[theapportioner]

Aristocracies exist, and there are many varieties, even in a supposedly democratic society. Look at the myriad instances of elitist cultural niches. Authorities and leaders of religion, law, politics, medicine, business, the humanities, the sciences, technology, music, cinema, ad infinitum. They seem to be tolerated by the people of the United States since they are of a more diffuse, more "invisible" sort of systematic control than the traditional political aristocracy. And usually they are more porous and have more social mobility than the traditional sort. But the hierarchies, and power structures, are real. The leaders in these niches follow an "ethic" (perhaps that is too strong a word) that is certainly not one of herd mentality.

Some "aristocracies" I think are reasonable for a supposedly democratic society to have, and others are not -- for instance racism.

On postmodernism: Derrida I'm not particularly fond of, and I'm not familiar enough with Lyotard's body of work to say anything with authority, but I do admire Foucault. His historigraphies on mental illness and sexuality, among others, reveal the mechanisms of control by which a movement uses knowledge as a will to power to shape our perceptions on these areas, indeed create them. I certainly became aware of all the different power structures in a new light, and Foucauldian analyses certainly have political relevance. Take Edward's Said's seminal Orientalism, which resonates vividly today. He's not beyond criticism, but reading Foucault's work was a bit of a turning point in my way of thinking.