FBB on Elitism

You have to love the internet!  I emailed Frank Burch Brown regarding a definition for "elitism," and he was kind enough to shoot back a quick reply, as well as refer me to a later section in Good Taste, Bad Taste, and Christian Taste.  Here is his definition, and then I will quote at length from the text:

Thanks for your query, and I look forward to visiting your blog site.  In my TASTES book, on p. 158, second full paragraph, I explain rather fully my conception of what it means for someone to be an elitist in a negative sense, in matters of taste.  I would just emphasize that loving sophisticated and highly cultivated forms of art is not in itself elitist, in my view.  What makes one elitist is thinking that only those arts are truly commendable, aesthetically, and that the best art is inevitably found in the so-called "high arts."  That judgment is usually accompanied by a social bias as well, which reinforces the elitism.  My notion of ecumenical taste, and the rather complex chapter in which I discuss that, is intended to provide a fuller discussion of how one can be both inclusive and discerning without falling into the opposite traps of fiberless relativism (anything goes) or a special privileging of the tastes of one group (sometimes a socially elite). 

Elitism, as the term is typically used, is normally associated with "high-class" tastes; elitism in that sense has its counterpart in a populism that refuses to see value in anything other than popular arts.

I hope those thoughts are of some use!

Yours truly,

Frank BB

From the text:

Has my insistence on the importance of questions of quality and taste made my approach elitist, despite my disclaimers?  Not as I understand the concept "elitist." It is not elitist to believe that some aesthetic choices are better than others.  Every artist makes that assumption simply in choosing to make a given work, or how to make it better.  Nor is it elitist to believe that some artistic goals are more rewarding in kind and duration than others, however diverse those goals may be, and however conditioned by special communal interests and tastes.  Every kind of art, even the most popular, has its relative "classics," and every community also singles out particular kinds of art as the most admirable and enduring.  It is not even elitist to believe that some aesthetic styles are more promising than others for purposes of religious expression and exploration....What is truly elitist (and cynical besides) is to believe that popular arts are not concerned with questions of quality, or that they are strictly for the "masses," or that they must always be mere kitsch.  It is also truly elitist to think that "elite" and formal arts are always cheapened whenever they become popular and accessible.

Do we have any elitists among us?

Comments

[Joel]

That would be me!! - as long as you make a distinction between folk culture and popular culture. I am so cynical as to believe that popular culture is not concerned with questions of quality, they are driven exclusively by questions of quantity (hence mass appeal - LCD).

[Donald C S Johnson]

Hi Jon, I think there are some elitist tendencies in me, but I don't think I am exactly where Joel is.

But very interesting quote and exchange. I am looking forward to my copy of the book arriving, I think it will be quite interesting. I still wonder if Dr. Brown knows Gaebelein's effort, and if he has any comment on it.

I have had occasion to correspond with other authors on the internet and have always found them very gracious and helpful. Usually, these men are teachers first and foremost and this mode just kicks in when you are writing in order to learn. Our technology makes these truly interesting times.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Scott M]

I think I'm a bit of a blue-collar elitist. By that I mean that I tend to defend and ascribe more value to those cultural elements that are significant and useful to common people of common intellect, common heritage and a grassroots mentality. High art in most corners of society seems to have little value, in my opinion, except to make the smart feel smarter and the dumb feel dumber. It is used by the so-called intellectual or cultural elite to make value judgments (usually in the negative) about anyone who does not hold the same appreciation for it. I am a blue-collar elitist in that I view those who listen only to classical music as "stuck up" or narrow-minded, whereas I view someone who enjoys a variety of music (classical, country, rock, bluegrass, jazz, etc) as balanced and "down-to-earth." In that I make value judgments about someone based on their taste or consumption of culture, I tend to be an elitist. Can't we all just get along? I'll try to be more open-minded.

In the spirit of the socratic method (now that I know what that is), let me ask some questions. If God created man in his own image and all mankind then shares in some elements of common grace, could we not say that even in our subjective appreciation of art we are capable of making value judgments of what is good vs. what is bad simply from our God-given sensibilities? So then, apart from a question of sinfulness vs. holiness, are we not already programmed by our very natures to know what art is good and what art is bad? It doesn't make sense to me that I should be required to train myself to enjoy something that does not have an intrinsic appeal to me (unless we are talking about something that is a matter of faith or holiness which can only be fully appreciated by grace).

