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...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-10 09:04 pm (UTC)Everything is a Song Cue
Date: 2006-03-10 09:07 pm (UTC)I had no say in being born
Or when and where it happened to me
It's only chance that turned the wheel
And made my living easy
Oh I am a lucky man,
Favored by fair fortune's hand
Far more than I'm deserving.
I've had good work since I was young
Mastered a trade, my business thriving,
Yet others die for want of bread
No work means no surviving.
Oh I am a lucky man...
I share a love that's fair and true
A marriage have I that's rich with pleasure
Yet there are those whose wedding vows
Are shackles that embitter
Oh I am a lucky man...
Then there's a verse I can't remember about political freedom.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-10 09:23 pm (UTC)My most powerful recollection of what existentialism is about comes from talking with a high school buddy who read The Plague for our advanced-placement English class senior year. Whatever it was that he conveyed to me, nobody else's description of existentialist thought has substantially altered or augmented what I gleaned from him.
Sure, I probably gleaned some of that because I'm bright. But so was he, and that's why he explained it well enough that I got it.
He had moved to our town from an even-more-rural part of New Hampshire. He had no particular college aspirations that I ever heard. He got sub-400s on his SATs. Last I knew, he'd gotten a two-year degree in computers and enlisted in the military.
I maintain that he was as bright or brighter than a lot of our peers who went to "good colleges." I maintain that he worked hard. I also think he didn't have nearly the training some of us did in WHERE to do our hard work and how to make it pay.
Certainly not the kind of training I got from two Ivy League parents.
I'm smart, but I was *pushed* into the Ivy League, and pushed *hard*, by people who knew what the system expected and trained me for it. You can work just as hard and not get anywhere if you don't know the system. You can know the system and get kicked in the teeth by it if you look like "the wrong kind of person" to the gatekeepers.
I just don't buy the idea that it was my natural ability or my hard work alone. I know too many people who possessed my talents but lacked my advantages.
I'm always stunned by bright people who think they did it all themselves. They didn't invent the language they speak, print the textbooks they learned from, earn the income that paid the taxes that kept schools open for them, often didn't schmooze the people who may have needed to be schmoozed to get ahead.
Dr. Pete thinks Dr. Jawn is right on the money.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-10 10:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-10 10:17 pm (UTC)I see you and raise you Ewan MacColl
Date: 2006-03-10 10:31 pm (UTC)Every time you switch on the T.V.,
You can bet your old boots that at some point you'll see,
A high ranking Garda or else a T.P.
Calling on all who are meant to be free,
To stand up and defend law and order.
It's illegal to rip off a payroll,
It's illegal to hold up a train,
But it's legal to rip off a million or two,
That comes from the labour that other folk do,
To plunder the many on behalf of the few,
Is a thing that is perfectly legal.
It's illegal to kill off your landlord
Or to trespass upon his estate
But to charge a high rent for a slum is O.K.
To condemn two adults and three children to stay
In a hovel that's rotten with damp and decay
It's a thing that is perfectly legal.
If your job turns you into a zombie
Then it's legal to feel some despair
But don't get agressive and don't get too smart
For Christ's sake don't upset the old applecart
Remember you boss has your interest at heart
And it grieves him to see you unhappy.
If you fashion a bomb in your kitchen,
You're guilty of breaking the law,
But a bloody great nuclear plant is O.K.,
And plutonium processing hastens the day,
This tight little isle will be blasted away,
Nonetheless it is perfectly legal.
It's illegal if you are a traveller,
To camp by the side of the road,
But it's proper and right for the rich and the great,
To live in a mansion or own an estate,
That was got from the people by pillage and rape,
That is what they call a tradition.
It's illegal to kill off your missus,
Or put poison in your old man's tea,
But poison the river's the seas or the skies,
And poison the minds of a nation with lies,
It's all in the interest of free enterprise,
Nonetheless it's perfectly legal.
Well it's legal to sing on the telly,
But make bloody sure that you don't,
To sing about racists and fascists and creeps,
And those in high places who live off the weak,
And hose who are selling us right up the creek,
The twisters, the takers, the conmen, the fakers,
The whole bloody gang of exploiters.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-10 10:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-10 10:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-10 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-10 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-10 10:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-10 10:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-10 10:52 pm (UTC)Of course, the counter to this is that a determined individual will succeed, no matter what. I'd like to belive, that, as well. But I've seen too many people get crushed by influences around them. Hell, I know how easy it is to give into those pressures.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-10 11:47 pm (UTC)It is really refreshing to read someone who actually knows what "liberal" means. The political redefinition of this word - a totally nonsensical redefinition - drives me absolutely batty.
The only comment I would make is that a reasonable basis for accepting liberalism is that all the alternatives, save a return to tribal living, seem to involve large-scale systems of coercion. While I'm not strictly libertarian, coercion in any form rubs me the wrong way.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 12:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 12:15 am (UTC)And I agree, the alternatives are more problematic. Which also explains why the different discourses on how to level the playing field seem relatively stark when compared. We debate on the how rather than the if.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 12:17 am (UTC)Oooh, guilt button. I enjoyed a very high quality university education for only a few thousand dollars a year in Canada. Then I moved down here and paid all my taxes to a country that doesn't support education nearly as well. Believe me, I'm aware of it. But I swear, when I retire I'm going to take all my savings and spend it back in Canada.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 12:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-11 12:20 am (UTC)Ms Wolfe...
Date: 2006-03-12 05:34 pm (UTC)Re: Ms Wolfe...
Date: 2006-03-12 05:42 pm (UTC)