It's all a lie, a con, but it's a lie that we want, at times desperately want, to believe. My grand daughter is visiting, and we have been watching re-runs of "America's Got Talent." Each of the contestants is living a life, but they all "have a dream," and you can see it in many of their faces, the desperate need to believe that their "dream" can come true. Over and over and over again the judges emphasize that the "purpose" of the show is to provide a venue where that hidden talent, that hidden greatness, can be found and stardom achieved. To hear Simon Cowell tell a sobbing 13 year old that she will be the next Taylor Swift puts us in the moment and warms our hearts at her possibilities, but the likelihood of her winning the grand prize is small, and even if she does go on to win, the likelihood that she will become the next Taylor Swift is so minuscule as to be beyond measure. The names of Kenichi Ebina, Bianca Ryan, Landau Eugene Murphy, Mat Franco, and Olate Dogs -- past winners all -- are hardly top of mind for most Americans. The show does not exist in order to mine hidden talent, to give people "second chances" after adversity, much less to find the next Taylor Swift. In rare cases it may well actually do so, as a more or less accidental side-effect, but the show exists for an entirely different purpose, to further enrich those who have a "stake" in the game, and it only takes a moment's cynical reflection to realize that the contestants and their dreams are being used to fulfill that purpose. Nevertheless, as any con man will tell you, don't just tell a lie, tell a lie that people are desperate to believe, and both the contestants and those who watch them compete are desperate to believe in the fairy tale miracle.
I am dancing around the first of the great American lies, that our greatness as a nation resides in being "the land of opportunity." In one respect, both "The Apprentice" and "America's Got Talent," as reality shows, are standing metaphors for the great con. I have to confess that I have never watched "The Apprentice" for more than five minutes, and I'm not sure that I could. There is much about Donald Trump that is simply off-putting to me, but the premise of his show is clear enough and it's the same premise that animates much of "reality" TV. There is an "opportunity," whether it comes in the form of a year long $250,000 starting contract to run one of Trump's companies or in the form of one million dollars and a headline a show on the Las Vegas Strip. It probably goes without saying, but I will point out regardless that the "opportunity" is manufactured. It is real enough, insofar as the promise of a starting contract or a show on the Las Vegas Strip must be kept, but there is an element of "faux reality" in the opportunity. As the contest proceeds, the camera remains focused on the "winners" as they are celebrated and achieve their moment of celebrity. The camera turns away from the "fired" and "failed" contestants and we need no longer concern ourselves with them, the "losers" as they fade back into the obscurity of their lives. In the inexorable logic of the show, the winners deserve to win, the losers deserve to lose, and all is right with the world. If one takes a step back, however, one sees that both winners and losers are just elements in a game that has much higher stakes. While the contestants do have some control over their progress within the immediate game, the real game of the reality show is played outside the view of the camera, outside the control of the contestants, and it is utterly indifferent to the fates of the individual contestants. Regardless who wins or loses the immediate contest, they will win.
That social mobility in the US is a myth, but it is a core myth as persistent as religion for those engaged as contestants in the reality show of life. A Pew Research Center Study found that, attitudinally at least, Americans are an exception. They found that "fifty-seven percent of Americans disagree with the statement 'Success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control,' a considerably higher percentage than the global median of 38%." In other words, Americans believe that each of us, individually, are in control our destinies. If one were differentiate between conservatives and liberals, I suspect one would find that the average conservative places even greater faith in the myth that each of us controls his or her destiny, that we "make choices" and those insight and wisdom of those "choices" take us down the path to success. As the Pew Research Center goes on to point out, the principle "choice" is to "work hard." They suggest, that "similarly, Americans place an especially strong emphasis on the value of hard work – 73% think it is very important to work hard in order to get ahead in life, compared with a global median of 50%." In other words, each and every one of us has been given a talent, and it is entirely up to us whether we "work hard" to discover that talent, "work hard" to develop it, "work hard" to capitalize on it. One hears it in the voices of the reality show contestants -- for the winners, the elation that their "hard work" is finally "paying off"-- for the losers their sense of befuddled betrayal -- "but I worked so hard?"
There have been any number of studies to demonstrate that, as Business Insider put it, "Social Mobility is a Myth in the US" -- that one's choices and hard work may be a necessary factor in success, but they are not a sufficient factor. Drawing from one such study, they report that
If you were born in the bottom 20%, your chances of ending up in the top 20% are about one in 20: 5%. If you were born in the top 20%, your chances of ending up in the bottom 20% are about one in 20: 5%. It’s not entirely a hereditary aristocracy and hereditary serfs; but the circumstances, genes, and connections that a person is born with do have a marked impact in this country.
There are many such studies, and they all confirm more or less the same thing -- there is some chance that any given individual will be the winning contestant, and of course the winning 5% sustain the myth, hold forth the possibility that with talent and hard work one will rise in the world, will become a star -- and of course the losing 95% are simply ignored, or vilified. Drawing on another study, Salon is more forthcoming in their title, "The Myth Destroying America: Why Social Mobility is Beyond Ordinary People's Control." Drawing on the same Pew Center Research, Sean McElwee of Salon reports that this positive belief that each of us controls our destiny, that hard work has its rewards, "comes with a negative side — a tendency to pathologize those living in poverty. Indeed, 60 percent of Americans (compared with 26 percent of Europeans) say that the poor are lazy, and only 29 percent say those living in poverty are trapped in poverty by factors beyond their control (compared with 60 percent of Europeans)."
