The Urbanophile » Blog Archive » The Privileged Perspective

Subscribe/Feeds

Search

Best Of

Posts By Topic

Posts By City

Sunday, June 21st, 2009

The Privileged Perspective

Before our modern era, there were privileged classes in society – royalty, nobility, clerics – who had rights and powers others did not have, and there was no way for the common classes to dispute them. Today we live in a democratic age, but one interesting effect of this has been the proliferation of groups that claim aristocratic privileges over society.

Religion has lost none of its claim to moral authority, and in many cases power over laws as well. And revealed truth is of course not disputable. But in this religion has plenty of good company today. An ever increasing array of groups – artists, journalists, scientists, politicians – now claim a privileged perspective in our society. By that, I mean that they reserve to themselves the right to make authoritative claims that are immune from challenge by anyone outside of the group.

Consider the artist. Artists certainly feel that they are entitled to comment on society through their work, often wading into national political debates. Yet society is not allowed to comment on the artist. When artists find their works, even gratuitously offensive ones, heavily criticized by the public, cries of “censorship” and “suppression” are sure to be found. Artists can judge, but they can’t be judged, at least in their view.

It’s similar for science. “Science says” has become the all purpose attempt to end debate. Notwithstanding that much of what science has taught us has turned out to be wrong, that we are constantly learning more by the day, and that there is often a great deal of uncertainty and a great many unknowns, the pronouncements of science are treated as holy text. Mere commoners do not get a voice or a vote. Scientists appear to think so highly of themselves that they don’t mind lending the patina of their authority to clearly non-scientific matters. Science tells us nothing about what we should do. Yet how often do we read some letter signed by 100 economists or 100 climate scientists or whatever telling us what policies we should adopt. Often followed by some other letter from a competing group of scientists with a different view. By lending the name of science to political debates, science courts disaster. And of course, scientists too get indignant if anyone tries to “suppress” their research. And naturally failing to award them a federal grant counts as suppression in their view.

Journalists think that they play such an important role in society that they too have special privileges. Unlike the rest of us, they feel they shouldn’t have to offer testimony about what they know in criminal court. They think it’s a-ok to induce government employees to illegally release classified material, then publish it in their paper. When forced to reveal something in court, they are incensed. Any journalist sent to jail for contempt of court for failing to follow the judge’s instructions is treated as a hero and martyr.

And of course political leaders have long viewed themselves as the modern day heirs to aristocratic privilege, now “executive privilege”. We just got an eight year lesson in how that turned out.

If you look across these, you see a few common themes:

A small, self-selected group
A group that views itself as an elite or otherwise has an exaggerated sense of self-importance about its role in society
The self-proclaimed exclusive right to authoritative pronouncements in their own chosen arena
Immunity from critique or judgement by the public at large
Treatment of any violation of that immunity as a moral transgression, prompting reactions of extreme indignation.
Often special political or other rights (e.g., entitlement to funding)
Use of their special authority in their field to bolster statements made in areas outside that field.

Turns out these new priesthoods don’t behave that much differently than the old. Meet the new boss, etc.

One of the beauties of the modern networked world is rise of the citizen-practitioner in many fields. Traditional journalism largely missed the boat in the Iran coverage, but an army of Twitters was there to fill the gap. People are becoming more savvy and more skeptical generally, and I think that’s a good thing. We need to question people and groups who set themselves up as clerical authorities, whatever modern day garb they might wear. And despite the howls of outrage that results, these groups should not be regarded as above the judgment of the public at large. Should the public be allowed to truly suppress art or journalism it doesn’t like? No, I wouldn’t go that far. But they certainly have the right to repudiate it and make their own view known just as forcefully.

I’m not sure what this has to do with cities exactly. But I was prompted to write it by the debates in London over the sacking of architect Richard Rogers from a big development after Prince Charles said he didn’t think the architecture was appropriate. It is interesting and amusing to observe a representative of the old elite and the new in conflict. Rogers reaction was totally predictable: an indignant claim that Prince Charles had no right to interfere with him or opine upon the project. He even went so far as to suggest it was unconstitutional. This isn’t a perfect example of the genre I talked about above, but does go to show that elites certainly don’t take criticism very well. I don’t expect that pressure from the public at large would have been any more welcome that than from Prince Charles, especially if it proved effective. It’s just easier to attack royalty.

Some articles on the Richard Rogers/Prince Charles affair:

Lord Rogers is mad as a hornet (Daily Mail)
Prince Charles may have lost Richard Rogers a job, but that’s no reason to abolish the monarchy (The Guardian)
On Our Knees: Prince Charles vs. Lord Rogers (New Geography)
Prince Charles’ meddling in planning ‘unconstitutional’ says Rogers (The Guardian)

From the New Geography piece:

“At the heart of Richard Rogers case against the monarchy is not an argument for the people against entrenched authority. Rather, it is an argument for a new elite to take over – ‘experts’ (so-called), technocrats, people like Rogers himself, who know better than the rest of us how we should live.”

