Social mobility isn’t actually randomly distributed across society; it’s actually concentrated in a particular subgroup, and in particular it’s concentrated among those who are already fairly high up in the hierarchy. Social mobility, or movement up or down the social hierarchy, is a major characteristic of the class system. Health and wellness is essentially a subjective experience. Gradients in resources and exposures associated with socioeconomic factors may reflect the impact of subjective social status (i.e. where one perceives oneself as fitting relative to others in a social hierarchy determined by wealth, influence, and prestige). This consists of an idea of a hierarchical system in which elites are superior, have no empathy for the middle class, in fact, express distain for those who they consider inferior. In this case it is the middle class who were caught off guard with the economic crisis, and in fact, are blamed for the economic problems.
The American Constitution identified a hierarchy of men who benefited from it and women, whom it left disempowered. It created a hierarchy of whites who enjoyed liberty, and blacks and native Americans, who were considered lesser type and therefore did not share in the equal rights of men. The Civil War and Universal Suffrage eventually modified this format somewhat. This definition of equality meant that the same laws applied to the rich as to the poor, and had nothing to do with integrated education or unemployment benefits. This liberty meant the state could not confiscate a man’s property (except in unusual circumstances) or tell him what to do with it. This American order established over 200 years ago upheld the hierarchy of wealth, which some thought was mandated by God, while others viewed as representing the immutable laws of nature.
Ayn Rand developed a hierarchy of values: A man needs ideas regarding what to pursue in life and ideas with respect to the required means to get what he is seeking. He needs to identify the crucial indispensable values to his life and distinguish them from lesser values and non-values. He requires an explicit value hierarchy and should organize his time, effort, and lifestyle around that hierarchy. A person’s top values get a disproportionate amount of his attention; the next highest level of values gets the next call, and so on down his hierarchy. By eliminating non-values, filling one’s life with things that he loves, and doing those things in the order in which he loves them, a man is on track to accomplish what he wants to do with his finite life. To be a value means to be good for someone and for something. Life is one’s fundamental value because life is conditional and requires a particular course of action to maintain it.
By the end of the 20th century, individualism, happiness, and capitalism were part of the core values of Western culture. Individualism is the belief that one’s place in the societal hierarchy – their occupational class, income and wealth, and power and prestige as well as the placement such as health and disease status – comes through one’s own efforts, and the right to make free choices which feeds consumer capitalism. Individualism fueled the American Dream – the hope for a better quality of life through following the rules, leading to a higher standard of living than their parents had. Meritocratic individualism creates a blind spot to social supports provided by the community, allowing individuals to then give full credit to themselves for their successes. But so long as the system worked for them – so long as they were wealthier than their parents had been and could expect that their kids would be better off than them – people trusted that politicians were ultimately on their side.
Social classes are hierarchical groupings of individuals that are usually based on wealth, educational attainment, occupation, income, or membership in a subculture or social network. The class system in America puts those with the most wealth, power, and prestige at the top of the hierarchy and those with the least at the bottom. It is necessary to challenge a hierarchical system in which elites are superior, have no empathy for the middle class, in fact, express distain for those who they consider inferior. For example, it is the middle class who were caught off guard with the 2008 economic crisis, and in fact, the plutocrats ensure they are blamed for the economic problems. The level of equality of opportunity determines how people perceive inequality. Societies in which individuals have the same chances to obtain valuable outcomes such as income, education and health, have a higher tolerance to inequality.
Individualism was established as a Western value during the Enlightenment. Individualism is the belief that one’s place in the social hierarchy – their occupational class, income and wealth, and power and prestige as well as the effects of such placement such as health and disease status – comes through one’s own effort. The lower people are on the socioeconomic hierarchy the higher their risk of developing chronic diseases, and the shorter their life expectancy. Income level interacts with other determinants to create differences in life experiences – quality of early life, education, employment and working conditions, food security, housing, social exclusion, etc. – and differences in health status. Nietzsche believed that true genius is innate and never acquired – one is born superior which determined social rank. This Nietzschean hierarchy is a so-called meritocracy – a system of success based on persons luckiest in health and genetic endowment, luckiest in social and economic resources.
At the beginning of the 21st century most scholars of culture believe that every culture has its typical beliefs, norms and values, but these are in constant flux. The culture may transform itself in response to changes in its environment or through interaction with neighboring cultures. But cultures also under go transitions due to their own internal dynamics. Even a completely isolated culture existing in an ecologically stable environment cannot avoid change. Unlike the law of physics which are free of inconsistencies, every man-made order is packed with internal contradictions. Cultures are constantly trying to reconcile these contradictions, and this process fuels change. Ever since the French revolution, people throughout the world have gradually come to see both social equality and individual freedom as fundamental values. Yet the two values contradict each other. Equality can be ensured only by curtailing the freedoms of those who are better off. Guaranteeing that every individual will be free to do as he wishes inevitably short-changes equality.1
One of the criticisms that postmodernists direct at modernism is its reliance on the development and maintenance of hierarchies. Hierarchical institutions are valuable if we believe that what the hierarchy perpetuates is more important to the well-being of society than what individuals might want. We might not have the ability to recognize what is important to the well-being of the greater society, this argument goes, but the hierarchy keeps the society’s needs in balance. If the postmodern spirit were to be summed up in simple terms, it might lie in this inherent struggle to avoid hierarchy in any way it manifests itself. Postmodernism has reacted to the authoritarian hierarchization of culture by subverting conventions blurring previously distinct boundaries and rejecting traditional aesthetic values. Lyotard believes: knowledge has become a commodity and consequently a means of empowerment; grand narratives are authoritative, establishing their political and cultural views as absolute truths beyond any criticism.
In 1979 Jean-François Lyotard introduced the term ‘postmodernism’, which was previously only used by art critics, into philosophy and social sciences, with the following observation: “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives”. Lyotard sees knowledge as being communicated through narratives, or different ways of interpreting the world. According to Lyotard, “grand narratives” are “unifying and controlling narratives of the past” – dominant narratives posing as guiding and transcendent stories of history – which have historically served as guarantors of truth, knowledge and meaning. Importantly, as he argues, within the realm of Western civilization, grand narratives have also been intertwined with the history of cultural imperialism. One such master narrative, the neoliberal project, serves the interest of a tiny minority with a myth that appears to “include” everybody; operates under the assumption of the notion of universal truth, while postmodernism explains the loss of its credibility.
While poor and middle-class wages were falling, the rich saw their incomes grow by 9.3 percent from 2000-2017, in the midst of the Global Recession. Poverty reduction requires continued strong growth, but it also requires that growth be inclusive. Modernism and postmodernism are fluid and dynamic oppositions which sway back and forth between hierarchy and anarchy, centralization and decentralization, purpose and play, authority and deconstruction, continuity and discontinuity. To sum it up, postmodernism is not a radical break with modernism. Instead, it is a cyclical moment until the emergence of a new condition. Modernism and postmodernism both surprisingly comprise and combine elements of revolutionary nature and conservatism, celebration of some sorts of ideas and their criticism. The growing populist movement in advanced economies is a predictable response to stagnating wages, middle class contraction, and worker displacement. Yet populist policies will make the problem worse in the long run.2 In order to combat this growing discontent, it is necessary to reframe the narrative on inequality.
1 Yuval Noah Harari (2014) Sapiens p. 180-183.2 Modernism and Postmodernism. (04 April 2017) https://enlightngo.org/language/en/post/3759