what i believe - iv (continued)
By diana on Apr 24, 2010 | In poly-ticks
response to becky
This began as an effort to respond to Becky's arguments to my last "what i believe" post about personal responsibility. It grew to the point that it seems appropriate to give it its own blog post, at the risk of destroying the continuity of thought.
For review, in case you missed that discussion and can't be bothered to read the whole thing now: I have argued that most of what we are or become is beyond our control. We work with the tools we're given, but our personal contributions are in fact very limited. Becky has argued that if you stop contributing that 10%, you will lose more than 10%, so clearly, our personal contribution is higher than that. Travis has argued that our output can be thought of mathematically as a product of certain factors, so one might give only 8% personal effort (where 10 could be expended) and still have 80% of the output (depending upon the strength of the influencing factors of birth, opportunities, education, etc).
If my summation doesn't make sense, maybe you need to just read their posts. :)
So...Becky. Let's say I take from you the fact that you were born into a middle class white family in America--a family which believed in a strong work ethic and advanced education (and of course led by example). Instead, you're born in, oh, Ethiopia the 8th child of 13, three of which lived to maturity; your childhood was subsumed by a struggle to survive. You put 100% of yourself into "succeeding" in life. How close do you think you'd be to where you are now?
I use an extreme example because it's harder to deny that environment, timing, expectations, peer pressure, opportunities, etc, count for far more than you seem willing to admit.
Now let's look at your negative equation with respect to me (because I still think you're not understanding my perspective). I submit that who I am and how far I've made it is a product of several factors, the vast majority of which were (are) beyond my control. I had no control over where, when, and how I was born and raised. I believe my personality is a product of inborn traits and what I learned growing up, including basic knowledge, ethics, respect (for self and others), even sense of humor. A great deal of what I am now (and what I've accomplished) is due to LUCK. While I was taught to apply myself in school--that is, education was very important--I was not raised to go to college at all; while I was told I could if I wanted (and that I could do anything I set my mind to), I was told that IF I wanted to go to college, I'd have to pay my own way. What I WAS raised to be was a good wife and mother. My father has a bachelor's degree; mother has a couple of semesters of college. They were blue collar their whole lives. What they did have was high expectations for our behavior (if not education) and a strong--I'd go so far as to say UNBENDING--work ethic, which I absorbed as a fact of my life as far back as I can remember. I'm also a perfectionist; I know I get most of this from Mother. Daddy was a reader and introduced us to literature early, and encouraged us to read (even to the point of paying us to read some books he considered important). I was born fairly healthy, but with a slight birth defect which was corrected through surgery when I was 6. Otherwise, I would probably have spent my life being sick, and possibly would not have had the opportunity to work at all. Mother was also a nutrition freak (and I mean that in a most respectful way); I grew up KNOWING what was healthy and what was not like most kids know every episode of the Saturday morning cartoons, and Mother fed us healthy meals. If you like, I can go on with more examples of my sheer luck, but for the time being, I'll assume you get the point.
What I am now is a person with a strong work ethic, a perfectionist with high expectations of myself and others. I am healthy, thanks to (by now) four surgeries I didn't pay for (I was always lucky that someone else could and would pay when I needed to go under the knife), thanks to the fact that exercise was considered very important in our family (and TV was unimportant); I read throughout my childhood and reading is still my preferred form of entertainment. I'm healthy; I take very good care of myself. I continue to learn. Etc. These are all parts of what I AM. Things I was taught when I was young I would actually have to work to NOT do (or be).
I'm not sure I could stop giving my all, frankly, because (once again) this is a choice I didn't make for myself. I'd have to pointedly "unlearn" it, which brings me to what I mean when I say 10% of what/who I am I accredit to my own efforts.
I did change some of my parents' expectations. Three things come to mind: (1) I became an atheist; (2) I became a leader; and (3) I have furthered my own education far beyond any expectations or even guesses of how far I might go (including my own). These all took more effort than the average bear because I had to begin by shifting my own expectations and beliefs in myself.
I couldn't really help being an atheist (if you can't convince yourself X is true, the best you can do is keep trying--but it doesn't make you believe), but I struggled for many years just BEING an atheist in a family which refuses to honestly address the question of WHY they believe in God. I was cornered and subjected to diatribes about turning my back on God. One of my cousins--as you well know--completely came from together on me about my atheism in an infamous exchange in which she "accidentally" hit "Reply All." Who got the support in that exchange? Me--the one who dared to question--or her--the one who behaved most unChristianly but was at least defending Christianity? (That's a rhetorical question, btw; I know the answer.) Your sister told me not long ago that one of the reasons she wasn't a part of my life for years was because she would have felt obliged to try to reconvert me, which she already knew I would react poorly to; the result, of course, is that I missed 20 years of a closeness I enjoyed when we were growing up. I could go on, again, but you get the picture.
