Is Prospect elitist and does it matter?

Recently David Goodhart and I met Gloria Anderson, Editorial Director of New York Times Syndication, a Prospect fan and a very nice person who bought the drinks. Gloria asked how DG got such interesting people to write for us. We told her we were good at leaving highly intelligent people alone to more or less write what was on their mind, provided that they did it well and put up with endless revisions, fact-checking and Talmudic cross examination. We don't pay well because we can't and because talk of money is vulgar. Quite unprompted, she asked if our 'mission statement' appeared anywhere on our website or in the magazine.

Though the corporate world has moved on to different levels of hocus pocus, mission statements are apparently in vogue in publishing (and government), though few have been quite so liberal as to invite the outside world to help formulate them. I'm feeling quite warm about the fact that we might be the first, especially early signs indicate that democracy is working. Despite the fact that the majority of you baulk at the very idea of mission statements, we appear to have started a conversation, and that's great. After a couple of drinks we decided that Prospect is uniquely positioned to 'showcase independent views from right, left and centre, intelligently presented by world class writers.' Trouble is it doesn't define what kind of views these might be - broad or narrow is a topic in itself.

The 'independent' part is very important. Our constitution makes us so, our backers don't interfere and since we don't get much advertising, we don't even need to pretend to be remotely interested in Mammon. I'm offering free therapy to anyone who still believes a word that any politician utters. DG is preternaturally contrarian so it's dangerous to assume that anything anyone writes in Prospect, especially that which purports to be editorial, is endorsed by the editor, staff and certainly not by the Publisher, who has no say whatsoever. Publishing from an independent standpoint is really tricky. Thankfully, your early posts have opened some interesting doors for further debate and I'm hungry for more. For example, I'd like to hear more views on whether Prospect is elite, especially since I hate the idea personally but honestly think it's written into our DNA.

Even if we were to try hard to elide the language and nuances that define elitism, our subject matter is usually challenging, and thus it is almost inevitable that the magazine will be seen as elitist by some. Furthermore, if we aspire to publish the best writers we can find (and I'll say in twisted mitigation that sometimes we dismally fail on that criterion) we are equally open to the criticism of resorting to an elite writer's pool. The alternative would be to predominantly publish braying jackasses or whingeing old warhorses. There's plenty of that around already.

More poignantly, since our 'product' (another horrible word) necessarily defines our audience, it is fair to say that we are read by an elite audience (whether, like me, you decline the term). Our readership survey showed a staggering 46% of you held Masters degrees or above, and, let's face it, if you read Prospect you're intellectually well-endowed or very strange indeed (not mutually exclusive).

So while I wouldn't disagree with several of the posts which take issue with our 'elitist' positioning, I'm interested in hearing your views on whether it matters that we're seen as the egghead's Hello Magazine and whether we should be proud of that. I can't see us dumbing down, to be honest. I don't think we're consciously sybaritic but could we be less earnest?

Feel free to shoot some or all of this down. Along with the elitist schtick, opinions and comments are welcome on the posts that discuss whether or not we should have fiction, whether we are seen as politically biased and what we should or should not do about it and anything else that springs to mind.

Comments

[F0xy]

Thanks for this blog, i really enjoyed reading it and it helped me loads.

[Ali Tunay]

Discussing elitism is actually the very proof of Prospect being elitist. Editors, writers, readers and all the people who contribute to this blog actually part of the journal. By discussing elitism here, we actually enjoy ourselfs, our egos on the fact that we are superior. This superiority does not come from race, nation or age, it comes from high intellectual capability. So yes Prospect is elitist but it is a good quality of Prospect. What is annoying is that sometimes I sense that Prospect is being too ethnocentrist. As a 22 years old Turkish university graduate, I've checked through the old issues of the journal and somehow Prospect gave me that feeling. In short maybe we should argue on "Is Prospect ethnocentrist?" If so, Is it unavoidable?

[Daniel Taghioff]

Is Prospect Sexist?

I invited some colleagues on an Anthropology of Media discussion list to join the prospect discussion, because it was relevant to debates we were having on the list. I got he following response:

>Thanks for suggesting
that Daniel, but as Prospect is almost exclusively written by (and presumably for) men, and persistently promotes sexist viewpoints, I have stopped reading it.
That makes me a non-participant non-observer.<

The same colleague later told me I could put this to you, and probably should do, since she had received emails in support of her posting.

So, is Prospect sexist as she describes it?

[Rusty Seitz]

The first thing one might ask an Editor" interested in hearing your views on whether it matters that we're seen as the egghead's Hello Magazine and whether we should be proud of that" is : " Do you have a problem with Harpers & Queen?"

As the Editor continues :" I can't see us dumbing down, to be honest. I don't think we're consciously sybaritic but could we be less earnest?

Feel free to shoot some or all of this down."

Since Prospect presents little so well written as the better features in 'The Field', perhsps you should try to get out of town more- thinking is more than an indoor sport ,and the erosion of uncool ancient liberties in the countryside is something to which more urban intellectuals ought to pay attention- while they can.

