Intellectual elitism has become pervasive in modern discourse, fostering division and exclusion under the guise of progress. Rooted in the belief that socially liberal and highly educated individuals hold a monopoly on moral and intellectual superiority, this mindset often marginalizes those who adhere to traditional, religious, or conservative values. This dynamic is particularly evident among Gen Z, who frequently see themselves as champions of enlightened thought while dismissing differing perspectives as regressive or inferior. Such attitudes perpetuate a dangerous cycle of polarization, undermining the inclusivity that progressive ideologies ostensibly aim to promote.
This reflection was prompted by a recent debate on an online platform of progressive liberals regarding the inclusion of Arshad Reels, a prominent Pakistani YouTube content creator, as a speaker at a tech conference. Critics argued that his content—centered on rural, conservative, and religious values—projected an image incompatible with modernity. However, I contended that his immense popularity and connection with Pakistan’s majority audience signify a profound disconnect between elite perspectives and the realities of grassroots communities.
Creators like Arshad Reels, who stands as one of Pakistan’s most subscribed YouTubers, and Nadir Ali, whose channel blends humor with everyday narratives that resonate deeply with the public, represent the lived experiences of a large segment of society. They provide a voice for traditional values, which, while often critiqued by progressive circles, continue to hold cultural and emotional significance. These platforms celebrate community, faith, and resilience without promoting harm or discrimination. Yet, intellectual elitism frequently dismisses such content, viewing it as antithetical to the ideals of modernity and woke culture.
Philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche have long warned of the dangers of moral superiority disguised as intellectual enlightenment. His concept of the “will to power” reflects how the self-perceived elite impose their values on others, perpetuating new forms of hegemony. This mirrors the biases found in conservative dogma, where opposing views are similarly dismissed. Sociologist Edward Said’s notion of “othering” also provides insight here: just as colonial powers defined their identity by portraying others as inferior, intellectual elitism often frames traditionalists and rural communities as backward and unworthy of respect.
A critical distinction must be made between non-harmful traditions and practices perpetuating genuine harm. Issues such as sectarian violence, gender discrimination, sexual assault, and other forms of societal harm demand unequivocal critique and action. Content or practices that normalize these threats deserve robust opposition. However, conflating peaceful traditional values—those that foster family, community, and cultural identity—with harmful ideologies is both unfair and counterproductive. Intellectual elitism often fails to make this distinction, treating all conservatism as monolithic and regressive.
This failure risks fostering societal divisions. Moral foundations theory, developed by psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham, suggests that human morality is rooted in diverse values, including care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. While progressive thinkers often prioritize care and fairness, conservative communities emphasize loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Disregarding these values alienates those who hold them, deepening the “us versus them” divide.
Globally, similar tensions highlight the universal nature of this challenge. In Europe, rural-based creators preserving traditional crafts face criticism from urban modernists. In the U.S., conservative commentators advocating faith or patriotism are sidelined in mainstream intellectual circles. This pattern underscores a broader need for mutual respect and understanding across ideological lines.
George Orwell’s writings on political culture offer a warning against ideological orthodoxy. In his essays, Orwell critiqued the suppression of dissenting voices as a hallmark of totalitarianism, cautioning against any ideology—progressive or conservative—that stifles diversity of thought. Similarly, anthropologist Clifford Geertz’s “thick description” principle advocates understanding cultures on their own terms rather than imposing external judgments. These frameworks remind us of the richness of diverse perspectives and the dangers of reducing them to simplistic binaries.
The path forward lies in fostering dialogue and inclusivity. Philosopher Jürgen Habermas’s theory of communicative action emphasizes consensus-building and genuine dialogue as foundations of a pluralistic society. For intellectual elites, this means engaging with traditionalist perspectives without prejudice or coercion. Critique should be reserved for harmful practices, not peaceful traditions that reflect the values and lived experiences of a significant portion of society.
In Pakistan, urban-rural divides exacerbate these tensions. Channels like Arshad Reels and Village Life in Pakistan offer representation for communities often ignored in mainstream discourse. Dismissing their content risks alienating these groups and fostering resentment, ultimately fueling a backlash against progressive ideals. Bridging these divides requires acknowledging the value these creators bring and a commitment to dialogue that respects cultural diversity.
In conclusion, intellectual elitism poses a significant challenge to social cohesion in Pakistan and globally. By dismissing traditional and conservative values as inferior, the progressive elite risks perpetuating the very biases it seeks to eradicate. The solution lies in moving beyond moral superiority and embracing pluralism, fostering a society where diverse perspectives are not only tolerated but respected. As Orwell and others have argued, the strength of a truly inclusive society lies in its ability to accommodate and celebrate differences—not in imposing uniformity. Only by embracing this ethos can we hope to bridge the divides intellectual elitism threatens to deepen.
- Intellectual Elitism: The Challenge of Bridging Ideological Divides - 24/02/2025
- Who Is The Minority? - 14/06/2022
- The Politics Of Sloganeering And Manipulating Public Sentiment - 04/06/2022