Number 2: being a leader. Imagine trying this when you were raised to be subservient. I was never very good at being subservient, as you probably know :), but I had to learn, from scratch and trial and error, how to lead effectively. I'm still struggling with it. I had to learn to encourage and mentor the people under me, because I grew up where I was expected to perform well and punished if I failed to do so. Words of praise were precious few. I had to learn this the hard way, consciously modeling my behavior after leaders I admired. Still do.
And my education? I had to decide it was worthwhile, then overcome my fears of going to college in the first place, then of returning to school. Most people probably have those, but I submit that most have childhood role models to ease their transition and help them believe that they BELONG there. I didn't. My role models and encouragement, from people close to me, were in my adulthood. Think of the effort involving your expectations in life as similar to trying to learn a new language in adulthood. It's possible, but takes a conscious effort you wouldn't have had to expend had you learned it in childhood.
Some of the things in my life, I had to choose for myself, then work to learn what others absorbed in childhood and expect them for myself. That's why I take some credit for where I am and what I do. But most of who I am would not change if I stopped “giving 100%.”
So maybe I've spotted another difference between you and me: I think you're thinking primarily in economic terms; I'm thinking overall, because it is the overall that makes you what you are and determines how far you go in life, what opportunities are open to you, and how you learn to respond to input, think about money and other people, etc. I'm not saying you're just a greedy, selfish bastard; I know better. But I'm quite sure that, if you are seeing your own efforts as playing a predominant role in who you are, your understanding of the possibilities for your life (as influencing factors) is far more limited than mine.
I've seen many people assert that mankind has no free will. I've yet to be convinced that this is true. To me, if I'm offered a choice of adopting a cat and a parakeet, the fact that I can make a choice means I have some free will. And I believe I can change who I am, but I've come to understand that change of basic values and expectations in adulthood is arduous. At the other end of the spectrum, I understand how empowering it seems to believe that you are the primary factor in what you become. Our meritocracy is based upon this belief. We love rags to riches stories, like Oprah and Colin Powell and (yeah) OJ Simpson. They sometimes can make us believe we are capable of things that may have never entered our minds before, and may plant the seed that, given the right circumstances, are our own tickets to success.
But as much as I love such stories and encourage the telling of them, if only because they plant seeds in fertile minds and may provide that extra umph to push otherwise uninspired and unencouraged people to do what otherwise wouldn't enter their minds, I acknowledge that those people we admire so much had someone to inspire and encourage them, too. Without those influences, we wouldn't know who they are, either. Instead, we'd probably be saying “They deserve to live in the ghetto because they're lazy and unambitious.”
I hope you understand by now that I don't believe in "telling people they can't make it" or any similar idea. I have never advocated any such thing, so yes...I'm a bit miffed that you'd presume such a thing. To admit one's own luck (or "blessings," if you prefer) in getting where we are but holding those who aren't so lucky or blessed personally responsible for their lot in life is inconsistent, to say the least. It is a fact that certain demographics have much higher crime, poorer health, and lower education than others; I acknowledge this. I am not blaming them, nor am I suggesting that they cannot dig themselves out. I'm suggesting that the odds are stacked against them, and any person who would presume to help them must first realize this. You can't help them by accusing them of laziness, or just telling them to work harder, or by taking away what little help the government provides them.
Consider Travis's comment. You have certain factors that, when you apply your own efforts, multiply your results exponentially. You were taught a middle class work ethic, a middle class attitude toward money, a middle class self-respect and respect for others; you were safe and protected and cared for (still are); school was important to your family and they made it important to you, and encouraged (even expected) you to go to college. Whatever you do is multiplied by these very positive factors, so your 10% personal contribution might equal a $400k home in a nice neighborhood, steady work, working vehicles for every driver in the family, nutritious meals, strong family connections and support, and money saved for retirement.
Now. Let's apply the same fuzzy math (admittedly) to a child raised in the projects. He doesn't know who his father is. His mother is addicted to crack. He spends most of his time staying at the homes of friends and relatives. His friends are all in gangs and deal drugs. When he doesn't apply himself in school, no one cares or tells him how important it is. He fails each grade but his teachers pass him, anyway. He never knows where his next meal is coming from, if he gets it at all. Let's say he just knows he doesn't want to get into drugs, so he applies his total (100%) effort to his 10% personal contribution trying to support himself legally. He ends up still living in the projects because, with no basic grasp of math, the best job he can get is as a gas station attendant. He's barely able to feed his family, and the food is often not very healthy (junk food is notoriously cheaper than nutritious food). He has no money from one payday to the next, so he has nothing for retirement. He has no vehicle. The factors he has in his favor don't help him much at all. In many cases, they are negative factors. The product of his efforts, then, are very limited. He's still impoverished.
To help such people, we must first understand their cultures instead of simply condemning them for not fitting into ours. In most cases, if not all, they have not only an ignorance or absence of factors we take for granted, but a learned helplessness regarding our world.