[Nick Gardner]

Prospect is undoubtedly elite in the sense that it is aimed at an educated readership. A more interesting question is whether it is elite in the sense of considering itself qualified to tell the rest of the world what to think. Are its contributors apt to make opinionated assertions that are unbacked by evidence or reasoned argument? I have in mind statements such as "I'm offering free therapy to anyone who still believes a word that any politician utters." (Thankfully that did not come from a contributor.) Although presumably jocular, such a remark promotes the logical error of attributing characteristics that are typical of a group to each of its members - besides, of course being an unbacked assertion. It amounts to a denial of the existence of representative government, and a belief in the futility of taking part in politics, or even voting for its representatives. In the absence of backing, its value rests upon the contention that we must believe the words that the author utters. Can we be sure that Prospect would not publish that sort of statement?

You can, Nick, partly because I'm not a contributor and certainly not an editor, and partly because our editors wouldn't allow the sort of knockabout semantics that typify my writing to pass unquestioned. I can't say that Prospect wouldn't publish an opinion piece arguing, for example that politicians tell lies, but it's a big step to assert that they routinely do so, one which our factcheckers would NEVER accept. Thanks for pointing this out. JK

[Johnny Ryan]

Prospect not only suspects that it caters to the elite, but makes what cash it can from the fact.

Prospective advertisers in Prospect are told that readers are "successful and influential ... 39% hold the position of company chair, managing director, director, senior manager or department head. ... [and are] largely businessmen and women, professionals, academics or working in government, [who are] affluent ... average household income is £62,600 per year". This data differs little from the 2005 survey.

Surely, the conclusion to be taken from this data is that Prospect is a means for writers to project their views into the broad rooms, offices and minds of those influential enough to act on them.

The benefit to the rest of us - who earn less than 62k per annum - is that we too can enjoy the intellectual traffic between opinion projectors and receiving elite.

[Daniel Taghioff]

Elitism is a difficult issue where it impacts on the broadness of the debate. The problem with Elites is not that they think, but that they operate within cosy sets of unquestioned assumptions that allow them to appear to think without really doing much to shift the terms of debate.

I enjoy Prospect, I use it as an interesting centrist foil personally. It also gives me an insight into the current pre-occupations of the English "Elite." In that sense it is also a nice piece of Anthropology.

The problem is that "Elite" debates in the world have tended to become dominated by the governance tropes of the Anglo-sphere. The "elite" educational establishments around the world subscribe to such a "liberal intelligensia" type of view, which is reflected in international law in terms of the primacy of the individual, and the primacy of formal individual political rights over substantive rights, and collective rights.

What Prospect does not seem to do is venture far beyond the debates of the Liberal Elite Anglosphere (although the Hutton-Desai debate was a very tame move in that direction.)

Would prospect consider monitoring the non-English Language media, and do more to draw in intellectuals from all over the world, in order to go for a more truly global debate?

The ethics of liberal-democratic universalism you are claiming in your vision do rather imply you having a go, even if in practice this is no mean feat.

Also you might upset your audience by operating outside thier terms of reference.

See: http://www.soas.ac.uk/soaslit/Issue4a/taghiofffinal.pdf

for further reading on the limits of the Anglosphere.

[Ian Walsh]

I am a management consultant but am joining in this discussion nevertheless.

Having lived abroad for many years I tend to forget the UK occupation with social class. John Kelly seems to confuse intellectual elitism with social snobbery (and in his protestations that he is really "working class Irish" recalls Douglas Hurd's own embarrassing claim to working-class credentials in the Tory post-Thatcher leadership debate).

Intellectual elitism is a different thing. George Woodcock, the General Secretary of the TUC in the 1960s referred to himself as an intellectual. He did not mean that he was upper middle class but that he was interested in ideas and debate. Intellectual elitism is the high end segment (to use the consulting term) of this debate and Prospect can fill a gap in the market by meeting this need. In the UK, the Spectator and the New Statesman are devalued by their political stances, the Economist passes the test but is a newspaper rather than a magazine. In addition, a truly elitist publication would not exclude people because of their profession: not all intellectuals are university lecturers, civil servants and writers.

[Ben Gibbs]

Yes, Prospect is elite, but not elitist. And I am not sure that it's something you (or we) should worry about. In fact, it's a key component of what you are and what you do.

No matter what anyone might say, there does need to be a stream (or class) of people who have the breadth of education (and a trained ability to absorb from experience) to lead. Not necessarily monied, not necessarily locked away in towers of babel or ivory, and not necessarily yet in positions of great power. They are the elite. And Prospect, I think, serves them well.

Critically, it needs to continue to do so, especially when so much of the print and broadcast media output is dumbed down to the lowest levels, and when the very concept of an educated leading elite is under threat.

