Can you pull yourself up by your bootstraps?
I have noticed that successful people often think their success is proof that success is possible for anyone.
They normally have their own origin story, with tough beginnings, and talk about how good decisions and hard work have got them to where they are today — and if you too work hard and make good decisions you too will be a success.
They prioritise personal endeavour, as we all should, but they don’t understand personal endeavour is not sufficient, nor even necessary, for success.
They cherish the idea of meritocracy, because it implies their success is earned, and has not come at the expense of someone else; or, if it did, someone else was less deserving.
It is rare they acknowledge luck (which is equally the absence of bad luck), or help, or any kind of facilitating or benevolent social or cultural structures.
They fail to recognise that they are, by definition, exceptional. We can’t all be above average.
They say you should pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. But think for just a moment and you realise the laws of physics are working against you. In fact the term originated as an example of an impossible task in a 19th century schoolbook.
It’s a strange combination of false humility (oh I’m nothing special, you could do it too) and pride (look what I achieved through force of will) which combines to degrade the less successful (you must just be dumb or lazy).
Meritocratic roulette
Meritocracy has come to be a cherished cross-party ideal in British politics.
Triumphant in 1997, Tony Blair said “The new Britain is a meritocracy where we break down the barriers of class, religion, race and culture.”
Almost 20 years later, Theresa May said “I want Britain to be the great meritocracy of the world…a country where everyone has a fair chance to go as far as their talent and their hard work will allow.”
All so inspiring and all so admirable (although close readers may note the shift from statement of current fact to statement of desired future).
In a good essay in the LRB, Stefan Collini teases out oft-overlooked flaws in the meritocratic ideal.
For a start our society simply isn’t meritocratic: “Study after study suggests that where people get to in life is largely determined by where they start…advantage is cumulative and self-perpetuating”.
But if it was considered a meritocracy, those who fall behind would be cast as responsible for their fate: not as victims of circumstance, but feckless and undeserving wastrels, warranting disdain.
Moreover, in a quirk of psychology, a real meritocracy is likely to spread mass resentment since almost all of us will be forced to accept we are subordinate on merit alone, and we have little chance of improving our lot. This is the theme of Michael Young’s 1950s dystopian satire, The Rise of The Meritocracy, which popularised the term.
(Funnily enough Michael later intervened to get his famously friendless son Toby into Oxford despite his grades not being up to scratch — having shown that meritocracy was not desirable, in this episode Michael also illustrates how distant a dream it is).
Collini’s concluding metaphor is the casino. Even knowing the odds are rigged in favour of the house, and that outcomes depend more on luck (often of birth) than skill or effort, people fantasise about winning in preference to leaving the casino or changing its rules.
The happiness industry
William Davies wrote a book called The Happiness Industry: how government and big business sold us well being. I have only read reviews, interviews, and discussion, but this is the story I take away:
If people can manage their happiness through yoga, breathing, CBT, CBD, SSRIs, organic vegetables, dairy substitutes, vitamin D supplements etc., then they are the ones to blame if they are not happy.
This sets up an industry that thrives on unhappiness without addressing twin truths:
- happiness is not some sunlit upland that can be reached once and for all (not some destination>journey), and
- many causes of unhappiness come from outside the individual.
The result being that the more we emphasise agency and the tools for personal happiness, the more we de-emphasise the role played by structures like the economy and society.
Or, in NY Times journalist David Marchese’s wording: “It’s like if someone was punching you in the face and their idea for how you might feel better about that situation is for you to learn to take a punch better, rather than they stop punching you in the face”.
The agency trap maintains the status quo
I have the sense that one of the purposes of the caste system, and Hindu philosophy in general, is to keep people in their place. That place is determined by some form of merit, perhaps from actions in a prior life. The world is a mirage, but you should act out your assigned role regardless.
Or, to put it a kinder way: in a world in which there is much suffering, and little opportunity for betterment, take solace from an eternal explanation of the state of affairs and from knowledge of your place within them.
(I’m no scholar on the subject and I apologise if I’ve butchered an ancient and rich philosophical tradition).
It seems to me that the same function — maintaining the status quo — is served by the combination of the impossible moral imperative to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, the meritocratic ideal, and the happiness industry (and you can throw in the myth of the American dream for good measure, too).
However the status quo is no longer eternally ordained, it becomes the fault of the individual. If your life is shit, you cannot blame society or chance, you can only blame yourself. If you want a better life, don’t try and change the world, change yourself.
In a counter-intuitive twist, the assertion of agency and the rhetoric of empowerment serve to make you look inwards, and dissuade you from engaging with wider changes that might really be necessary to assert your agency and power.
It’s another engine of individualism and atomisation at the expense of community. The emphasis on personal responsibility diminishes social responsibility, and sucks the wind out of the sails of progress…
(Of course, and this should go without saying, I am in no way arguing people have no responsibility for themselves, I am simply arguing that too much emphasis on that responsibility can have negative effects).
Next week, the myth of progress!
