How do Americans view equality? This question was previously addressed in
this blog. It expressed the opinion that
in the history of the US, there have been five different views or orientations
relating to equality. The five are: genetic
elitism, earned elitism, equal condition, regulated condition, and equal
result. This posting takes a closer look
at earned elitism.
Here is what
this blog reported earlier on this orientation:
Unfortunately, for the
sake of democracy, the ideal of elitism, perhaps under a different guise, was
not seen to be so disagreeable … The
orientation that was most prominently supported was earned elitism. This orientation promotes what Thomas
Jefferson called a natural aristocracy and [had] a lot of scholarly support,
either as a good way to run a society or as a condition that is simply
inevitable. This is not to say that that
support [was] free from challenge.
People who espouse earned elitism believe that individuals who
enjoy superior human assets (generally talents or skills deemed beneficial) do
so because of their efforts and hard work.
Some are naturally disposed to exert the necessary effort to become more
talented and those talents should be allowed and encouraged to emerge. If this takes place, they will naturally be
recognized by their fellow citizens.
Their superiority generally entitles them to above normal consideration
in society in the form of status, wealth, material possessions, etc. This might
and usually does, if allowed to materialize, include political privileges. This
general entitlement is not based on those “gifted” purchasing the advantages,
but instead owed them because of their superior, acknowledged position in
society. The central belief of this
orientation is that societies are run by the elites, and that's simply the way
things are.[1]
Mentioned in this quote is Thomas Jefferson. In a previous posting, cited evidence, to
support that this was Jefferson’s view, is the compilation of letters Jefferson
and John Adams maintained during their lives.[2]
This blog has
also argued that a number of the nation’s founding fathers supported public
schools. Schooling at the time of the
founding was a hodgepodge of various efforts, but there was no public-school
system. It is safe to say, most
Americans received little to no formal education. But, among the founding fathers, various
arguments were advanced for the establishment of public schooling. One of these founders was Jefferson.
Here, this
writer wants to share another source – that of an expert – regarding
Jefferson’s ideas on education – a topic highly related to the elitism-equality
issue. One would be justified to see Jefferson’s
concern as not a total commitment to advancing equality – perhaps it is a
highly reserved or limited view of equality.
Garry Wills, in his book regarding Jefferson’s thinking and motivations
in writing the Declaration of
Independence as he did, shares Jefferson’s view on public education. This view adds a bit of substance to this
founder’s earned elitism beliefs.
Here is Wills’
account of Jefferson’s educational ideas:
It is often remarked that Jefferson advocated
universal education. But the
characteristic touch in his proposal was the use of a mathematical progression
of students through a sieve of equal units.
He wanted the State of Virginia to “lay off every county into small
districts of five or six miles square, called hundreds” … Each “hundred” was to
offer every child a three-year course of publicly supported education in
reading, writing, and arithmetic. From
each hundred the one best student still needing public support was to advance
to a grammar school (one for every five hundreds) to learn Greek, Latin,
geography, and higher mathematics. After
one or two years in grammar school, the “best genius” in each class was to be
granted a further education of six years “and the residue dismissed.” The crop of the children has now been reduced
to “twenty of the best geniuses raked from the rubbish annually.” At the end of six years, this class was to be halved again,
only its top part going on to
college. The system, he claimed, had the
merit of “turning out ten annually of superior genius” and another ten, of the
second rank, who would not go to college but receive a good education
nonetheless. Meanwhile, the “rubbish”
would at least have been introduced to reading and writing.[3]
Understandably, Wills proceeds to critique this plan.
If instituted, it would introduce a
tremendously competitive system and, with “representative” advancement, the
inevitable denial of students, who do better in one district than others from other
districts, not being chosen for advancement.
This and other possibilities – and wrong-headed assumptions about the
nature of learning – would lead to serious unfairness.
But the
overall concern here is that such an educational plan would bring to light the beliefs
of an earned elitism orientation. As reported
earlier, they are:
1.
Some people develop highly sophisticated talents and society should hold these
people up to higher standards than the rest.
At best this takes on a paternalistic sense of obligation to those not
so advantaged.
2.
Those in society who show
higher levels of developed
talent should be considered exceptional and given more privileges in
employment, material rewards, respect, and political position.
3.
When considering which
people will advance in the workplace, the number one element to look for is
those who have worked hard to
develop exceptional talents.
4.
Those who have sacrificed to become geniuses or otherwise talented people should not
be judged by the same ethical standards as the rest … they operate under a
different morality. For example, society
should expect more meaningful contributions from these citizens and, if not
attained, that failure should be judged a moral shortcoming. On the other hand, minor infractions of moral
codes, those particularly associated with personal habits and social
interactions, should be considered less seriously than would be the case in
dealing with others.
5.
People who have not worked
hard to develop their abilities should be discouraged
from having or even seeking influence.[4]
For
all of their shortcomings, one can see these beliefs under-girding Jefferson’s
educational plan.
[1] “A Qualified Belief in Inequality,” January 29, 2016,
accessed May 3, 2018, http://gravitascivics.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-qualified-belief-in-inequality.html.
[2] Lester J. Cappon (editor), The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The
Complete Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams (Chapel
Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1959).
Specifically look at letter from Jefferson to Adams, October 28, 1813, pages 387-392.
[3] Garry Wills, Inventing
America: Jefferson’s Declaration of
Independence (New York, NY: Vintage
Books, 1978/2018), 147. (emphasis in
original)
No comments:
Post a Comment