EQUALITY OR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

The nation’s history can be told from various perspectives or from various views of progression.  There is the progression of the nation’s industry, progression in moral thinking, or progression in political arrangements as well as other ones.  But one progression one might think would be central to the nation’s self-definition would be its mostly emotional commitment or non-commitment to equality.  As Robert D. Putnam[1] describes it, that progression has not moved much except, perhaps, for the last few decades.

          First, a bit of defining.  This blog has reported over several postings this writer’s sense of how Americans have viewed this social/political quality.  He identifies five different views – genetic elitism, earned elitism, equal condition, regulated equality, and equal result – but in terms of what has been generally accepted by the American public, one can detect a position somewhere between equal condition and regulated equality.  A review of what those are might serve as a reminder of what is being described below.

          First is the view most associated with market values or the natural right construct.  That would be equal condition.  In the posting entitled, “Agreement?”, [2] the following is offered:

Equal Condition, Equal Opportunity, Unlimited Rewards – A general belief orientation which views persons who enjoy superior human assets (e. g., intelligence, physical dexterity, humor, etc.) due to their personal efforts are entitled to above normal considerations in society in the form of status, wealth, material possessions, etc. 

There are no limits to that compensation other than as a result of the vagaries of the economic or political system.  In capitalist societies, that would be the market.  Other than status, all entitlements are to be purchased and monetary advantages do not entitle a person to unequal advantages under the law. 

This orientation extends to prohibit any restrictions on monetary or other types of rewards if the rewards reflect labor compensations, dividends, rents, or profits.  Advantages are purchased and are not the product of membership in a family or class.  The labor value of any person is based on its market value.  As such, there are no a priori limits on what a person can earn or acquire.

While this orientation might seem just about right, its acceptability could be the product of its current popularity.   But American views concerning equality have varied since the nation began; in fact, at any given time, various views have competed to gain adherents among Americans.

          Instead, Putnam, in describing this progression, indicates how this variance has materialized.  The more popular among segments of the population, and this writer even argues was the dominant view in the US up until World War II, was regulated equality.  Here is how the same cited posting by Gutierrez describes that view:

Regulated equality, Equal Opportunity, Limited Rewards – A general belief orientation which views persons who enjoy superior human assets (e. g., intelligence, physical dexterity, humor, etc.) due to their personal efforts are entitled to above normal considerations in society in the form of status, wealth, material possessions, etc. 

These advantages, though, are limited only to areas associated with their earned accomplishments or contributions to society.  Any entitlements acquired as a result of employing these assets are time limited as a recipient must continue to demonstrate his or her worthiness.  Said rewards, other than status, must be purchased and are not distributed to beneficiaries due to membership in any class or family. 

Monetary rewards are payoffs for an individual’s contributions and, along with his/her status, must be within limits.  That is, they should not unreasonably exceed the person's contribution to the welfare of the society or provide such a level of financial standing to secure for him or her (or his/her posterity) an ongoing, established source of benefits. 

Plus, for those who do not meet minimum, reasonable income, the economy needs to be regulated so that a minimum income or essential services (education, medical, housing) are provided to the degree that an effective equality can become possible for those deprived parties or entities.  As a result, these parties would be able to effectively compete with those who are not so deprived.

With this view, Americans, according Putnam, have not been resentful of those who have met success, but have reacted effectively, to secure that real opportunity was made available to all Americans (except perhaps to those who were not defined as part of the grand partnership[3]).

          Here is a listing of conditions or events that have characterized the American progression in terms of equality.  One of the first treatments of this issue can be found in Ben Franklin’s Autobiography in which Franklin outlines his “rags-to-riches” story as a type of model to which Americans could aspire.  In line with this, as early as the 1830s, one can pick up the notion that the availability of a vast continent – “out West” – provided the safety-valve and opportunity source for most of the 19^th century.  The historian, Fredrick Jackson, glorified that notion.

          A background, recurring religious theme Americans ascribed to was the sense that God created each man (and woman) equally.  This message found impetus in such movements as the Great Awakenings.  It also provided, in part, a rationale for the political movements, the Progressive Era and the New Deal.

          Yet, by the 1950s a subtle change comes about.  For example, Putnam points out, the writer David Potter through his best-seller, People of Plenty, took on a more natural rights bent.  The argument went, since the US has an extremely successful economy (this being during the post-World War II boom), therefore, opportunity existed aplenty and failure could only be attributed to a person’s own fault.

