Leigh: >.and that elitism arises from... insecurity?<
I don't know. So many people are insecure that it's hard to use that as an explanation of anything. It seems like a pretty good explanation of my dad's elitism (he emphasized his Yale degree and his high IQ _ad nauseum_).
Miles: > Implicit in this claim: "irrational" is always pejorative. Many human activities do not follow norms of rationality (e.g., Dali's paintings, exorcisms, witchcraft, Beck's lyrics, longing for someone who has bluntly told you "not interested"). Why position rationality as the gold standard for good behavior and thought? Why couldn't identification of someone's irrationality be--a compliment?<
it depends on what one means by (ir)rationality. I don't see creativity or emotion as necessarily irrational. My meaning involves a _balance_ of reason and emotion, mind and body. This means,. among other things, that someone can be _too reasonable_ to be rational. E.g., people without conscience.
In any event, my point was about the elitism of the common view -- in "social science," among people outside of academe, etc.. -- of separating "us" from "them" and seeing the former as "rational" and the latter as "irrational."
FWIW, the official party line among economists (especially of the Chicago School ilk) is that there is no distinction between "us" and "them." Many economists consciously embrace the model of _homo economicus_ to imitate.
Ian: >One simply need acknowledge the ubiquity of arationality in individual-cum-collective norms in social life.<
it depends on what one means by "rationality" and what one's perspective is. Collective life can easily be irrational or arational from the perspective of individual rationality (as in the public goods problem or the prisoners' dilemma economics).
JD