Yes, It Turns Out the Rich Actually Do Think They’re Better Than You
by Nick Goroff
One
can call it "social Darwinism", "Calvinism" or just plain ignorance,
but recent studies performed by researchers from the University of
Illinois Urbana-Champaign and UC Berkeley are beginning to show that the
social and economic classism often expressed by the world's wealthy,
may have deeper roots than previously believed.
Researchers
Michael Kraus and Dacher Keltner, wanted to see what common perceptions
regarding social mobility, business or personal achievement and general
economic opportunity, people held throughout various economic classes.
By posing a series of statements to participants, the researchers asked
those taking part in the study
to rank the level to which they agreed or disagreed numerically on a
scale between 1 and 7, with 1 meaning complete disagreement and 7 being
total agreement.
The
statements ranged from, “I think even if everyone wore the same
clothing, people would still be able to tell your social class," to “I
feel that people get what they are entitled to have.”
What
Kraus and Keltner found over the course of their studies, was that the
concept of "class essentialism," or the idea that things and people are
easily categorized according to their nature (the poor are poor due to
their nature, and vice-versa,) ran stronger the higher the social and
economic class that study participants belonged to.
With
lower and middle classes participants rating many of the more
essentialist questions between 1 and 4 and the wealthy rating them
higher, these studies have in many ways demonstrated what many
throughout, especially American society, have known or suspected for a
long time: Many of the rich and powerful believe they're better than
others by their very nature.
It
is not an uncommon line to hear from those of high financial and
socio-economic status, that their wealth and privilege is something
earned and deserved, often citing a presumed intellect or ability that
distinguishes them from the rest of the pack.
In the 1960s, psychologist Melvin Lerner developed what is commonly referred to as the "just world theory,"
which states that the assumption of many is that the world is
inherently just, that what one has is what one inherently deserves and
that any thinking or ideas which may threaten this assumption are
automatically attacked by the psychological defenses of those who have
adopted this mode of thinking.
From
the banksters of Wall Street who made fortunes sinking the national and
global economies through shady dealings, to Congress with its members'
average net wealth sitting roughly at a million dollars a person, this
disconnect from social reality is not hard to find.
Following
the financial collapse, many traders and fund managers within the
investment banks, some of which were the very same to come crawling to
the government begging for a bailout, snickered and patted themselves on
the back, still wealthy from the derivatives swaps and broken
investment tools that brought the economy down, believing what they'd
made, they were entitled to due to their natural cleverness and
intellect.
Likewise,
this same sense of entitlement and social Darwinism is equally evident
in the halls of power, with Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Paul Ryan
both frequently proposing policies and spending cuts aimed at punishing
the poor for their poverty, in the name of encouraging competitive
capitalism.
It
may not be much of a leap to assert that such senses of class
essentialism lend themselves well to libertarian philosophy, which
itself largely dictates that poverty is a result of sloth, as opposed to
any larger affecting sociological or economic conditions. This very
thinking and its endless justifications for greed and self obsession has
gotten so great its even rather recently driven one former, long-time devotee away from the ideology altogether.
It
is possible that while many of the wealthy elite and the top 1% have
quite thoroughly justified their greed and oligarchic sense of power
according to some internal rationalizations, this new perspective on the
divide between rich and poor serves as a grim sociological mirror for
the larger matters of income inequality throughout the country.
And
although that 1%'er "essentialism" is unlikely to be a hot button issue
in the coming election, it does shed a new light on an old question as
to whether or not the rich really, truly look down their noses at others
or not. For if the evidence at hand suggests anything, it's that
despite the reality, Americans in particular are living in two very
distinct worlds with two very distinct senses of what it is to be a
human being on planet Earth.
(h/t: Slate)

No comments:
Post a Comment