 |
| [What is the value of artistic expression?] |
Those individuals were echoing debates that have been going on for much longer, debates about whether humans are intrinsically "good" (caring, empathetic, generous, cooperative, altruistic, etc) or "evil" (indifferent, cruel, selfish, greedy, manipulative, etc), and to what degree external circumstances and choice could draw out or strengthen different social qualities.
Whether intentionally or accidentally evolved or imbued by some unseen force, humans have a capacity for various social states and qualities. In adaptive terms, this can be cast a conflict between gene-centric selection (focused on the immediate benefit of the individual) versus group-centric selection (focused on the benefit of individuals as part of a larger social collective). [1]
Contemporary postmodern industrial societies tend to construct their economic perspective on 1) status/wealth as reward, 2) uncertainty of worthiness, 3) scarcity of virtue, 4) abundance of resources, and 5) belief in meritocracy. I'll review these briefly before challenging their effectiveness at creating a just society full of actualized and productive citizens.
1. Status/wealth as reward has two meanings. One is that the best way to motivate someone is to offer them money or other items associated with higher social status. The other is that those who already possess such forms of wealth in abundance must deserve what they have as a reward for their own efforts or value or that of their immediate ancestors.
2. Uncertainty of worthiness is sometimes applied to those who inherit, but it tends to apply to those who are not wealthy or those who are entering the ranks of the wealthy, especially those who don't have sufficient wealth to insure that their status is secure. In other words, poorer people are seen as suspect in virtue and in any value they might possess or contribute to society. So you have to work hard and make a socially recognized and valued contribution (however that is defined) in order to demonstrate your own personal worth, to yourself and others. If this does not come with a reward of monetary wealth, the worth demonstrated may be in some ways noble but ultimately of a lesser value.
3. Scarcity of virtue goes hand in hand with the idea that humans are basically depraved and need either grace or good works to overcome their baser inclinations. They need to be domesticated, educated, and refined in order prize and acquire virtue and then to demonstrate their worthiness. Again, this is applied most regularly and forcefully against the poor and disenfranchised who must go above and beyond in their efforts to prove themselves to be of value and deserving of increased status and wealth.
4. Abundance of resources is the notion that everyone could become wealthy if their virtue and worth would but allow it. Therefore, the fact that so many people are not wealthy demonstrate their flaws. A slightly more sophisticated version of this blames political efforts at promoting equality for impairing the development of virtue by creating a "culture of dependence". Virtue must be acquired through hardship and overcoming adversity, not through having one's path smoothed out by others. Other political policies are harmful because they limit private ambition in the name of protecting people and the natural environment, thus keeping those who would otherwise be financially successful from demonstrating their worth and acquiring the commensurate wealth.
5. Belief in meritocracy is rooted in a sense that everyone has more or less the same starting resources and opportunities in life and that virtue can trump even unfair advantages held by the less virtuous and unworthy. This is a common trope in contemporary popular fiction. This belief helps hold the others together, and its unraveling can lead to the rapid questioning of the basic economic assumptions that modern market and workplaces rely upon.
Let's get to unraveling.
