In the US, though not I hear the rest of the Western world nearly as much, we have this ideological thread called "rugged individualism" the catch phrase for which is "personal responsibility". Rugged individualism presupposes that we live in an absolute meritocracy, and anybody who works hard enough can get ahead. It's no coincidence that it is most often espoused by people who worked hard and got ahead, and because things were difficult for them, they don't realize that they might be much more difficult for someone else who has a different set of challenges to face. They don't see why they should help someone else (outside of family) in any way at all. This ideological thread is what the Tea Party is built on. The personal responsibility part is how they justify to themselves not helping anybody. It's not my fault your kid was born with a brain tumor, in other words, it's your fault for having a kid you couldn't afford to take care of if he got cancer. The fact that I have three kids, and if one of them got cancer, I have no idea how I would pay for them isn't relevant to this discussion, for some reason.
The meritocratic system in Imperial China was supported by a class of bureaucrats who could afford to send their children to Confucian schools, or hire tutors, or had the knowledge to teach their children themselves. Rugged individualism would be if those successful bureaucrats blamed a peasant who had never had the opportunity to get an education for not becoming a governor. It would be as if those refugees in Taiwan decided once they got on their own feet that if they could do it, then anybody should be able to, and why should they or the government lift a finger? It's a strange, hypocritical ideology used to justify collective selfishness, and goes far beyond believing in a meritocracy. Basically, this ideology says that all men actually are islands.
Sorry for the lecture. I noticed looking through your post you've taken poli sci courses (and if it's your major, you will thrill me to bits) and I thought it might interest you to hear what we US political scientists are studying. And banging our heads against.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2011-07-22 04:46 pm (UTC)The meritocratic system in Imperial China was supported by a class of bureaucrats who could afford to send their children to Confucian schools, or hire tutors, or had the knowledge to teach their children themselves. Rugged individualism would be if those successful bureaucrats blamed a peasant who had never had the opportunity to get an education for not becoming a governor. It would be as if those refugees in Taiwan decided once they got on their own feet that if they could do it, then anybody should be able to, and why should they or the government lift a finger? It's a strange, hypocritical ideology used to justify collective selfishness, and goes far beyond believing in a meritocracy. Basically, this ideology says that all men actually are islands.
Sorry for the lecture. I noticed looking through your post you've taken poli sci courses (and if it's your major, you will thrill me to bits) and I thought it might interest you to hear what we US political scientists are studying. And banging our heads against.