The Salon article is much more nuanced, and the book it reviews even more nuanced, and I would encourage those who are interested to read on, but for the moment it is, perhaps, enough to recognize that I am not denigrating hard work. I am simply suggesting again that hard work may be a necessary factor in one's success, but not a sufficient factor, particularly if relies on an income provided by others where hard work is a minimal condition. In my past life as an employer, more than once, I have heard the anguished betrayal in the voices of those passed over for a promotion, or those slighted on a "merit pay" bonus. They will explain that they "worked so hard," and I will have to explain in return that "hard work," whatever form it takes, is a minimal expectation. Everyone -- everyone -- is expected to work hard and most actually do work hard, or at the very least perceive themselves to be "hard workers." Those who received the promotion, those who got the bonus, also worked hard, but their hard work wasn't sufficient. Those who "succeeded" brought "something else" to the table that you didn't or couldn't. It gnawed at me that the "something else" was often well beyond the control of the one passed over. Very often, the one passed over would need to become "someone else" to have that "something else," and for most that simply isn't likely or possible. Then too, there was the simple fact that there were many applicants, often numbering in the hundreds, and only one position. Even if everything else were absolutely equal, and it rarely was, a choice would still need to be made and there would be a "winner" and a long line of invisible "losers."
That social mobility in the US is a myth, but it is a core myth as persistent as religion for those engaged as contestants in the reality show of life. A Pew Research Center Study found that, attitudinally at least, Americans are an exception. They found that "fifty-seven percent of Americans disagree with the statement 'Success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control,' a considerably higher percentage than the global median of 38%." In other words, Americans believe that each of us, individually, are in control our destinies. If one were differentiate between conservatives and liberals, I suspect one would find that the average conservative places even greater faith in the myth that each of us controls his or her destiny, that we "make choices" and those insight and wisdom of those "choices" take us down the path to success. As the Pew Research Center goes on to point out, the principle "choice" is to "work hard." They suggest, that "similarly, Americans place an especially strong emphasis on the value of hard work – 73% think it is very important to work hard in order to get ahead in life, compared with a global median of 50%." In other words, each and every one of us has been given a talent, and it is entirely up to us whether we "work hard" to discover that talent, "work hard" to develop it, "work hard" to capitalize on it. One hears it in the voices of the reality show contestants -- for the winners, the elation that their "hard work" is finally "paying off"-- for the losers their sense of befuddled betrayal -- "but I worked so hard?"
There have been any number of studies to demonstrate that, as Business Insider put it, "Social Mobility is a Myth in the US" -- that one's choices and hard work may be a necessary factor in success, but they are not a sufficient factor. Drawing from one such study, they report that
If you were born in the bottom 20%, your chances of ending up in the top 20% are about one in 20: 5%. If you were born in the top 20%, your chances of ending up in the bottom 20% are about one in 20: 5%. It’s not entirely a hereditary aristocracy and hereditary serfs; but the circumstances, genes, and connections that a person is born with do have a marked impact in this country.
There are many such studies, and they all confirm more or less the same thing -- there is some chance that any given individual will be the winning contestant, and of course the winning 5% sustain the myth, hold forth the possibility that with talent and hard work one will rise in the world, will become a star -- and of course the losing 95% are simply ignored, or vilified. Drawing on another study, Salon is more forthcoming in their title, "The Myth Destroying America: Why Social Mobility is Beyond Ordinary People's Control." Drawing on the same Pew Center Research, Sean McElwee of Salon reports that this positive belief that each of us controls our destiny, that hard work has its rewards, "comes with a negative side — a tendency to pathologize those living in poverty. Indeed, 60 percent of Americans (compared with 26 percent of Europeans) say that the poor are lazy, and only 29 percent say those living in poverty are trapped in poverty by factors beyond their control (compared with 60 percent of Europeans)."
The Salon article is much more nuanced, and the book it reviews even more nuanced, and I would encourage those who are interested to read on, but for the moment it is, perhaps, enough to recognize that I am not denigrating hard work. I am simply suggesting again that hard work may be a necessary factor in one's success, but not a sufficient factor, particularly if relies on an income provided by others where hard work is a minimal condition. In my past life as an employer, more than once, I have heard the anguished betrayal in the voices of those passed over for a promotion, or those slighted on a "merit pay" bonus. They will explain that they "worked so hard," and I will have to explain in return that "hard work," whatever form it takes, is a minimal expectation. Everyone -- everyone -- is expected to work hard and most actually do work hard, or at the very least perceive themselves to be "hard workers." Those who received the promotion, those who got the bonus, also worked hard, but their hard work wasn't sufficient. Those who "succeeded" brought "something else" to the table that you didn't or couldn't. It gnawed at me that the "something else" was often well beyond the control of the one passed over. Very often, the one passed over would need to become "someone else" to have that "something else," and for most that simply isn't likely or possible. Then too, there was the simple fact that there were many applicants, often numbering in the hundreds, and only one position. Even if everything else were absolutely equal, and it rarely was, a choice would still need to be made and there would be a "winner" and a long line of invisible "losers."
No comments:
Post a Comment