If God has placed within me an appreciation for surrealist art, but you do not share that same natural appreciation... should I then expect that you train yourself to like it? Or is it possible that the same piece of art can be both valuable and worthless depending on the person who is viewing it? In other words, in the way God has programmed me, surrealist art is interesting and beautiful, but in the way that God has programmed you, it may be absolute garbage. This is where I have a hard time believing that taste should be cultivated toward one type of art or another or that there is a common test of value that we should be applying universally to determine what is acceptable or preferable. If God intended us all to like and dislike the same things, why did he not create us all with the same personalities and tastes?

[Donald C S Johnson]

So, Scott, you are arguing for "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", or subjectivism.

You say "In other words, in the way God has programmed me, surrealist art is interesting and beautiful, but in the way that God has programmed you, it may be absolute garbage. This is where I have a hard time believing that taste should be cultivated toward one type of art or another or that there is a common test of value that we should be applying universally to determine what is acceptable or preferable. If God intended us all to like and dislike the same things, why did he not create us all with the same personalities and tastes?"

I wonder if you would accept the same arguement coming from a homosexual concerning his orientation? I am NOT suggesting that you would!!! I only want to point out that this sounds like basically the same argument to me.

I would argue that there is a standard of beauty in the universe and His name is Jesus Christ. Nothing is more glorious, and all the glories of his creation pale compared to him. When his creatures create an object of beauty, to the extent that it conforms to his perfections, it contains intrinsic beauty. To the extent that it conforms to human depravity, it contains the opposite.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Scott M]

Good questions and comments, Don. Keep in mind that in my last comment I did clarify that I was talking about matters of taste that are not questions of sinfulness vs. holiness (those things that appeal to our sinful flesh vs. those things which God clearly defines as holy). On the subject of homosexuality, I think scripture is clear that the practice of homosexuality is sinful. Therefore, I have to say that although certain men and women may be created with certain genetic or hormonal differences that cause them to struggle more than others in the area of sexuality, they have a biblical responsibility to turn away from that practice that God deems unacceptable.

However, in areas of taste or preference that are not specifically addressed by scripture, beauty and value are essentially in the eye of the beholder as God reveals that beauty and value to us personally. I think this is part of the personal aspect of our relationship with God, and it is tied to our spiritual growth in some ways. God takes our unique personality, cultural frame of reference, strengths, weaknesses, likes and dislikes, and he helps us discern personally what is valuable and without value. If we are informed by scripture and guided by our consciences... then we are able to make biblical, godly decisions. These decisions for me may be quite different than they are for Joel, or Pastor or any other number of Christians. Again, I reiterate that I'm not talking about black and white areas that scripture addresses clearly. In those areas, simple obedience is the key.

Just as an aside, on the topic of homosexuality, I think that we as Christians ought to be particularly sensitive and careful in the way we address people who feel "compelled" to sin in a certain way. Not that we should accept or justify any sin, but that we understand that all men have different areas of sin that easily beset them. For some it is a desire for power, for others it is coveteousness, for others it is pride, gluttony, anger... the list goes on and on. We ought to see these people as God sees them... as people who are in need of help and deliverence from bondage to sin. Too often, I think, we look at people we don't understand and because we are not tempted in the same areas that they are tempted, we treat them cruelly or carelessly. I believe the Bible teaches that all that God does is characterized by love... therefore, all that we do ought to also be characterized by love.

[Jeff]

Just to add some more praise for this medium and the ease of response...I read AndrewSullivan.com regularly and I responded via email to something he had written. He wrote back within a few hours.

It's a small world after all...

[Joel]

You're on to something now Scott (on to something I can more heartily agree with!). There is good and bad taste and there is a range within good and bad. At least I hear you saying that. So there are acceptable variations, but also variations which are not ultimately acceptable (if there is truly bad taste), at least not in terms of taste. Our difference is probably in the amount of things we each put in good or in bad.

Now here is where I speculate, but this is why I end up the way I do. I would say that the more you cultivate your tastes, the more exclusive you become about admitting good things because (not because I am so limited that I'm looking for a definition of cultivation that will really make me look good) you can't really become more exlusive about the criteria for how things are flawed (you can't have more detailed criteria for what makes things ugly and narrow down that category, it seems to me it only goes one way, you can only narrow down the category of beauty). For a flaw is what makes something ugly (just as evil is a deprivation of good). And the more you are cultivated, the less you ignore the flaws you might not have seen before, and they stand out more ugly than before, and your category of truly beautiful things narrows and your toleration for flawed things narrows also.