          In truth, this train of thought was not new.  One can find earlier signs as far back as 1843 between the covers of the prominent grade school reader, the McGuffey’s Reader.  Here’s a quote:  “The road to wealth, to honor, to usefulness, and happiness, is open to all, and all who will, may enter upon it with the almost certain prospect of success.”[4]  But one should not forget the social context under which such a sentiment was issued.

Two facts:  one, that quote was issued at a time when there was unbounded opportunity – before the age of corporate America and a vast open western land of opportunities – and, two, a time before the advent of governmental, welfare capability or cultural support for such programs.  Indigency was a local problem that local charitable efforts met.  This latter context held a determining view of the poor while America was still a predominately agricultural nation.

Heading into and as a result of the Great Depression, failure took on a different tone.  Americans readily agreed with initiatives such as the New Deal programs such as Social Security and the Great Society anti-poverty programs.  And yet, by the 1980s, the natural rights bias took hold.  That led to the market orientation that the Ronald Reagan administration ushered in.  And today, with the predictable result – the accumulation of wealth in few hands – produced, Americans are beginning to question this purely, equal rights, unlimited rewards view.

Putnam writes:

Throughout the half century after World War II, roughly two thirds of Americans from all walks of life told pollsters that as a matter of fact, anyone who worked hard could get ahead.  In the twenty-first century, however, surveys have revealed a creeping pessimism about the chances for upward mobility for the next generation, and about whether hard work would really be rewarded.  Nevertheless, on balance most Americans have believed (at least until recently) that equality of opportunity characterizes our society – that the American Dream, in other words endures.[5]

To back up this notion, some current stats:  95% of Americans endorse the notion that everyone should have equal opportunity; 9 in 10 state they agree with doing whatever is necessary to provide that opportunity; but only 48% among the top quintile (top 20%) agree.  Roughly 90% of all Americans agree society should provide basic related services such as education and roughly two-thirds agree that opportunity, instead of “reducing inequality,” should be the nation’s priority.

And yet, Putnam’s overall message is that basic changes have taken place in how the nation is treating opportunity factors and they are not changes that promote equality or equal opportunity.  The poor are becoming more isolated and among those with heightened political power – the top quintile – aren’t as committed to guaranteeing those services that truly provide equal opportunity.

Civics classes should have students tackle the questions:  what is true equal opportunity?  And, what is the nation’s, through its government, responsibility to advance a true form of equal opportunity?

---

[1] Robert D. Putnam, Our Kids:  The American Dream in Crisis (New York, NY:  Simon and Schuster, 2015).

[2] See Robert Gutierrez, “Agreement?,” February 3, 2015, accessed August 8, 2019, https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2015/02/agreement.html .  The writer, in this rendition, has edited the original version.  In terms of its content, these orientations should be viewed as ideal beliefs and, in real life, are subject to compromising behavior.  In a recent book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, French economist, Thomas Piketty, argues that due to the accumulation of capital there has developed an entrenched class who is benefitting from the income based on that capital.  This mirrors the conditions of the Gilded Era and other times of skewed wealth and income to the top of the economic pyramid.

[3] The history of the nation concerning the “other” need not be reviewed here, but to mention but a few victims:  African slaves and their prodigy and the recent immigrant group (Irish, Italians, Asians, and today, Latins from Mexico and Central America).

[4] Robert D. Putnam, Our Kids:  The American Dream in Crisis, 33.

[5] Ibid., 34.

THE POWER OF BIAS

At a time when social turmoil seems to be increasing – having experienced a violent weekend in the two localities in Texas and Ohio – how people see things becomes one of those basic issues that can affect civic behavior or the lack of it.  It surely should be a source of questions a civics teacher asks regularly and often.

          Daniel Kahneman[1] has done a commendable job at not only dislodging commonly accepted notions concerning people’s thinking and visualizing but has communicated effectively what shortcomings those notions have wrought.  This blog cites Kahneman in two earlier postings.[2]  In those postings, his reference to System 1 thinking – mostly reactive thinking and easy – and System 2 thinking – mostly reflective thinking and tiring – are reviewed. 

Here, the aim is to be a bit more elemental.  Early in his cited book, Kahneman chooses to introduce this general area of interest by providing a definition for a commonly used term that he defines in a more restrictive way than how it is usually used.  The term is bias.  This blogger uses that term quite a bit in these postings.  Generally, this blogger utilizes it to indicate a leaning or a preferred way to think of something usually in terms of making a choice between or among options.

