Fortunate son
Mar. 10th, 2006 12:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jawnbcI tend to have a visceral reaction to folks who uncritically embrace liberalism (in the political philosophical sense, not the bogus Fox Snooze sense)--especially university/college educated folk. Which is largely unfair, since I didn't understand the concept until I was in my 30s, despite having a liberal arts degree from a decent public university aux Étas-unis. To a large degree I think fewer and fewer people are invited to understand (and perhaps) interrogate) some of the key concepts that hold sway in our busy busy lives. I mean, I did 2 loads of laundry, cooked some stew, and showed up for work this week...isn't that enough?
I recently entered a contest here in BC that required me to share my shame and humiliation: tell a good "I got fired" story and possibly win a weekend for 2 to Sooke. In reality there was no shame in my story; I worked in a travel agency that priced tickets based on a person's social status and I wouldn't play along. It meant the end of a 10 year career, but opened so many other doors to me--doors that fear precluded my opening without a kick in the keester. Some 3 years later I would start graduate skool, where the firing--in fact my always uncomfortable private sector experience, despite doing very well there--finally made sense. "Oh, I'm not a capitalist and I don't believe in meritocracy." Ten dollar words for 100 dollar concepts.
In brief, liberalism believes that competition is integral to the human experience, and in fact is the primary mechanism for fairness. Liberalism believes that, assuming a level playing field exists, those who work harder/better/smarter will get more--and that those who get less must be working less/poorly/stoopidly. This notion of merit (hence meritocracy, a system of governance based on earning entitlements and rights) underpins all things liberal. So too does the idea of personal agency--the ability to actively make choices that inform (if not determine) the quality of one's life.
And while there is a great range of difference between different liberal orientations--to what extent must government intervene/regulate things like commerce and justice to level the playing field--no major political party in the Western world rejects liberalism. Many social democratic parties use a quasi-Marxist discourse, but none proposes to do away with market enterprises, individual property ownership rights and the like.
The challenge methinks is how many people do not understand how powerful liberalism is in society--especially those who have done very well under it. If you grew up relatively affluent, with access to a quality K-12 education, possibly even male--well, you might take for granted much of what you have. I would also argue that if your natural aptitudes and interests lean towards the mathematical or scientific, you're also advantaged. Not overtly per sé, but at least in terms of your sense of entitlement. And of possibility.
My own upbringing is a story of paradox. My parents grew up poor and built financially lucrative working class careers as a cop and a nurse. They moved us to a suburb of New York City with exceptional public schools, though I benefitted from a "gifted and talented" stream that gave me access to the liberal tradition to a degree my siblings never did. Our community was split between working families and upper-middle class professional ones, mostly Catholic, signficantly Jewish, almost entirely not Anything Else™. Only the really "skanky" kids from St Agatha's group home kicked up a genuine fuss in my high school; the rest of us were mouthy and were known to come to skool drunk or high on occasion.
I remember accepting the idea that I should go to an Ivy League (or similar calibre) university. However, with no one in my family to offer guidance, I was unable to decipher the processes required to make that a realistic goal for me. Most of my G & T peers had parents that had attended such schools; in fact, one girl's parents worked at my first choice. I chose to partake of the G & T stream, I chose to apply to mostly elite universities, then I chose to downgrade my trajectory and expectations. I was foundering, as much personally as anything else. But the sense of being a fish out of water was profound. And painful. Being increasingly undeniably queer at that time was almost entirely unhelpful.
Despite some disadvantages however, I was still handed a pretty well-stacked deck. I had the brains, the education, and people encouraging me to try. I even had the math thang, though I couldn't imagine any sort of work that would use it that I wouldn't hate (hated science, the study of it anyway). Of course no one floated the idea of being a quantitative sociologist. We were encourage to exercise agency, but the range of choices were limited. Or, we were given a range of choices, but behind each choice were processes by which we had to prove ourselves worthy. Even if we got the gateway question correct, the follow-ups could often do us in.
As a social researcher these questions/concepts are now, quite literally, part of my job. Paradoxically, in meritocratic terms I could the Poster Boy™. I came from quasi-humble roots, overcame some signficant obstacles, and have done well. I'm Dr.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jawnbc, respected in my field (as much as a junior academic can be), and doing good work. What better proof of how liberalism works best? But how about the other John I grew up with? Who was much smarter than me, an incredible artist, and a really good person? But whose family life offered little more than defeatism: he dropped out of high school. Some would argue John--and all the other guys with whom I grew up--exercised as much agency as I did, and received in-kind what they were entitled to.
