The 20th century entered history as a period in which massification became a defining force across the world. From education to health, from transportation to infrastructure, from culture to the arts, the capacity of public services was systematically expanded during this century; services that had previously been accessible only to limited segments of society became available to large social groups. This process was not merely a quantitative increase in capacity but also a profound restructuring that transformed the center-periphery relations within social structure. Broad populations that had long remained on the periphery gained increasing mobility toward the center, social mobility surged, and the middle classes strengthened.

In many developed countries – especially those of Western Europe and the U.S. – this transformation took place during the first half of the 20th century. Extending the duration of compulsory education, expanding access to higher education, establishing national health systems, and developing mass transportation networks were among the key components of this period. The welfare state approach redefined access to public services not as a privilege but as a citizenship right; thus, massification became a primary driver of social justice and economic growth. This process also made it possible for strong and stable middle classes to emerge.

Türkiye example

In Türkiye, a similar process of massification occurred much later in historical terms, yet it has unfolded remarkably rapidly over the past two decades. Rising school enrollment rates, the nationwide expansion of higher education, broader access to health services, and large-scale infrastructure investments have brought into the center many segments of society that had long remained outside the system. In this respect, Türkiye’s experience can be seen as a delayed yet highly compressed version of a transformation that took place over a much longer period in developed countries.

On the other hand, the process of massification has also brought debates about elitism to the forefront. The reason is that, throughout the processes of modernization and state-building, many areas of public service were effectively controlled and accessed by only a narrow segment of society. From education to bureaucracy, from culture to academia, these spheres gradually formed closed elite structures that reproduced themselves over time. When massification challenged these structures, a tendency emerged toward rejecting elitism altogether. Yet, historical experience shows that what is critical is not the complete elimination of elitism, but its redefinition. In the second half of the 20th century, while higher education was becoming massified in many Western countries, selective and research-focused universities were preserved, and high standards in science, art, and intellectual life were deliberately maintained. Similarly, while public bureaucracies expanded their employment base, strict meritocratic mechanisms were upheld for positions requiring advanced expertise and leadership.

In recent years, the global trend has brought discussions about the disruption of this balance back to the forefront. Criticisms have been increasing that excessive massification lowers quality, weakens selectivity, and allows the average level to become the dominant standard. Conversely, it is also evident that elitist models appealing only to narrow groups have lost their social legitimacy. Therefore, attention must be directed toward the possibilities of moving toward a hybrid model in which broad access and massification can coexist with high standards.

When massification is constructed as a movement against elitism, the resulting social transformation may produce inclusivity in the initial stage, but in the medium and long term, it carries the risk of losing direction, level and depth. Such a trajectory, while strengthening equality at the outset, may push the system toward a short-circuit path that weakens its capacity to generate quality. This tendency may even appear attractive at first, because the initial outcomes are generally quite positive. Removing barriers to access, dismantling privileged structures and breaking apart closed elite networks generate a strong sense of justice for broad segments of society. A flow toward the center emerges, long-suppressed demands become visible, and the system is enriched by actors who had long remained outside it. This stage also represents a genuine gain in terms of legitimacy.

However, when massification is designed not to broaden the pool of elites but to eliminate it entirely, a second phase begins. In this phase, the very ideas of selectivity, depth and standards become problematic. The principle of "access for everyone” can turn into pressure, not generate distinction. The mechanisms that identify the best, the most qualified, and the most competent either weaken or lose their legitimacy. While society expands horizontally, the channels that elevate quality vertically become blurred. At this point, the transformation may shift from a just equality toward a comfortable average. Mediocrity becomes the norm because it is not perceived as a threat by the majority. The boundaries between excellence and ordinariness become indistinct; paths that require difficulty are replaced by routes of least resistance. The system focuses not on cultivating the best but on managing the largest numbers. In the long run, this erodes competitiveness, the capacity for innovation, and intellectual depth.

As prominent Turkish philosopher Alev Alatlı pointed out long ago, a model of massification that positions itself against elitism ultimately leads to widespread mediocrity and even creates an environment in which those with superior or exceptional talents are belittled and disparaged: "What they call the 'populist dogma' becomes the product of the 'anti-elitist' wave that has been observed to dominate the world in the 21st century. Let us state clearly that by 'elite' here we do not mean the wealthy classes who hold the means of production or the set of privileges implied by the label 'White Turks' in our country; rather, we mean individuals who carry out meticulous work in a specific field, who demonstrate long-term merit in demanding areas, who are devoted to specialized domains such as medicine or law, and who stand out through their deep training, discipline, achievements, or virtues. While 'anti-elitism' targets this group, it diminishes the gains reached through effort, dedication and continuity, and moves toward trivializing the competent minds who are expected to serve as role models for younger generations. The spread of attitudes such as 'Who is Picasso? I can scribble just as well,' or 'Who is Itrî? He puts me to sleep,' or 'Who is Halil Inalcık? What difference does it make if I know Ottoman history?' leads to a resistance that suppresses academics, educators and cultural activities in almost every field – from pharmacology to physics, from philosophy to mathematics. 'Anti-elitism' is not unique to our country; it is an international epidemic. It is called 'the philistinism of the 21st century,' an environment in which superior intellects and extraordinary qualities are scorned, and which glorifies mediocrity across all developed nations."

Yet, there is another possibility for transformation. A model of massification that redefines elitism can generate a transformation that both broadens and elevates society. What is decisive is not the existence or absence of elitism, but the principles upon which it rests. While privilege-based elites are dissolved, a new elite grounded in merit can be built. Alatlı also defines this new form of elitism: "individuals who carry out meticulous work in a particular field, who demonstrate long-term merit in demanding areas, who are devoted to specialized domains such as medicine or law, and who stand out through their deep training, discipline, achievements, or virtues." When elitism is conceptualized in this way within a new transformation, massification is not positioned as the enemy of elitism; on the contrary, massification becomes a mechanism that expands the human-capital pool from which qualified and guiding cadres can emerge. Without massification, elitism narrows and becomes disconnected; without elitism, massification loses direction and heightens the risk of mediocrity. For this reason, elitism should not be conceived as a domain closed to the masses, but as an attainable aspiration for them. In this way, social transformation can expand equitably while also producing quality.

In sum, a successful social structure is one that can think of massification together with merit-based elitism. Just as the dissolution of old, closed, privilege-based forms of elitism is crucial, so too is the construction of new elite structures that generate quality, depth, and responsibility. Massification strengthens the base, while elitism provides direction and depth. The simultaneous and balanced pursuit of these two processes is the essential precondition for producing both social justice and quality.