the article that may get you arrested

[Vortex]

That is the socialization role of elite institutions and if you don't adapt to that, you're usually out.

Why focus on ELITE institutions?

Almost every institution or class has the same social behaviour.

BNP, gas, anglers, motorcyclists, prisoners, soldiers ... you are either "One Of Us" ... or you are not.

[tristan]

Orwell and Chomsky focus on ELITE institutions because many elite institutions claim to represent a larger constituency than that of their members, and because elite institutions shape public understanding.

Newspapers claim they act as guardians of democracy, hounding politicians and corporations for the truth. Many who work in them really believe they are a check on power, whereas in fact they are perpetuators of the status quo because of the ?socialisation? effect - ensuring people who question how things are done will never reach positions of authority.

You recognise that this is a natural process and one that occurs in most organisations, so why is it not recognised more often in elite institutions? Perhaps if it was we would see universities, newspapers and publishers for what they really are.

[Vortex]

I'm not sure if I would go along with your two references:
Orwell came from an earlier generation so I'm not sure if his world is our world.
Chomsky seems to make a living by being "controversial" and "alternative" and "caring".

As for your main thesis:

Corporations - and I assume most other groups - do "selectively select" those who fit their aims best. They also "imprint" the undecided.
(See Anthony Jay's book "Corporation Man" for an overview)

However ... groups may in fact "select" and "imprint" people to become creative & energetic & bold & investigative.

* NASA staff won't all be wimps.

* Microsoft staff are not exactly stupid, shy or retiring.

* High tech startups aren't full of sheep.

* Imperial College won't encourage pedestrian research.

"Socialisation" as you call it - especially in today's egalitarian world - won't always create a population of drones.

If the "status quo" reflects excellence, intellect, drive & boldness why is that improbable or wrong?

Churchill - and Thatcher I suppose - were in positions of authority and they DID successfully question "how things are done".

Even Jamie Oliver managed to rock the boat a little, without being consigned to a gulag!

Just take a look at the Sunday Times "Rich List" to see how self-made people are sweeping aside the independently (inherited) wealthy.

There may have been a landed gentry "status quo" in the past - but I am not sure what the term "status quo" in a social sense might mean today.

[tristan]

I'm not sure if I would go along with your two references:
Orwell came from an earlier generation so I'm not sure if his world is our world.
Chomsky seems to make a living by being "controversial" and "alternative" and "caring".

To discount Orwell because he wrote 50 years ago is a little rash, I'm afraid most of the power structures in place 50 years ago are still around today.

Chomsky makes his living from being one of the greatest living intellectuals, he is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, considered to be one of the most significant contributions to the field of linguistics made in the 20th Century. And whether you agree with his political writing or not, he has an uncanny power to deconstruct events and dissect their meaning.

As for your main thesis:

Corporations - and I assume most other groups - do "selectively select" those who fit their aims best. They also "imprint" the undecided.
(See Anthony Jay's book "Corporation Man" for an overview)

However ... groups may in fact "select" and "imprint" people to become creative & energetic & bold & investigative.

* NASA staff won't all be wimps.

* Microsoft staff are not exactly stupid, shy or retiring.

* High tech startups aren't full of sheep.

* Imperial College won't encourage pedestrian research.

"Socialisation" as you call it - especially in today's egalitarian world - won't always create a population of drones.

You misunderstand the concept of socialisation. Of course companies and organisations select people for their ability to think and act independently, but independent thinking is within the paradigm accepted by those who control the organisation, and no further. Socialisation is the selection of those people who accept the paradigm. And we really don't live in an egalitarian world.

If the "status quo" reflects excellence, intellect, drive & boldness why is that improbable or wrong?

Churchill - and Thatcher I suppose - were in positions of authority and they DID successfully question "how things are done".

An interesting couple of examples! I would question Thatcher's success, in fact her wanton destruction of the public sphere was only masked by the cash injection of North Sea oil. But that's for another day.