Me? I don't buy it. When almost everyone picks the same trajectory, there's all sorts of things in play that are much more powerful than personal agency. Imagine if The Other John could have discovered a working HIV vaccine? We'll never know...
I recently entered a contest here in BC that required me to share my shame and humiliation: tell a good "I got fired" story and possibly win a weekend for 2 to Sooke. In reality there was no shame in my story; I worked in a travel agency that priced tickets based on a person's social status and I wouldn't play along. It meant the end of a 10 year career, but opened so many other doors to me--doors that fear precluded my opening without a kick in the keester. Some 3 years later I would start graduate skool, where the firing--in fact my always uncomfortable private sector experience, despite doing very well there--finally made sense. "Oh, I'm not a capitalist and I don't believe in meritocracy." Ten dollar words for 100 dollar concepts.
In brief, liberalism believes that competition is integral to the human experience, and in fact is the primary mechanism for fairness. Liberalism believes that, assuming a level playing field exists, those who work harder/better/smarter will get more--and that those who get less must be working less/poorly/stoopidly. This notion of merit (hence meritocracy, a system of governance based on earning entitlements and rights) underpins all things liberal. So too does the idea of personal agency--the ability to actively make choices that inform (if not determine) the quality of one's life.
And while there is a great range of difference between different liberal orientations--to what extent must government intervene/regulate things like commerce and justice to level the playing field--no major political party in the Western world rejects liberalism. Many social democratic parties use a quasi-Marxist discourse, but none proposes to do away with market enterprises, individual property ownership rights and the like.
The challenge methinks is how many people do not understand how powerful liberalism is in society--especially those who have done very well under it. If you grew up relatively affluent, with access to a quality K-12 education, possibly even male--well, you might take for granted much of what you have. I would also argue that if your natural aptitudes and interests lean towards the mathematical or scientific, you're also advantaged. Not overtly per sé, but at least in terms of your sense of entitlement. And of possibility.
My own upbringing is a story of paradox. My parents grew up poor and built financially lucrative working class careers as a cop and a nurse. They moved us to a suburb of New York City with exceptional public schools, though I benefitted from a "gifted and talented" stream that gave me access to the liberal tradition to a degree my siblings never did. Our community was split between working families and upper-middle class professional ones, mostly Catholic, signficantly Jewish, almost entirely not Anything Else™. Only the really "skanky" kids from St Agatha's group home kicked up a genuine fuss in my high school; the rest of us were mouthy and were known to come to skool drunk or high on occasion.
I remember accepting the idea that I should go to an Ivy League (or similar calibre) university. However, with no one in my family to offer guidance, I was unable to decipher the processes required to make that a realistic goal for me. Most of my G & T peers had parents that had attended such schools; in fact, one girl's parents worked at my first choice. I chose to partake of the G & T stream, I chose to apply to mostly elite universities, then I chose to downgrade my trajectory and expectations. I was foundering, as much personally as anything else. But the sense of being a fish out of water was profound. And painful. Being increasingly undeniably queer at that time was almost entirely unhelpful.
Despite some disadvantages however, I was still handed a pretty well-stacked deck. I had the brains, the education, and people encouraging me to try. I even had the math thang, though I couldn't imagine any sort of work that would use it that I wouldn't hate (hated science, the study of it anyway). Of course no one floated the idea of being a quantitative sociologist. We were encourage to exercise agency, but the range of choices were limited. Or, we were given a range of choices, but behind each choice were processes by which we had to prove ourselves worthy. Even if we got the gateway question correct, the follow-ups could often do us in.
As a social researcher these questions/concepts are now, quite literally, part of my job. Paradoxically, in meritocratic terms I could the Poster Boy™. I came from quasi-humble roots, overcame some signficant obstacles, and have done well. I'm Dr.
jawnbc, respected in my field (as much as a junior academic can be), and doing good work. What better proof of how liberalism works best? But how about the other John I grew up with? Who was much smarter than me, an incredible artist, and a really good person? But whose family life offered little more than defeatism: he dropped out of high school. Some would argue John--and all the other guys with whom I grew up--exercised as much agency as I did, and received in-kind what they were entitled to. Me? I don't buy it. When almost everyone picks the same trajectory, there's all sorts of things in play that are much more powerful than personal agency. Imagine if The Other John could have discovered a working HIV vaccine? We'll never know...