When you say 90% of your success is due to your own efforts, you are not only taking personal credit for tons of advantages you have that are beyond your control, but it allows you this simplistic belief that anyone can achieve what you have if they just try hard enough. Hand in hand with this elitist idea is the belief that the poor deserve what they have.
I'm not the one doing them a disservice. You are.
d
3 comments
I was just rereading Becky’s comment on the other thread and would like to comment on it. Here is the bit I’m discussing: “People who work hard are “given” more opportunities, are they not? Do employers like to promote slackers? Do colleges give more scholarships to students who’ve worked and studied hard? People who work hard “earn” opportunities . . . to work even harder.”
I agree with this in general. I believe that hard work does open more doors. Obviously, we don’t all work hard. There are a lot of slackers out there (and I know many who are as well off as I am, if not more so). Not everyone puts forth maximum effort. As a matter of fact, I imagine that effort expended, like most things human, fall on a bell curve. Very few people are completely lazy, and very few people have the self-discipline to apply themselves 100%. Most people fall into the work-some-play-some bulge in the middle. Would you agree?
Assuming the answer is a qualified yes :), then most people are 50%ers, more or less, in the effort they expend. If we accept (which I know you don’t, but for the sake of discussion, work with me) that we only contribute 10% overall to our personal success, those people only routinely get 5% say.
And while most of my values etc I think of as positive factors, most indigent people have several negative ones that are calculated into their potential.
I think it’s self-evident that we don’t all have the same potential. For an utterly ridiculous example, I’ll never be an NFL lineman. I’ll probably never be Stephen Hawkins, either (while I may have math/physics potential, I simply don’t have the interest and drive to go that direction). You’ll never be a sumo wrestler. :) (I realize this probably breaks your heart, but it’s time you came to terms with it.) Neither of us is likely to be a poet laureate.
…Anyway. Do you agree that there are limits to individual potential?
Assuming I’ll get another tentative yes on this, I submit that limits to potential exist for everyone. Those who have more training/help when they’re young to fit into middle-class or upper-class structure would naturally have higher potential than those who didn’t get a decent (let along quality) education, guidance, or encouragement.
Again, this doesn’t mean these people shouldn’t TRY to do their best with what they have. The cool thing about potential is that none of us really KNOWS what our limits are. I mean, I have a vague idea; I’m not interested in being an entrepreneur or CEO, so I have a reasonable expectation that I will never be filthy rich. But in other areas, I don’t know what my limits really are until I try. Fair enough? I believe this applies to all.
Another comment I wish to respond to here: “If we tell people they can’t achieve success because of their class or ethnicity, “because that’s 90% of it” . . . we are doing them a GREAT disservice. There are plenty of examples of people who succeed in spite of a poor beginning, because they believed they could and WORKED at it.”
Yes! People who have a poor beginning do sometimes work their way out because they believe they can. Someone has to make them believe, though. Now only must the learned helplessness be overridden, but they must have opportunities, they must know what their opportunities are, and they must have the encouragement/belief in themselves to try. I guarantee you that behind every one of those people who “made it” from inauspicious beginnings, you’ll find one or more role models who pushed them to do better, to be better.
I don’t see how the belief that we personally contribute very little (overall) to our success in any way suggests people simply shouldn’t bother trying.
d
This has been very interesting to me. I had no idea that your mom and dad didn’t ENCOURAGE you to go to college. By the time you were in high school, at the very latest, they should have seen that a college education (especially for someone as independently driven as you), was a good thing to go for. Instead, you mom sounds more like my mom; she and Daddy insisted that all of us get at least a high school education, but my sister and I were basically DISCOURAGED from thinking about college. We “didn’t need a college education, because we would never be anything but a wife and mother"! Yet both of us got the education, and she became proud of our accomplishments.
You have done well, dear one, and I salute you for what you have accomplished! You have become much more successful, in my mind, than any other member of your nuclear family. (Of course, I may be just a tad prejudiced, too!)
Keep writing, studying, learning! You have good ideas, — and you write very well!
Love you!
Oh, yes. Wayne’s daughter was at the reunion this weekend. She lives somewhere in your area.
I remember my husband telling our oldest “you have been so lucky". It offended him beyond belief. He pointed out that he worked so very hard to get that doctorate degree (which he certainly did). But here’s the luck … Dad got a job and moved the family to CA. UCSB had *one* year that the lowered GPA requirements due to declining applications, and that’s how son got accepted to UCSB. Son was on waiting list to USC for the doctoral program and cleared it the day before the semester started. (Probably because his family had the financial ability to pay and others on the wait list did not.)
So, is his success in getting a doctorate a product of luck or hard work and determination on his part? Both, I dare say. I don’t know that I can put percentages on it, but if I factor in things like being born in the US vs. Ethiopia I’d say that Diana’s closer to the mark.
| « adopting a dawg | what i believe - v » |