Thatcher and Churchill questioned operational strategies - they didn't question the system, in fact they fully believed in it.

Even Jamie Oliver managed to rock the boat a little, without being consigned to a gulag!

Just take a look at the Sunday Times "Rich List" to see how self-made people are sweeping aside the independently (inherited) wealthy.

There may have been a landed gentry "status quo" in the past - but I am not sure what the term "status quo" in a social sense might mean today.

We are a long way off a meritocratic society - if you are born into a poor family you are more likely to stay in that social class than 20 years ago. It is a matter of socio-economic record that money and status perpetuate themselves.

As for a status quo - well, the current status quo is firstly, as you well know, a belief in a never-ending supply of oil, and secondly, a belief in market forces - a system that does not benefit the majority of the world's population and produces first world populations who are more interested in Posh Spice's haircut than the death of 650,000 Iraqis since 2003. (this figure is from the Lancet report on violent deaths in Iraq)

[Vortex]

but independent thinking is within the paradigm accepted by those who control the organisation,

So who are these Illuminati type figures exactly? I have worked at a senior level in a large corporation and I didn't see any "elite controllers".
"They" at the top seemed to me to be like "us" ... but with a bit more energy, IQ and maybe luck which results after N years of career in senior level roles. They don't come from special elite schools hidden in the mountains!

Chomsky makes his living from being one of the greatest living intellectuals, he is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, considered to be one of the most significant contributions to the field of linguistics made in the 20th Century. And whether you agree with his political writing or not, he has an uncanny power to deconstruct events and dissect their meaning.

One minute you are claiming that there is a despicable "elite" ... and the next you seem to be promoting an expert on grammar who has started churning out political "thoughts" to the position of "sage". So is it safe to say that Microsoft employees who admire Bill Gates are part of the "status quo" but followers of Noam Chomsky are independent free thinkers?

and produces first world populations who are more interested in Posh Spice's haircut

Every generation has a large percentage of people who prefer circuses ... or Big Brother ... to philosophy.

Socialisation is the selection of those people who accept the paradigm.

The paradigm can shift ... nothing is carved in stone.

And we really don't live in an egalitarian world ... We are a long way off a meritocratic society - if you are born into a poor family you are more likely to stay in that social class than 20 years ago. It is a matter of socio-economic record that money and status perpetuate themselves.

It's a lot better than it was. Either you or I could become rich based on merit ... although it would take very hard work and dedication ... which most people are averse to. It's much easier to scratch a Rolls Royce with your keys than it is to get off your bum and earn enough money to buy one.


To summarise:
Society NEEDS a bit of "status quo" otherwise we would have anarchy.
Howver this does NOT imply rigid over control by some cabal.

Take the case of the Space Shuttle accident and Richard Feynman. NASA created the Space Shuttle using free thinkers working within a rigid structure. Richard Feynman, a true free thinker, identified the Challenger failure whilst working within "The System".

Or more mundanely, take a look at the judges on the BBC2 series "The Dragons Den". Not many Lords, Ladies, Masons or Jews there.

[MacG]

So who are these Illuminati type figures exactly? I have worked at a senior level in a large corporation and I didn't see any "elite controllers".
"They" at the top seemed to me to be like "us" ... but with a bit more energy, IQ and maybe luck which results after N years of career in senior level roles. They don't come from special elite schools hidden in the mountains!

Agree 100% on this one. Share the experience. The only "elites" out there are the ones in our own heads that we WISH would be there. Give kind of a good feeling to think there is someone at the helm, even it it's an evil genius. Yes, there are some people out there with significant influence over things, but I don't believe for one second that they are "in control" in any way.

As long as we wish for an "elite", we will project this wish on anyone willing to accept the role, but there is no way in hell I will believe that the pyramid is built from the top and downwards. The pyramid is built from the bottom and up.

Yes, people get fooled by cunning con artists from time to time, and sometimes they are fooled big time for a long time, but that just MUST be because they WANT to be fooled. They get a good feeling in reward, and good feelings are strong motivators.