The fifth element
Oct. 20th, 2008 01:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencer"Conservatives believe in exceptionalism because they do not believe in perfect equality. Conservatives realize that some people inevitably have superior abilities, intelligence, and talents, and they believe that those people have a fundamental right to use and profit from their natural gifts." Thus the wise words of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
earth_wizard, who would like it known that he isn't a conservative himself, he just plays one on teevee he's just read a lot of books about them.
That people have different abilities, intelligence and talents is an undeniable fact. That people have a fundamental right to use and profit from their natural gifts is a principle with which few would disagree. That this has anything to do with social equality is simply not true.
Let's look at the proof. I can write, compose music and draw reasonable if somewhat cartoony pictures. Has the government ever bothered to find this out? It has not. It does not know anything about my skills, intelligence or talents. Therefore, they make no difference to the way I am regarded under the law. And this is perfectly right and proper. So, exceptionalism is irrelevant as regards social status.
Suppose it wasn't? J T McIntosh wrote a novel (World Out Of Mind) about a society in which people's abilities were tested and the appropriate status awarded according to a system of colours and shapes, starting, I believe, with Purple Circle and ending at the top with White Star. I really should re-read it; it's been a while. I don't think he approved of that society, and I know I don't. I don't want to be socially superior to someone who can't write as well as me, any more than I want to be socially inferior to someone who's better at the long jump. Talents, abilities and skills are in many ways their own reward; if anything, if social status were to be made dependent on ability in any way, I would say lack of ability should be compensated rather than penalised...but I think it's far better to keep the two things entirely separate.
There is of course one field in which ability reliably confers greater status, and that is the field of making money. Increased wealth, which confers power by its nature, also makes you a person to be reckoned with among people with whom you will never have financial dealings. It raises you in the social hierarchy, allows you to acquire influence and make connections, and again your status increases. It is one of the very few gateways to political office. So, yes, in this one very narrow and rather shabby sense, it is possible to profit socially from one's natural gifts, if they happen to run in the direction of accumulating cash. If they don't, then for most of us that's just too bad.
But what about the educational process? What about the qualifications you can get, that enable you to secure better-paid jobs and become a respected member of the community?
Well, for a start, education has very little to do with one's natural abilities and (these days) much more to do with shoving one into a job-shaped hole. For another thing, better-paid jobs are getting scarcer and more specialised, and more and more entry-level jobs are being dumbed down so that bosses can pay school leavers minimum wage to do them, as the proliferation of call centres goes to show. For a third, the supposed upward mobility that a good education gives you only goes so far, and that's not very. It isn't the way things should be...but it's the way the world has gone.
I'd like to see talent and ability recognised, fostered, developed and rewarded, certainly...but that should come after, and be entirely separate from, the acknowledgment that everyone, whatever their differences may be, from the president or prime minister right down to the poorest homeless person's daughter, is regarded as completely equal under the law, with the same rights and the same responsibilities. That no matter how skilled, how talented, how rich or how well-connected you are, you are subject to the law and will be punished if you break it. That no matter how poor, how weak, how insignificant or how disabled you are, you are entitled to the law's protection and to whatever support may be available for you.
Exceptionalism has nothing to do with democracy. And so to bed, with one more to go.
earth_wizard, who would like it known that he isn't a conservative himself, That people have different abilities, intelligence and talents is an undeniable fact. That people have a fundamental right to use and profit from their natural gifts is a principle with which few would disagree. That this has anything to do with social equality is simply not true.
Let's look at the proof. I can write, compose music and draw reasonable if somewhat cartoony pictures. Has the government ever bothered to find this out? It has not. It does not know anything about my skills, intelligence or talents. Therefore, they make no difference to the way I am regarded under the law. And this is perfectly right and proper. So, exceptionalism is irrelevant as regards social status.
Suppose it wasn't? J T McIntosh wrote a novel (World Out Of Mind) about a society in which people's abilities were tested and the appropriate status awarded according to a system of colours and shapes, starting, I believe, with Purple Circle and ending at the top with White Star. I really should re-read it; it's been a while. I don't think he approved of that society, and I know I don't. I don't want to be socially superior to someone who can't write as well as me, any more than I want to be socially inferior to someone who's better at the long jump. Talents, abilities and skills are in many ways their own reward; if anything, if social status were to be made dependent on ability in any way, I would say lack of ability should be compensated rather than penalised...but I think it's far better to keep the two things entirely separate.
There is of course one field in which ability reliably confers greater status, and that is the field of making money. Increased wealth, which confers power by its nature, also makes you a person to be reckoned with among people with whom you will never have financial dealings. It raises you in the social hierarchy, allows you to acquire influence and make connections, and again your status increases. It is one of the very few gateways to political office. So, yes, in this one very narrow and rather shabby sense, it is possible to profit socially from one's natural gifts, if they happen to run in the direction of accumulating cash. If they don't, then for most of us that's just too bad.
But what about the educational process? What about the qualifications you can get, that enable you to secure better-paid jobs and become a respected member of the community?
Well, for a start, education has very little to do with one's natural abilities and (these days) much more to do with shoving one into a job-shaped hole. For another thing, better-paid jobs are getting scarcer and more specialised, and more and more entry-level jobs are being dumbed down so that bosses can pay school leavers minimum wage to do them, as the proliferation of call centres goes to show. For a third, the supposed upward mobility that a good education gives you only goes so far, and that's not very. It isn't the way things should be...but it's the way the world has gone.
I'd like to see talent and ability recognised, fostered, developed and rewarded, certainly...but that should come after, and be entirely separate from, the acknowledgment that everyone, whatever their differences may be, from the president or prime minister right down to the poorest homeless person's daughter, is regarded as completely equal under the law, with the same rights and the same responsibilities. That no matter how skilled, how talented, how rich or how well-connected you are, you are subject to the law and will be punished if you break it. That no matter how poor, how weak, how insignificant or how disabled you are, you are entitled to the law's protection and to whatever support may be available for you.
Exceptionalism has nothing to do with democracy. And so to bed, with one more to go.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 06:18 am (UTC)I just think the original comment means, "conservatives want to be left alone by government".
So if you are exceptional you're not entitled to get a special status granted by government but they might believe your grandness will lead you to success if the government just leaves you alone (and you don't have to bother helping other more unfortunate individuals on your way to the peak of society).
Think Calvinist, think Puritan! If you aren't successful either you overestimate your talents or your were lazy or you don't love "God" enough. Either way: you don't deserve it and shouldn't be a hindrance in the way of truly good people on their ascend toward glory.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 08:11 am (UTC)Thanks.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 07:39 am (UTC)That no matter how skilled, how talented, how rich or how well-connected you are, you are entitled to the law's protection and to whatever support may be available for you. That no matter how poor, how weak, how insignificant or how disabled you are, you are subject to the law and will be punished if you break it.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 08:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 09:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 03:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-20 03:43 pm (UTC)