Irony, elitism, Robin Hood

Some practices undertaken in academia and 'liberal' circles become painted by the world-at-large (or other people in these circles) as elitist, ivory tower panderings, or even as strategic errors in the battle against other illiberal forces. I find this strategy particularly unsettling and repelant because it replicates the form it seeks to end in the articulation of its argument. Designating an elitist practice requires the ability to speak from, or at least know in a 'truer' way, the voice of the 'common person.' The assumption of this position of responsibility turns the speaker/critic into a Robin Hood figure, someone who knows the game for what it's worth, fighting on behalf of the common person. The practice becomes scapegoating, the orientalization of academia by externalizing/locating what disturbs us about ourselves in the body of another, and seperating ourselves from that which we would rather not see in the mirror.

This process also is a more subtle and casual form of elitism. It rests on the belief that an authentic, real, universal body of knowledge and thought exists, and that by god, someone has to be there to protect the truth. It places the speaker above the regular academic/political plane as a savior figure protecting others who stray from the true and rightous path.

In the end, no one can be truely avoid elitism or some form of exclusionary practices because no shared body of common experience or thought exists. There is no 'man on the street' representing the typical voice of America (or where-ever else), and so the attempt to salvage any project in their interests or voice will fail. Every person occupies a particular social location and speaks primarily from that location.

Strangely, this has something to do with social irony. Write about this later.