CAleftist
14th August 2011, 04:14
I keep hearing the phrase "America is a meritocracy" these days. Who do I hear it from? Defenders of America's capitalist society, of course.
But what exactly is a "meritocracy?" Well, it's just as its name implies-people are rewarded not based on their race, class, gender, or on the basis of any other form of class discrimination, but on their "merits"-their intelligence, their work ethic, their education, their skills and talents, etc.
To a lot of people, this seems perfectly fair. Why shouldn't the "most qualified" person get the job?
First, education is very important, especially these days, when it comes to looking for work in America. And plenty of studies have shown the obvious-education is highly correlated with income and wealth.
But of course, everybody has equal opportunities when it comes to education, right? Right?
Wrong. The educational system in America is very, very divided by class. You have many schools that are mediocre at best, many that are failing completely (particularly in the inner cities, where poor people-and non-white people-are concentrated), while at the other end of the spectrum, you have elite public and private schools in wealthy communities-and these are mostly white.
Why is there such a stark divide? Well, a few reasons.
1. Property taxes are a big source of funding for many school districts. The wealthier communities, with higher home values, obviously have a big advantage on this alone.
2. Class sizes are smaller in elite schools than they are in poor schools. This is due to a number of things, including the persistent and rabid attacks on public education by the right-wing in America, which have lead to huge cuts to public education. The schools that need funds the most are thus hardest hit by those cuts. Just "low hanging fruit" for the State to slash.
3. Finally, the biggest reason for the disparity in school performances, is the communities that the kids in those schools come from. A wealthy, comfortable family, with parents that are actively involved in their child's education, has HUGE advantages in life over a family that has been ravaged by a criminal record, a drug addiction, an unsafe environment for children, parents who are living paycheck to paycheck and have no time for their kids...the list of factors goes on. All of these combine to produce enormous disparities, and those disparities continue throughout adulthood.
But wait! Haven't a lot of rich people come from really poor backgrounds and struck it big in America?
No. This is a myth. A large number of wealthy people have inherited their wealth, and come from already wealthy families. If they haven't outright inherited wealth, they have almost always had an elite education, access to capital, a family connection to a prestigious firm...whatever the story is, almost no one wealthy has had a "rags to riches" tale.
Let's take a look at some famous super-rich Americans:
Bill Gates: He came from an upper-middle class family. His father was a notable lawyer in his community, who had attended a four-year university on the GI Bill.
Warren Buffet: His father Howard Buffet was also wealthy, a self-employed stockbroker and 4-term U.S. Congressman from Nebraska.
Sam Walton: At first glance, this man appears to be an exception. But closer examination reveals that his father was petty-bourgeois: a farmer and self-employed mortgage man. Furthermore, Walton had a lot of help along the way from generous relatives loaning him money. He also took over management of a franchise store at 26 years of age, which undoubtedly was important to his later success.
Many of the current wealthiest families in America-the Rockefellers, the Du Ponts, the Kochs, the Harrimans, the Whitneys, the Kennedys, the Vanderbilts-would be familiar names 100 years ago. This goes to show just how much wealth made from family fortunes stays in those families over the generations.
But what about the Presidency? Can't anyone become the President of the United States?
Well, the vast majority of US Presidents came from solidly "middle-class"-and some, like Kennedy, the Bushes, the Roosevelts, and Taft-from very wealthy families. Most had an elite education and as adults, were bourgeois or petit-bourgeois in terms of class. All were men, most were at least nominally Protestant (the one Catholic came from one of the wealthiest and most politically powerful families in America), and the one "black" President comes from an unusual-and elite-background (Columbia and Harvard Law educated). All the others, of course, have been white men of high social status.
In conclusion, the "meritocracy" myth is not just a silly myth. It's an insidious myth that creates unreasonable expectations for so many people, covers up and distracts from real issues of class struggle, and obscures the fact that the "playing field" is not equal, has never been equal, and won't be equal ever under capitalism.
But what exactly is a "meritocracy?" Well, it's just as its name implies-people are rewarded not based on their race, class, gender, or on the basis of any other form of class discrimination, but on their "merits"-their intelligence, their work ethic, their education, their skills and talents, etc.
To a lot of people, this seems perfectly fair. Why shouldn't the "most qualified" person get the job?
First, education is very important, especially these days, when it comes to looking for work in America. And plenty of studies have shown the obvious-education is highly correlated with income and wealth.
But of course, everybody has equal opportunities when it comes to education, right? Right?
Wrong. The educational system in America is very, very divided by class. You have many schools that are mediocre at best, many that are failing completely (particularly in the inner cities, where poor people-and non-white people-are concentrated), while at the other end of the spectrum, you have elite public and private schools in wealthy communities-and these are mostly white.
Why is there such a stark divide? Well, a few reasons.
1. Property taxes are a big source of funding for many school districts. The wealthier communities, with higher home values, obviously have a big advantage on this alone.
2. Class sizes are smaller in elite schools than they are in poor schools. This is due to a number of things, including the persistent and rabid attacks on public education by the right-wing in America, which have lead to huge cuts to public education. The schools that need funds the most are thus hardest hit by those cuts. Just "low hanging fruit" for the State to slash.
3. Finally, the biggest reason for the disparity in school performances, is the communities that the kids in those schools come from. A wealthy, comfortable family, with parents that are actively involved in their child's education, has HUGE advantages in life over a family that has been ravaged by a criminal record, a drug addiction, an unsafe environment for children, parents who are living paycheck to paycheck and have no time for their kids...the list of factors goes on. All of these combine to produce enormous disparities, and those disparities continue throughout adulthood.
But wait! Haven't a lot of rich people come from really poor backgrounds and struck it big in America?
No. This is a myth. A large number of wealthy people have inherited their wealth, and come from already wealthy families. If they haven't outright inherited wealth, they have almost always had an elite education, access to capital, a family connection to a prestigious firm...whatever the story is, almost no one wealthy has had a "rags to riches" tale.
Let's take a look at some famous super-rich Americans:
Bill Gates: He came from an upper-middle class family. His father was a notable lawyer in his community, who had attended a four-year university on the GI Bill.
Warren Buffet: His father Howard Buffet was also wealthy, a self-employed stockbroker and 4-term U.S. Congressman from Nebraska.
Sam Walton: At first glance, this man appears to be an exception. But closer examination reveals that his father was petty-bourgeois: a farmer and self-employed mortgage man. Furthermore, Walton had a lot of help along the way from generous relatives loaning him money. He also took over management of a franchise store at 26 years of age, which undoubtedly was important to his later success.
Many of the current wealthiest families in America-the Rockefellers, the Du Ponts, the Kochs, the Harrimans, the Whitneys, the Kennedys, the Vanderbilts-would be familiar names 100 years ago. This goes to show just how much wealth made from family fortunes stays in those families over the generations.
But what about the Presidency? Can't anyone become the President of the United States?
Well, the vast majority of US Presidents came from solidly "middle-class"-and some, like Kennedy, the Bushes, the Roosevelts, and Taft-from very wealthy families. Most had an elite education and as adults, were bourgeois or petit-bourgeois in terms of class. All were men, most were at least nominally Protestant (the one Catholic came from one of the wealthiest and most politically powerful families in America), and the one "black" President comes from an unusual-and elite-background (Columbia and Harvard Law educated). All the others, of course, have been white men of high social status.
In conclusion, the "meritocracy" myth is not just a silly myth. It's an insidious myth that creates unreasonable expectations for so many people, covers up and distracts from real issues of class struggle, and obscures the fact that the "playing field" is not equal, has never been equal, and won't be equal ever under capitalism.