quickly as possible in these days, it is always tempting to point at someone else and say that the elite, it is them.
This is done often as part of a strategy, but it can also be sincerely meant. The one type of power, can feel powerless in other fields. A holden business executive may feel looked down on because he does not have the style or the references to those who have more cultural capital. A meningssterk rikssynser can get hurt in my stomach at the thought of what will happen with boliglånet after a rate hike. The professional confident akademikeren may struggle to get a permanent job. But it is now a good for those who have greater access than others to make decisions that affect many people's lives, or to be to add conditions for them to admit to themselves that they have a privilege that many do not have.
But when Klassekampens Mímir Kristjánsson writes that "there is an exclusive elite at the top of society as basking in total ignorance about massenes disorders", it is worth to remind that a lot of the last years eliteopprør not so much the question that the elites are desensitized. Indignasjonen more goes on that those who are seen as the elite have greater care for what is far away – refugees, climate change – than for your countrymen who feel that they are not being heard.
There is also one side of the case that the important humanistic progress has been forced up both from below and from above. Better conditions for the working class was carried forward through the organisation and rettighetskamp, while the death penalty, for example, was abolished in the united Kingdom, without that there was broad support for it in the people; it was a decision that was largely made at the top.
We are, and they may well be reminded of the position they have. Elitekritikk need to. But it must be precise, both in the description of what kind of power that is exercised, and why it is exercised in a bad way. As a philologist Sunnev Gran has pointed out: It is problematic to set up a garden chairs where you either are the people or the elite, grassroots or virkelighetsfjern forståsegpåer.
Like that can quickly be the gasoline on the tank for the enemy and konspiratoriske råkjørerne in public. It is such virkelighetsbeskrivelser that makes that someone can dismiss a rumblings from a climate researcher or an economist, not because of what they say, but because the speaker, after all, is one of the elite and does not take into consideration the will of the people. Also: the two parties that rides the antielitistiske the horse hit the hardest, Frp and Sp, together have less than 25% approval rating. So they represent very many people in this country, but they also may well recognize that they in no way speaking on behalf of a majority. Or "the people", if you will.