Kahneman has a more targeted meaning in his use of the word.  Here is his take:

Systemic errors are known as biases, and they recur predictably in particular circumstances.  When the handsome and confident speaker bounds onto the stage, for example, you can anticipate that the audience will judge his comments more favorably than he deserves.  The availability of a diagnostic label for this bias – the halo effect – makes it easier to anticipate, recognize, and understand.[3]

It’s not clear if the handsome speaker does live up to or outperforms his pre-perceived performance; is that still a bias?  This writer thinks so, but Kahneman’s point is that often one thinks in a certain way, but he/she is not totally or even partially aware of why his/her thoughts project as they do.  One cause is bias.

          So, one thing a civics teacher should communicate to students is that their inner biases and other preconceived notions operate usually silently and, as such, beyond the “in control” sense many consciously believe they have over their thinking.  “I know my own mind” can often be heard and yet how much “knowing” takes place can be questioned and should be.

          For example, people at any given moment might think of a multitude of problems or issues as important or urgent.  Yet, the actual items they tend to think of are those they find “easy” to think about.  In turn, current topics of interest – the ones one readily hears about, on say the media – easily pop up in their minds.  They, the favored topics, become what is important at that time and other important issues slip through without getting the attention they desire.

          The whole issue involving firearms and dealing with mass shootings spur a lot of concern and determination while the media reacts to the latest shooting.  But give it a few days or weeks, the media loses its interest on the issue, and with that so does the average citizen loses the initial angst and his/her anger dissipates.  Afterall, thinking reflectively about that or anything else is tiring. 

And to date, the sympathy level the victims engender – in one case, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting with 26 school site victims, mostly small children – has little to no effect on how long an intensity among the citizenry can be maintained.

          On this point, Kahneman writes, “In turn, what the media choose to report corresponds to their view of what is currently on the public’s mind.  It is no accident that authoritarian regimes exert substantial pressure on independent media.”[4]  Again, this mental operation manifests itself in a hidden mode – how many say, “oh yes, I think that’s important because, and only because, it took up half the news show last night”?

          One reality that hides all this is everyday experiences.  Usually, a person maintains his/her health and engages in behaviors considered appropriate in given situations.  That is, the person exercises appropriate judgement most of the time.  At any given moment, though, not much reflection goes on; that is, one follows impressions and feelings.  Why?  Because that person trusts his/her intuitive proclivities – in the form of beliefs and preferences.

And normal life – the life the individual to a large degree has arranged for him/herself – supports those “biases.”  But, “[w]e are often confident even when we are wrong, and an objective observer is more likely to detect our errors than we are.”[5]  Can students think of a time when a friend (without mentioning names) saw a situation – perhaps one that was important to that friend – one way, but the student could plainly see that the friend was totally off base?

And the problem does not only affect observations or judgements by regular folks, but it can also affect experts and how they see their field of knowledge.  Kahneman reminds his readers that in any specialty, the experts share certain assumptions.  For example, social scientists, by and large, use to and do share assumptions concerning human nature in their thinking.  These biases can be so ingrained they don’t even deserve mention.  Kahneman cites two examples.

One, in line with what he is pointing out, as recent as the 1970s,[6] the assumption was that regular folks are generally rational in their thoughts and, therefore, they make sound, reasonable decisions.  And two, since they are reasonable, heightened emotions, such as fear or hatred or heightened fondness, account for those other decisions that are not reasonable or are irrational.  Led by such experts, such as Kahneman, and their research, these biases are no longer excepted, at least, not in a simplistic fashion.

Students benefit from questioning their own thinking, whether it is everyday thinking or the “this is important” type of thinking.  What this blog would hope is that such questioning by teachers would lead to an understanding that one needs others – the objective observers – to point out when one engages in the inevitable misdirected biases.  Of course, that predisposes the person has a bias to listen and consider and judge what he/she is being told.

Humans live in a nuanced world and part of getting a handle on it – a handle that is more likely to prove effective and rewarding – is to be able to detect and deal with those nuances.  Part of that ability hinges on seeking, considering, and judging what oneself and others have to say about one’s thoughts as well as one’s actions.

---

[1] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, (New York, NY:  Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2011).

[2] See “The Structure and Processes of the Mind,” August 30, 2016, and “The Structure and Processes of the Mind (cont.),” September 1, 2016.  Their URLs are https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-structure-and-processes-of-mind.html AND https://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-structure-and-processes-of-mind-cont.html respectively.

[3] Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 3 (Kindle edition).

[4] Ibid., 8 (Kindle edition).

[5] Ibid., 4 (Kindle edition).

[6] If an event happened in this writer’s lifetime, by definition, it is recent.