Elitism, “Open” vs. “Closed,” and Allocation of Resources
I am an intellectual elitist. There, I’ve said it. Now that’s out of the way. I am one of those who does not believe that every person can learn a religion as well as anyone else. I do not believe that anyone who desires should become clergy in any religion including mine. I also do not believe that any given person has the capability of engaging in scholarly research, contemplation, or exposition. So it was of great personal interest to observe an Internet conversation revolving around the pros and cons of “open” vs. “closed” religious training, and the perceptions of each group towards the other.
As I sat and watched this conversation, I noted that one of the participants made the assumption that many do regarding the measure of “success” of any given group. To this person, who advocated the “open” group concept where anyone was allowed to join, study and participate, success was measured by the number of people who completed a First Degree curriculum. This person also advocated that large numbers of those First Degree graduates would also go on to become clergy. The number of clergy seemed to be chief amongst this person’s measure of the strength and power of a tradition.
Now here is where some of my intellectual elitism comes in. Why on earth would the title of “clergy” or a certificate of completion of First Degree necessarily be a benchmark of success? One can receive the title of Reverend for free and without study from various organizations. I would imagine that if you asked them to, they would put “First Degree” on your clergy certificate for a nominal fee. The only success I see here is the growth of the business supplying the credentials.
My idea of success is a bit different. I feel success when an internal change occurs in which I say “eureka” or something perhaps not quite as eloquent. The feeling that I now KNOW something that I did not know before, and know it in a way that I am comfortable with and proud of is my success. To me, this is another step towards what I feel is the ultimate success; that of knowing my True Will. Neither calling me Reverend of Graduate of the First Degree in itself will provide any furtherance of that goal.
So what about these open groups? Can’t they provide the appropriate information for a personal enlightenment step stone to True Will? Yes, it is possible that it could, and yes, it is possible that an open group that allows anyone to study would have a rigorous enough academic program to create the appropriate self knowledge. However, it has been my experience that open programs that admit anyone regardless of previous experience, study, writing ability, reading comprehension, etc. produce steps towards enlightenment as a happy accident, rather than by definition.
One thing that I have found rather ironic about “open” groups is that most are not truly “open” at all. Their requirements may not be academic, but most have fees that are charged, which limit the people who wish to pursue the various steps to those who can afford it. So is this “open?” Or is it just closed by other means?
As most may have noticed, there is not an abundance of advanced teachers in any branch of Paganism. These advanced instructors are indeed a limited resource. As with all such limited resources, there must be an appropriate means to properly allocate that resource. As most of these individuals have become advanced teachers due to advanced studies, it makes sense to assume that the instructors should make the decision regarding which students they desire to teach at any given time. This, of course, makes for a “closed” system.
So is it “wrong” for me to decide who I will teach and who I will refer to a more “open” group? Is it wrong for me to insist that they prove to me their fitness for my courses by any means I feel necessary (legal ones of course :-))? Is it wrong for others to insist on payment for their teaching, yet condemn me and others for insisting on academic rather than monetary “tribute?”
Allocation of scarce resources is, by definition, elitist. Dictionary.com lists the definition of “elitist” as “The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.” According to this definition, almost any criteria by which one selects which students should be taught and which should not is “elitist.” The idea of “open” vs. “closed” is largely irrelevant, as criteria must be established by which a teacher/student relationship can be developed. Whether it be by offering free instruction to anyone with an Internet connection (which is a financial barrier), or by physical proximity to the teacher (which is a financial and time based barrier), it is just as elitist as my tradition’s requirement to write a paper following specific directions.
“Open” vs. “closed.” “Bad” vs. “good.” “Intellectual barrier” vs. “financial barrier.” All of these things are grey terms with much overlapping. While it is very easy to throw rocks at the way others do things and bandy about words such as “elitist,” it is a lot more difficult to actually research the most efficient and “fair” allocation of scarce resources, both for your tradition’s teachers as well as outside students, and make your decisions on what fits best for all based on fact rather than rhetoric.