In recognising that Prospect serves this elite audience, many of whom have (or will have) significant political, corporate, moral and ethical responsibility, then it it is important that the magazine's editorial staff provides the readership with the sort of breadth and tone that will enable them to lead well. This, by necessity, must include the sort of articles on culture, leisure and literature as currently exist, otherwise it is all too easy for us to become blinkered.

We do need another Dan Kuper though. Maybe more than one. The view from the shopfloor is another key component of what the elite need to know.

So, what more do you need? Perhaps more on quirky leadership. Perhaps more insight from within the worlds of business, national government, media and education, to balance out what you have from the worlds of publishing and literature. Perhaps a monthly profile ... not a celebrity, of course, but perhaps an academic, or a socially important figure.

Stay a "celebrity free zone" at all costs, and maintain a healthy level of cynicism and self-deprecation.

Ben

[Balaji Ravichandran]

Actually, I'd rather define elitism without its association with money. In my mind, elitism is, for obscure reasons, also a signature of eclecticism, which is becoming something of a rarity these days; and when present, marketable to the inchoate minds who'd like to imagine (or pretend) that they are intellectuals (I'm being harsh, I know).

So, don't cut off fiction, or the literary "stuff." An intellectual magazine needs to chase diversity, without compromising on its quality. It is essential for one to remember that Prospect has an audience of its own, and it is not the purely literary minded (who'd be better off reading Granta or LRB) or the politically minded who will turn to your magazine. People who prefer general, eclectic, yet intelligently presented information might well be inclined to read Prospect. That, if anything, is what you should aim for.

[Chris Royal-Dawson]

I wonder why "Elite" is defined by the height of one's education. The word suggests old money to me. I like the reminder that it derives from the Latin for elect, but in its modern sense don't we generally "elect" ourselves? Actually, the notion of elitism - which suggests some sort of dreadful exclusion - seems to be a red herring here. Unless, perhaps Prospect readers have "elected" themselves because they have recognised the quality of articles, cartoons, puzzles and debates that flop on to their doormats monthly. This points to one of its differences from "Hello", which I read in the dentist's waiting-room from curiosity. For all its sociological fascination, it contains no ideas.

Every month, it seems, one of the BBC's 'Today' team introduces a "package" (what an awful piece of jargon that is) about something I've just read in the latest Prospect. Not bad, eh? Indeed, if, instead of indulging his vanity, our Prime Minister had digested some of the ideas in Prospect's "packages" in the early days of this century, Great Britain might not have lost so much respect overseas.

The literary bits of Prospect do not interest me. Otherwise may it continue to be as intellectually challenging and as morally vigorous as it has been up to this point.

[Balaji Ravichandran]

What I don't understand is why elitism is a bad thing, and is viewed as something that ought to be avoided. I just found this from Wikipedia:

"Elite (also spelt Élite) is taken from the latin, eligere, "to elect"."

If elitism is defined as having superior intellectual and cultural tastes (as OED does), then so be it. And if Prospect is aimed at precisely such an intelligent audience, it shouldn't be ashamed of it. Do you see The Economist repenting? Or, at the other end of the spectrum, Hello or Ok? Does the Daily Mail ever bother about being accused of "scare-mongering"?

What I do find offensive however is the stereotyped notion of elitism that is described in your post. For your information, I'm a 21 year old very poor (not middle-class) medical student from India (and that makes me Asian and not white), who has just been accepted into an elite university (Cambridge) to do Natural Sciences, although I do not have 10% of the funds to cover my course expenses.

I read the Prospect every month, the Economist , Nature, TLS every week, LRB and NYRB every fortnight (and contribute to them), and IHT and FT everyday. By definition, I'm an "intellectual snob." The question is, do you think I am elite, despite not fitting the description above, and am I the kind of audience you're targeting?

[Alex Trew]

What, then, is Prospect's IQ? I know you're dying to tell us...

Why worry about being elite? The aims of Prospect are laudable. Let it be. But, please, readers can be put off by editorials and advertising leaflets that bang on about how intelligent the conversation is. It speaks of either insecurity or a marketing campaign aimed at those who like to leave Prospect on their coffee tables for display purposes. And it can do better than that.

[Mark Chapman]

Whether you seek elitism or not, it is an accusation that will always be levelled.
The nature of the magazine is such that only a small group (albeit extremley diverse) will have an interest in, enjoy, understand and be able to assimilate the content.

From a commercial perspective (he says sullying the note with commerce) this is a major issue, whether you call it elitist, niche or specialised, the magazine will only appeal to a restricted audience and thus limited the growth.

For my part Prospect has never failed to engage me in any month and for this alone I would not want to change it whatever tag is given to or perceived by you.

Did I mention the fiction? get rid of it, that is my only grumble!

Mark

[Angel Bacon]

It is perplexing that anybody other than world class traitor Tony Benn is still banging on about class - least of all their own. Thank heavens Prospect is usually too elitist to bother with any such nonsense .
Meantime , a contribution to further debate might be the eleanor roosevelt gem :
.. " nobody can ever make you feel inferior without your consent "