Share on Facebook Email This Tweet This del.icio.us

14 Comments

14 Responses to “The Privileged Perspective”

Jarrett at HumanTransit.org says:

June 21, 2009 at 8:10 pm

Interesting! A few paragraphs in, I figured this would be about Iran …
Adam Kuebler says:

June 21, 2009 at 9:17 pm

Very interesting indeed. So many people believe that they are absolutly right because they are a part of a select group. Capernicus was outcast because he said the world was round, look how that turned out.
Jason B. says:

June 21, 2009 at 10:37 pm

Yeah, what we need is for scientists who have committed their lives to the study of a field to be quiet! Letters, as we all know, are a means of shutting down debate.
thundermutt says:

June 22, 2009 at 8:41 am

Jason, it is often true that "experts" learn more and more about less and less, until they know absolutely everything about nothing at all.

The germ of truth in this piece is the notion of "citizen-practitioner". Until the very modern era, people could be (and often were) accomplished in many and diverse fields. Take a trip through Monticello or Franklin Court sometime.

Today depth of knowledge has replaced breadth of knowledge, and I don't think it's for the better.

For example, the nominal subject matter of this blog is "urban affairs". Aaron cites in his sidebar that this encompasses "the intersection of urban policy, architecture and design, strategy, transportation, economic development, talent acquisition, branding, arts and culture, and demographics."

No one person is an in-depth expert in all those areas…it is people who have a good solid understanding of all of them that make the greatest contributions. Most significant (and seemingly intractable issues) are multi-disciplinary in nature.

Think of Jane Jacobs, who was not an expert in any of those areas, but who is considered one of the great urbanist scholars of the 20th century.
taylorshelton says:

June 22, 2009 at 1:48 pm

I think you bring up a very salient point, but would suggest that you left out the most obvious of the self-anointed aristocrats: the creative class. Not meant to be a personal criticism of your work, but an observation that there may be no more uncritically accepted theory in local governments around the country these days, especially considering it is one that deserves significantly more.
Carla says:

June 22, 2009 at 5:16 pm

I enjoy this blog because of Aaron's expertise in subjects of which I have little knowledge. I've not studied nor really even maintained a steady interest in urban planning, and yet I'm afforded these excellent and well-considered posts. I'm allowed access to these ideas at a level I haven't really earned via my own efforts. It would extremely arrogant for me to dismiss Aaron's expertise.

I am completely confounded by these occasional anti-authority posts.
Jim Russell says:

June 22, 2009 at 6:41 pm

I'd add another category of privileged perspective:

The Populist

She or he who claims to speak for "the people" but dismisses critiques from various factions of "authority" as illegitimate.
The Urbanophile says:

June 22, 2009 at 9:14 pm

Thanks for the comments, everybody.

Carla, I appreciate you bearing with me on these diversions. I guess I am a power to the people kind of guy. Though I've often talked about the importance of good leadership and a strong top-down approach to city management. I don't think I'm anti-establishment, though do think we need to approach orthodoxy with a healthy dose of skepticism.

I'm glad you like my blog, but I make no claim to be an expert. I certainly hope you apply your own independent judgment to the things I say.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Anonymous says:

June 23, 2009 at 3:58 pm

Aaron have you read _Cities of the Heartland_ by Jon Teaford?

I recommend it highly. His last chapter "Making of the Rust Belt" is a fine lead in to what you are exploring on this blog. The rest of the book is interesting for Midwestern history too.

I only mention it here because the guy who wrote it was is professional historian.
The Urbanophile says:

June 23, 2009 at 11:27 pm

anon 3:58 – thanks for the recommendation. I've seen the book before, but have never read it. Will put it on the list.
Graeme says:

June 25, 2009 at 10:43 am

I think your article confuses science and scientists. There is a difference.
Alon Levy says:

June 26, 2009 at 3:05 am

Graeme, you're right about the distinction, but science pundits make the same mistake. They think that because they're scientists, their views of how the world works are necessarily scientific.
Jeffrey Cufaude says:

June 27, 2009 at 7:29 am

I hope you're right that "People are becoming more savvy and more skeptical generally." Some certainly are, but a good number seem to be less skeptical when a rumor or incomplete story gets whiplashed through Twitter feeds and the blogosphere, ultimately being read aloud now by a CNN anchor as if it was verified as real news. I love social media, but folks do need to remember the old mantra about trust and verify. I think we are still figuring out which citizen-practitioner's work and voice merit our trust, but even so, it's good to not forget the verify part.
bluegill says:

June 30, 2009 at 11:56 pm

Late to the game, but I do have to say that your cultural critiques rarely live up to the quality of your more quantitative analyses, which I greatly appreciate.

Just food for thought during survey and strategic planning time.

About the Urbanophile

Aaron M. Renn is an opinion-leading urban analyst, consultant, speaker, and writer on a mission to help America’s cities thrive and find sustainable success in the 21st century.

Full Bio