<p>An interesting editorial about meritocracy. It only gets convoluted to me because of the emphasis on WASP. I simply look about and compare today’s celebrities and in-your-face wealth and think it is not so much about WASP culture, but a general commentary on our society and what we place as important. Perhaps to much 15 minutes of fame and too little noblesse oblige.</p>
<p>Interesting. Not coming from the northeast I tend to forget that WASPs were (are?) a majority in that area of the country. Times have changed, thank goodness. I don’t think meritocracy is the root of the problem, however. I don’t believe there was such a WASP ideal for most. It is easy to point out the few that rose to greatness while forgetting the many that were ordinary (or worse) and to ignore the greats who didn’t belong to east coast high society. Lincoln? The demographics of this country changed radically with the circa 1900 immigrations. Society has changed as well. His examples of recent WASPs remind us of how far they have fallen.</p>
<p>I could pontificate further, as that author did. His provincial views need expanding. The east coast does not matter as much to most of the country- including its schools. That second quoted paragraph is a riot- he gives attributes only a small minority may have held to an entire group of people. I never saw them looking out for others- think other ethnic groups, religions, women- only themselves, despite “statesmanship” and other lofty ideals.</p>
<p>“WASPs put the well-being of the nation before their own” – Oh really? Aren’t these the same people who exploited Native Americans, practiced and supported slavery and prided themselves on unabashed anti-Semitism (Jewish quotas, anyone?)</p>
<p>I have no particular brief for WASPS (technically I am not one, although I am Protestant and of Northern European origins). However, I do believe that our current American elites are the worst in our history, in part because they believe they deserve their power because they are so smart. They are incapable of noblesse oblige because they have no concept of reciprocal responsibility. They see themselves as either masters of the universe, or vengeful former victims. The late great Christopher Lasch had their number in his last book, The Revolt of the Elites (a pun on Jose Ortega y Gasset’s Revolt of the Masses).</p>
<p>Former WASP bastions such as Harvard, etc. were reformed from within out of a sense of noblesse oblige to provide opportunity for excluded groups. All elites are subject to criticism but I think the American WASP ascendancy were fairer and better than most. They are the ones who wrote the Constitution, after all. They were not Jacobins, and that’s a good thing IMHO.</p>
<p>The US is not as meritocratic as many believe; intergenerational SES mobility is on the low side compared to other rich countries. However, there are enough meritocratic aspects of US society for many who started with some sort of inheritance advantage to see their position as one resulting from their own personal merit (in the context of these forums, consider legacy admissions at selective colleges).</p>
<p>Every society has elites; it is a fact of life. A relatively open elite that has room for the talented of humble origins is better for society than a closed elite based on blood or connections. On the other hand, one could argue that elites need moral and practical training in order to fill their role well for the benefit of all. An “accidental” elite in denial may not be very good at what it does because it will downplay or ignore its privileges and responsibilities. Elite means “chosen.” If you are “chosen,” for your IQ or leadership charisma, you have certain responsibilities. A populist democracy might have a difficult time theorizing the composition of its elites because the topic is considered icky.</p>
<p>I think this article is really interesting and thought provoking and I’m glad momofthreeboys posted the link. I tend to agree with the central premise and certainly agree that being “good at school” doesn’t really mean that the student will be good at anything else; particularly leadership or possessing strong character.</p>
<p>I also really liked the bee in the yarmulke joke :-)</p>
<p>However, inherited SES (whether by race, ethnicity, religion, or money) does not necessarily mean being good at leadership or having strong character either.</p>
<p>NJSue, good posts, I tend to agree with you. Even worse we’ve embedded in our kids that giving back is an EC to be boasted and posted on college resumes or worse “required” to graduate from high school. That “winning” or getting that 4.0 is an end all be all and that it’s better to be “on top or number one” is better than being a gentleman (or gentlewoman). They have been taught to give “A” to get “B” and all that. It’s all rather sad and totally missing the point.</p>
<p>The WASPelite had and still has many issues that were glossed over in this article. Sure some of the qualities like social responsibility should be emulated, but this is not unique to them and many of the WASP elites did not fit this stereotype. Maybe it is because I’m of Jewish heritage and have experience living in a very WASPy community, but I really did not enjoy all of the elitism and snobbery I saw around me. My Grandfather had the experience of being rejected by many of these elite WASPy law firm despite being online review at UVA because he was Jewish. I don’t think a meritocracy is an issue, having an educated government is a good thing, we as a society just need to pay more attention to our leaders. While it is true that many great students are not great leaders, I do think that in general having an education and a wider world view can greatly help one lead.</p>
<p>I’m just not convinced you get a ‘wider world view’ with your head entrenched in a book…like the eccentric relative whose entire outlook comes from reading this book or that book, amusing…but rather naive. I actually have a contrary view that the ‘smartest’ are not necessary the ‘best leaders.’ Sometimes yes, but more often not. The best leaders I ever worked for ruled with a firm fist tempered by a very real sense of benevolence when the situation called for and they often weren’t the most intellectual or book smart people.</p>
<p>WASP culture has, historically, led to some admirable charitable endeavors, and yes, this country, from Revolution to Constitution, was mostly led by men schooled in WASP ideals. But this doesn’t indicate something intrinsically valuable and worthy in that culture. WASP noblesse oblige didn’t lead to the Jewish Family Services, Catholic Charities, and the United Negro College Fund. It didn’t lead to the Civil Rights Movement in America, or the end of apartheid in South Africa, or Ghandi or Aung San Suu Kyi. It led to a lot of good things, and a lot of bad things, just like virtually every other developed culture. </p>
<p>I’m just not seeing something unique in the moral status of the old WASP elite. There are some WASPS inclined to be charitable, or to resist injustice, or to produce great art or literature. There are some non-WASPS inclined to do all of those things, too. Maybe a meritocrat is less likely to have an ingrained sense of class-based responsibility, but he may be correspondingly likely to have fewer class-based prejudices. Someone can be charitable because he believes it is incumbent upon the upper classes to help out the less fortunate, or he can be charitable because he knows that he needed help to get ahead and wants to give other diamonds in the rough the same chance, or because he has taken classes on economic injustice and the sociology of social class. </p>
<p>Regret the philistinism that leads the noveau riche to wear white after labor day, if you want, but I’d need a lot more evidence before I’d see concern about the loss of a values system as anything more than false nostalgia.</p>