By John Ballard
Weekend reflections from Fred Clark and Reinhold Niebuhr.
The reason why privileged classes are more hypocritical than underprivileged ones is that special privilege can be defended in terms of the rational ideal of equal justice only by proving that it contributes something to the good of the whole. Since inequalities of privilege are greater than could possibly be defended rationally, the intelligence of privileged groups is usually applied to the task of inventing specious proofs for the theory that universal values spring from, and that general interests are served by, the special privileges which they hold.
The most common form of hypocrisy among the privileged classes is to assume that their privileges are the just payments with which society rewards specially useful or meritorious functions. ... The educational advantages which privilege buys, and the opportunities for the exercise of authority which come with privileged social position, develop capacities which are easily attributed to innate endowment.
Above average comments thread for anyone interested.
This has been said already a hundred ways. What are we gonna do about it?
ReplyDeleteWhen Lester Maddox was governor of Georgia one of his self-assigned projects was upgrading the state's prison system. After a a bit of study he came up with a great suggestion: "What we need," he said, "is a better grade of prisoners."
ReplyDeleteCertainly a quote of higher quality than the anti-religious scaremongering below!
ReplyDelete.
Neihbur's view of humanity is a cynical one - It precludes the possibility of a true meritocracy ever arising. But is this a possibility we wish to preclude? Why not seek to prove Neihbur wrong? For a century we have tried to make society more egalitarian, more democratic. This projected has succeeded, in a way - but the more Utopian of these have failed miserably.
I submit that we have been working towards the wrong goal. I am skeptical of truly egalitarian systems. The curse of complex societies are the elite. From primeval chieftains of our long past to the internet communities of this day the pattern can be seen - complex social arrangements and interactions lead to privileged cliques. It is a feature of the machine.
But if we cannot beat the machine, why not use it? Are Neihbur's words a call to engage in the impossible task of leveling society? Perhaps. But why not take them as a call to create a truly meritocratic elite? Can we create a system where privilege is the reward of merit, and not the other way around? Is this a goal worth working towards?
"A feature of the machine."
ReplyDeleteWell said.
I always knew there was a wide gap between rich and poor, but only in the last few years did I realize how extraordinary vast was the difference. In the scale of distribution of wealth the term middle class is virtually meaningless. It's no wonder that people well into the mid to high six figures still call themselves "middle class" with no sense of irony.
Historically we are not much better off than when the lord of the manor, owner of the castle, landlord of sharecroppers or company store held dependent populations in perpetual servitude. Reading novels and short stories from Asia and the Middle East tells me the phenomenon is universal to the human condition.
I would argue that privilege already is the reward of merit. The exception, of course, is inherited fortunes, but without accrued multi-generational wealth there would be no benevolent royalty and few philanthropic ventures of importance. People like Andrew Carnegie, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are few and far between. And it is they, like many others, who set in motion self-perpetuating, multi-generational social benefit systems.