Watch Hildergard try to destroy that one.

[Scott M]

Joel... it makes me warm and fuzzy inside that we agree on something. :-) Your comments reminded me of something that I heard a few days ago on the radio (I was listening to either James McDonald or Chip Ingram... I can't remember which). He was speaking about light vs. darkness, and he made the point that there is really no such thing as darkness... just absence of light. I think that same logic seems to apply to taste. On one end of the spectrum there are things that are completely without any redeeming value (dark)... and on the other end, there are the things of God that are priceless and perfect (light). In the realm of music, this probably can be illustrated by Marilyn Manson on one end of the scale, and the Psalms on the other. But in between these two extremes, there are varying degrees of good (light). Perhaps, as you seem to suggest, our cultivation of taste brings us closer and closer to the light. Where we may disagree is where certain types of music fall on that scale. In other words, is classical music as a whole closer to the light than say jazz or rock or country? Or is it possible that there is both good and bad music within each genre? If this is the case, then we are left to make value judgments based on the amount of good (light) that a piece of music possesses. This may lead us to accept or embrace one song by a particular composer/artist/band but reject another song by that same composer/artist/band.

Here's where maybe we disagree a little. I think that where we draw the line, or the criteria that we use to make value judgments, is something that is revealed to us as we develop spiritually. It is not necessarily dependent on traditions. And the more mature we become spiritually, we may actually find value in more things rather than fewer things. The Romans 14 example comes to mind. In that case, weaker immature Christians refused to eat the meat that had been sacrificed to idols because they understood that to be sinful. Paul understood that it was not necessarily sinful, but he instructed the stronger believers to also abstain from the practice for the sake of those who were weaker. The implication is that as you grow and mature, your standards and convictions may actually grow from very narrow to more broad. I think taste may also follow this evolution. New believers may do things like throw away their TVs, burn all their secular music, etc (my parents did). But over time, these believers may come to understand that not all things secular are sinful. So their ability to make value judgments becomes more refined, and their liberty and freedom increases.

The danger may be, however, that those who actually have the spiritual understanding to indulge in a broader range of things may encourage weaker believers to indulge in those same practices against their own consciences. If the same action can be both acceptable and sinful (depending on the person's spiritual understanding and conscience), then I must conclude that much of Christian living is subjective... not subjective in the sense that it depends on our wills or desires... but subjective in that it depends on our own personal relationship with God and level of understanding. As we grow, God may actually release us from pangs of conscience and allow us more freedom, just as a parent gives an older child more freedom than he gives a toddler. "Looser" standards may not necessarily be a signal of rebellion... but of spiritual growth.

Maybe I'm way off here. Tell me if you think so.

[Joel]

I would be foolish to try to maintain that our tastes don't expand, I had to learn to appreciate Shostakovich. But I think still they will not tend to expand as they become more refined. Still, even if one just likes Bach, there is a lot of variety there to keep one going for a lifetime.

[abram]

I often wonder what kind of music Mozart and Beethoven would create if they were alive today. Where elitists fail is that they form their opinions by comparing genres of music to one another instead of comparing them to an objective standard. There are objective standards to measure good music, and I think that we should compare each style to that standard. Once it is discovered that one style meets those standards better than another, it is appropriate (not elitist) to say one is better than the other. It seems that some wish to rate styles in order from best to worse, which means that only one can be #1. I think there could be several styles that all meet the objective standard in the best way.

[Donald C S Johnson]

Scott M, Romans 14 is not talking about meat offered to idols, it is talking about vegetarians vs. meat eaters. Check the passage again. It is not in the same category as 1 Cor 8-10.

Joel, I have made a conscious decision to never appreciate Shostakovitch.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Scott M]

Thanks Don. I got the two passages confused in my mind... probably because most sermons on "gray areas" reference both passages. It seems that Romans 14 might actually be talking about a specific type of meat, rather than just meat in general (ie. meat that was considered by some to be "unclean"). Verse 14 says "I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." Then the next verse follows with the practical application of that principle... "But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died."

Either way, (whether this talking about clean meat vs. unclean meat or veggies vs. meat) the principle is essentially the same. Thanks for the correction, though.