While puttering my way into an essay I want to write about what causes Shakespeare-Denial and thinking about Shakespeare-Deniers worship of aristocrats and the educated, I formed the following, which I thought might be a welcome break from my Of Manywhere-at-Once rough draft:
A Taxonomy of Elitism
aristophile: an elitist who holds that aristocrats (or the equivalent, such as the later generations of the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts in the USA) are superior to everyone else to the degree that they are high in social status, with those whose status is highest being at least an order of magnitude more important than everyone else.
celebriphile: an elitist who holds that the people the front pages of newspapers deal with are superior to everyone else, with those most discussed and photographed being at least an order of magnitude more important than everyone else.
politiphile: an elitist who holds that office-holding politicians and those appointed to positions by politicians are superior to everyone else to the degree that they have power, with those having most political power being at least an order of magnitude more important than everyone else.
culturaphile: an elitist who holds persons he considers to be of high achievement in the arts and sciences are superior to everyone else to the degree that their accomplishments are great, with those whose achievements are the greates being at least an order of magnitude more important than everyone else.
eduphile: an elitist who holds that the formally-educated (but certified schools and/or professional tutor are superior to everyone else to the degree that they are formally-educated, with those most formally-educated academics being at least an order of magnitude more important than everyone else.
plutophile: an elitist who holds that wealthy people are superior to everyone else to the degree that they are wealthy, with the wealthiest being at least an order of magnitude more important than everyone else.
ethophile: an elitist who holds that those he considers morally upright are superior to everyone else to the degree that they are morally upright, with those closest, in his view, to sainthood, being at least ten orders of magnitude more important than everyone else.
* * *
I have no problem owning up to the fact that I am a grade-A culturaphile, perhaps a culturaphiliac, or excessively ardent culturaphile. I am to a degree a plutophile, too, for I do believe rich people are superior to poor people, although–of course–some poor people are superior to some rich people. In fact one poor person, ME, is superior to ALL rich persons. I also believe that those who are aristocrats by birth are superior to those who aren’t, or were when being an aristocrat meant something. I consider myself semi-aristo- cratic due to much of my ancestors having been relatively prominent in this country for over three hundred years. There are two streets in my hometown of Norwalk, Connecticut, which was founded in 1650, that are named after the Grumman family, and the British were recorded as having watched the locally famous burning of the town during the Revolutionary War from Grumman Hill. William Tecumsa Sherman is a cousin as is James Sherman I think that was his name, the only man elected to the office of U.S. Vice President who died before serving, and LeRoy Grumman, the founder of Grumman Aircraft.
I hope no one who knows me thinks I’m bragging about this rather than disclosing a few amusing things about my background. I do think familial background important but don’t think mine was anything of note, though not wholly shabby, either.
None of the other elitisms appeal to me, at all. Some I’m downright contemptuous of.
Other notes: Shakespeare-Deniers are both aristophiliacs and eduphiliacs. Most people are mixtures of elitists, not infrequently excessively elitist in one small way or another.
Feedback on my taxonomy most welcome. Any elitist I failed to list? Any I should not have?