I am not against structure. That was one of the things I had to be sure about while I wrote this piece. What I am against though, is a culture where some prosper and some suffer through negligence and not merit. That is not a world that supports growth in humanity. Maybe since the advent of money or the start of a way to measure material wealth, without actually possessing said materials, lines have become harder and harder to draw. We promote a philosophy that states hard work should be rewarded and laziness punished. Yet, it would be naive to believe that we live in environments where hard work is currently the sole factor in a person’s achievements. Not all those who struggle lack ambition and not all those who excel did the work necessary. There might have been a time that was an ideal truth but we live in a generation that has evolved so quickly it bears little resemblance, outside of the superficial, to those that came before it.
Before we go any further we need to clear from the proverbial table a thought that can constitute bias. This is the idea that anyone who argues for equality of opportunity is arguing for equality of wealth or status. There is no self respecting person that wishes to see anyone who does not work hard given what they do not deserve. What one needs to ask is what constitutes hard work and who is defining these parameters. In that same vein, saying that everyone who is doing without is in that position solely based on their actions seems irresponsible. We live in a culture where everyone likes to point out the root and cause of a problem until it’s something they don’t’ wish to address. Poverty is not a choice, it’s systemic.
Anecdotally let’s take a sample of eight individuals. We will split them into groups of four men and four women. Then we will further split those groups into four who “have” and four who “have not”. This is not an accurate depiction but a demonstration. The first pair we look at is the two females in the group of “haves”. Female number one works hard, invests her allowances, goes to school and graduates at the top of her class. Her hard work has earned her status and a position of influence in her community. Female number two on the other hand chose not to apply herself and plans to spend the rest of her life living on the allowance and privileges given to her by her benefactors. In this same group the men follow the same model however male number two is also granted a title even in his absence of any personal effort. Taking away the minor details such as title and status the difference in quality of life that these four individuals can expect to enjoy is not discernible.
The test of this model is to apply it to the group of “have nots”. In this group’s case only one of those individuals has any chance at achieving success without invariably sacrificing what we collectively call the soul. That would be the male that works tirelessly. That is not a guarantee and has been proven a lie more often than not. For a clearer picture we should add one more male to the group of “have nots”. This is someone that works hard. He is at the top of all his classes but was never able to make it to college. Due to globalization we have to take into consideration environs where there is no government subsidised education or any means outside of personal wealth to aid forward progress. This individual will have no way to enter into the place he would more than qualify for based on his own natural abilities. Instead he will have to settle for whatever position a high school education can afford him.
It’s easy to shoot down that scenario as it paints a caricature and seeks to dilute factors of great importance. Since that’s the case another more farfetched analogy needs to be added for clarity. Imagine now the death penalty was instituted in a way that everyone suspected of murder would find themselves on death row. Of course there would be a lot of murderers who paid for their crimes but then the countless innocents wrongly accused would also face the same end without any recourse for defense. Somehow that doesn’t seem fair. It would be quite irresponsible then to apply that same sentiment of guilt and responsibility of proof to those living in a state of poverty. Those who “have” should not be liable for what they have but what strikes a negative chord is the blanket condemnation of those who “don’t have”. That criticism usually states that they are at fault based on their lethargy and should be left in the life they lead.
There is a viable system in place to combat this many say. That thought process hints at ignorance or willful blindness. There is something in place but a person who is unable to understand that it is broken is one who has never had to use it or who has never had to start from the bottom without, eventual, outside support. For our purposes let’s liken success to a long road serviced by an interval of bridges. The first problem faced at the first bridge is the amount of people trying to get across it. There just isn’t enough space to let everyone across in a timely fashion. Some never even reach the bridge due to the long line and congestion of people. With the amount of traffic on the bridge the boards start to corrode and lack of maintenance lead to cracks and holes start to appear in the wood.
The further you go on the road the less traffic you encounter and the easier it becomes to travel to your destination. Though, there is one thing all these bridges have in common; gate keepers. For the most part they are biased and overly engaged in their station of power (which they are usually under qualified for). From this spot they advance those that support their views and make it known that if your ideologies are not approved by them then there is no way across the bridge they guard. In short, favours are granted to many who are undeserving. With a structure as large as the one we live in there is very little we can do to avoid human error but even that little when corrected can make a big difference. The metaphor of the bridges can’t encompass all the details that transpire on the road to success but it should show you the closer you are to the start the more difficult the system becomes to traverse.
At this point in human history, everyone is not given a fair chance. That is not saying much as the question of fairness has always been asked. What is condemnable is when we preach equality and the disparity in individual opportunities does not take a stage of prominence. With all the scientific advancements that have been made human enlightenment, if you will, has somehow reached a standstill. That is to say although the past has had similar dysfunctions we have reached an age where these issues should be assessed with civility and a solution found unless we are not as capable as we believe. A blanket judgement about a person’s character based on their station in life is not the road we should be on and seems almost akin childlike reasoning. There is no doubt that the top of the structure works but the closer we get to the bottom the more aware we become of our inability to rise. Without becoming an anarchist or revolutionary we must rely on the current structure. However, when a person has constant proof that society does not promote their well being then that person will eventually lose faith with that system. The foundations will begin to corrode and eventually the structure is left to implode on itself.
If you’ve read this far I’ll leave you with something to consider. Crime and squalor are more vivid in areas of poverty. This pandemic we call poverty is not readily apparent unless there is a system with standards for it to be based upon; especially if the goal of that system is to promote equality in standard of living (does not apply to status or achievements – those are individual). In a system that works poverty does not exist.
Disagree. That is the purpose of having an opinion.