Thread by @DmitryOpines

1/ -* Elitism, condescension and experts, a thread *-

I have long ago resigned myself to being dismissed as an elitist patronizing 'real people,' by those who want to minimize my impact on a discussion.

I accept it's inevitable, but still think about it a lot.

2/ My own first instinct when being accused of being an elitist condescending the working class, like that of a lot of people I know, is to balk at the sheer mischaracterization of my background.

I'm a Jew born in the former Soviet Union who immigrated to Australia with nothing.

3/ To be told I don't understand poverty or the working class is such an erasure of my story that instinct pushes me to focus on that, and that alone.

Of course, this is a trap. To enter into a debate on whether my past qualifies me to comment is to accept their central premise.

4/ My second instinct is to balk at the hypocrisy of it.

With rare Grime(s)y exceptions, most accusations of elitism in the media are thrown out by posh politicians and commentators, some of whom have more roman numerals after their names than my collection of Star Wars DVDs.

5/ Yet, engaging with this hypocrisy is also a trap.

The idea I shouldn't be telling people how trade policy works because I'm white collar isn't stupid because the guy saying it is descended from King Arthur, travels by private flying yacht and snorts caviar. It's just stupid.

6/ My third instinct is to make comparisons and analogies. Most would welcome treatment from a surgeon with an Oxbridge pedigree or representation by a lawyer from an elite firm.

Why then, when I present my (far more modest) credentials, am I dismissed?

It feels unfair.

7/ I understand why I feel this way, but on reflection it's not a fair reaction.

Not only are all fields. including medicine, rife with people dismissing expertise for convincing hokum which panders to their hopes or prejudices, but POLICY is also simply a different beast.

8/ A doctor doesn't need to understand your hopes, dreams and fears in order to treat your leg wound. The daily stresses in your life may be of tangential relevance to your legal case, but is unlikely to decide it.

Policy is different, and must come from a representative place.

9/ Which brings me back to what I see is the key weakness of the 'elitist' accusation. It itself is utterly condescending.

It assumes the poor simple minded plebeians are incapable of grasping the implications of expert testimony on their own lives.

That's patronizing bullshit.

10/ Now granted sometimes experts don't make it easy, but it's not because we're elitists. It's because we're terrible communicators.

Explaining complexity succinctly and in a way where those listening can find the connections to plug in their own experiences is really hard.

11/ Without a doubt, we should all be working to help make our fields accessible.

Also without a doubt, there are some commentators in every field who do thrive on spouting impenetrable acronyms, technical jargon and statistics to inflate their own egos.

12/ But these are the exceptions and not the rule.

The majority of experts are trying to communicate clearly and accessibly. To claim the working class is unable to see past someone's job title or resume to engage with that is the true elitism.

It should be called out. /end