For more than a century, "Who’s Who" has been the bible of the British establishment:
the most trusted annual catalogue of who is, and who is not,
in the country’s true upper echelons.
When a paper shortage occurred during World War Two,
Winston Churchill personally intervened
to make sure its publication wouldn’t be affected,
stating that its full circulation was of “national importance”.
"Who’s Who" doesn’t limit its definition of ‘eliteness’ to the landed or wealthy.
In fact, 50% of the entrants are included when they land a prominent job:
members of parliament, peers, judges, ambassadors, FTSE100 CEOs,
Poet Laureates, and Fellows of The British Academy
automatically make the cut.
The other half are selected by a board of long-standing advisors,
a process which has always been shrouded in mystery.
"Who’s Who" has always been publicly available,
and since each entrant provides the details for their own profile,
elites have the power to sculpt their public image.
Significantly, elites choose to express their cultural preferences:
their recreations and hobbies.
At the end of the 19th century,
elite culture had a distinctly aristocratic character.
Landed estates afforded endless leisure possibilities,
and early entries of "Who’s Who" were filled with preferences for
hunting, shooting, fishing, sailing, horse riding, polo, and dressage.
Very important was the ‘Season’: a set of annual events in the social calendar,
which included the Royal Tournament, Epsom Derby, Ascot,
cricket at Eton, polo at Hurlingham and the Oxford Cambridge Boat Race.
On one hand, elites achieved their distinction through exclusivity –
after all, participating in activities like hunting and polo was expensive –
and on the other hand, through deference,
since the prevailing ideas about class
meant that the upper tiers were automatically deemed worthy of respect.
Yet, at the turn of the 20th century,
industrialists with newly acquired wealth began to buy their way into high society.
To the horror of the existing aristocrats, elite life began to change,
and the social and cultural centre of Britain started to move
from the counties to the cities.
Gradually, a new generation of elites arose.
This cohort opposed what they saw as the philistinism of elite culture,
and instead championed some emerging ‘high’ cultural forms,
such as theatre, ballet, classical music and abstract art.
Strongly influenced by the writers, intellectuals, and artists of the "Bloomsbury Group",
this generation believed that elite culture should play a ‘civilising’ role in society.
Rather than relying on exclusivity and deference,
highbrow elites focused on creating a superior value of their own tastes
and they realised this vision through their influence on new cultural institutions,
like the BBC and the Arts Council.
And so, by the 1920s, 30s and 40s,
highbrow culture had come to dominate the cultural preferences
of the vast majority of "Who’s Who" entrants.
During the 1950s, shifts within the art world
challenged the supremacy of the highbrow aesthetic,
and allowed some popular forms to be legitimised.
Elites began to combine highbrow tastes with preferences
for pop culture, football, cinema and rock music.
The British elite became cultural omnivores.
In recent years, most elites have retained some preferences
for traditionally highbrow hobbies,
but these are increasingly positioned alongside
more mundane and everyday cultural activities.
Some of the fastest growing elite pastimes over the last 30 years
are spending time with family and friends, or caring for pets.
Elites now distinguish themselves with a degree of ‘ordinariness’.
The rise of this ‘ordinariness’ has been most clear cut from the 1990s onwards,
coinciding neatly with the continuing rise of wealth acquisition amongst the top 1%.
As elites pull away economically,
there’s evidence that they’re increasingly insecure about their moral legitimacy,
and more sensitive to public concern that they’re self-interested and out of touch.
Research suggests that many people distinguish strongly
between elites they see as decent and open,
and those they see as snobbish and condescending.
So, it’s not that elites are viewed with suspicion because they are elite –
it’s any sense of smugness that rouses negative feelings.
With this in mind,
we can read the very public expression of ordinary cultural preferences
in "Who’s Who" as an attempt to create a cultural connection
and sense of authenticity with the public,
whilst still allowing elites to hold on to their highbrow tastes
that work to legitimise their status.
Performing 'ordinariness' might be a very effective way
for elites to shield their privilege
in an era of rising inequality.