Myth to Realities

Posted: January 5th, 2023

Myth to Realities

Name:

Institutional Affiliation:

Myth to Realities

The American dream has made the United States stand out as the land of opportunity for many that seek financial success, yet in reality, the popularized outcomes of a meritocratic American society remains a myth for many Americans and a vast multitude of immigrants that cross great distances to pursue the promised financial success in this country. Although the American society promises financial success to all those that are willing to put in hard work, people in the country soon realize that meritocracy alone is hardly sufficient to deliver the promised fine life often depicted in the American culture. Specifically,  many Americans and immigrants quickly realize that their hard work alone would not deliver the promises of a good and financially independent life. They also realize that certain people who have been used as examples of the American dream success have worked hard enjoyed some hard-to-reach luck based on their upbringing, family links, and a series of random events. This group of people capitalized on some unprecedented opportunities that placed them at a great advantage over the rest of their peers. In this regard, I propose that people chasing the American dream of hard work that delivers financial success should consider the place of luck in their endeavors. Believing in meritocracy alone will not deliver the legendary American dream of success; rather, a convergence of preparedness and opportunism prepares one to progress towards financial success as one of the goals of the American dream.

My argument begins by noting that first, people are not born equal; instead, their families’ socioeconomic status gives them a head start that dictates their financial success in the future, thus enjoying the proverbial ‘silver spoon’ phenomenon. Second, through familial affiliations, they meet others of their kind, which predisposes them to higher opportunities for financial success. Third, their socialization makes them unaware of the advantages and privileges they have in society, which extends the distorted narrative that they worked hard to get to where they are, widening further the inequalities observed in American society.  Two books that deal with the myth of meritocracy in the American society address the issue of luck and its effect of changes myths into realities in some similar and dissimilar ways. In this analysis, I bring out the different perspectives that the two authors present on the role that luck plays in starting and continuing the disparities in material success in American society while dispelling the myth of meritocracy as a major element of such success.     

In making this argument, I compare and contrast the authors of two books; The meritocracy myth and Success and luck: Good fortune and the myth of meritocracy, specifically, McNamee and Miller (2018) and Frank (2016), respectively, in the manner in which they address the theme of luck. More specifically, I discuss the broad theme of luck from the presentations and perspectives of the authors of the two books and break it down into three supporting points that I have broken down as subthemes, namely luck at birth, luck in opportunities, and luck as an entitlement to the materially successful Americans.

McNamee and Miller’s Work

In their book The meritocracy myth, McNamee and Miller (2018) explain the beginning and continuation of success differences in American society by unpacking and interpreting the American dream and its supposed bases of meritocracy. I feel that the authors view meritocracy as rhetoric commonly used in American society to conceal and maintain the socioeconomic inequalities that dictate who succeeds and who does not in the United States. The authors take time to explain how inherited good fortunes prepare some select class of people to exploit luck and project their lucky head start to get ahead of others, materially, while all along denying that luck and not hard work placed them in their advantaged status in the end. I noted that McNamee and Miller (2018) take time to explore and explain the lifespan of the privileged few, starting from an advantaged birth into wealth, through carefully organized socialization into the privileged class, through schooling and marriage, and finally the entitlement that this gtoup uses to explain its so called hard-earned material success, without explaining what role luck has played in its fortunes. 

Luck at Birth

In analyzing how McNamee and Miller (2018) addresses the subtheme that some Americas are born lucky to succeed, I observed that they introduce the theme of luck in the creation of successful Americans by the way they begin life with a silver spoon. Materially successful Americans base their success on being born in privilege. Such people have parents that are already wealthy, who pass it to them though inheritance. In this regard, I argue that inheritance of wealth is the original cause of the inequalities observed in the society. In other words, parent with wealth can leave it to their children, while those that do not possess it have nothing to give, except the myth of hard work to invigorate the children’s pursuit of the American dream.

Children do not choose their parents, and therefore cannot decided when to be lucky or not. However, they are lucky to be born into wealthy families, reason why McNamee and Miller (2018) talk of the silver spoon, which gives the lucky children their lucky start at life. I argue that the luck of being born into such families comes with several socialization routes such as being protected from the less privileged in society and creating a taste for the finer things in life early. Such children lead high-class lives and grow thinking that everyone else is like them, thus all along, being ignorant of their privileged origin. This is why McNamee and Miller (2018, p. 43) explain the economic race as being an intergenerational relay race rather than a single dash to the finish line. Therefore, I argue that children from rich families start their lives closer to the finish line or material success, unlike those born in poverty. I feel that McNamee and Miller (2018, p. 43) use this metaphor to explain how inheritance (read luck), direct or indirect, comes before merit in the journey towards material success.

I noticed that McNamee and Miller (2018) use the concept of inheritance to bring out the theme of luck among children from wealthy families. I reason that such children start enjoying the wealth of their parents early for no other reason but being the sons and daughters of rich parents, regardless of their abilities, talents and competencies, and more importantly, work ethic. Moreover, the children are introduced to the social and cultural capital enjoyed by an exclusive class of people in the United States, mainly of Caucasian descent and Protestant faith (McNamee & Miller, 2018, p. 58).  

Luck in Opportunities

In analyzing the way McNamee and Miller (2018) deal with the subtheme of opportunities to succeed, I find that they argue that networks inherited from parents rather than skills acquired through education and workplace experience, are most important in realizing the American dream. I argue that because of the luck of being born into wealth families, privileged children capitalize on the social and cultural capital to access more favorable opportunities than do their disempowered counterparts. Although these children may eventually become highly skilled from being well schooled, I observed that McNamee and Miller (2018) explain that the opportunity of learning in prestigious institutions that develop a wide array of skills and interaction with children from similar wealthy backgrounds already bends the opportunities to success in the American society. I believe that any child born and reared in such circumstances would end up with the same opportunities for material success. Moreover, I reasoned that these privileged children extend their luck by maintaining a small circle of highly influential individuals and families even in adulthood, luck that impoverished children will not have. I noticed that McNamee and Miller (2018, p. 71) use the theory of the strength of weak ties to explain this situation among rich children.

However, I argue that not all Americans are lucky enough to join the elite class of wealthy Americans, and in turn, lucky enough to encounter the most profitable opportunities to create and possess material wealth and success. From McNamee and Miller (2018) explanations, luck is a critical accompaniment of skills and preparedness in the pursuit and realization of the American dream. However, I argue that these authors suggest the utility of luck in capitalizing wealth-creating opportunities, without using the term directly.     

Luck as an Entitlement

In exploring how McNamee and Miller (2018) explain the subtheme of the entitlement to success, I observed that they argue against removing the political, social and economic privileges that are enjoyed by a select group of Americans. I bring this up because wealthy American families, with the exception of individuals like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, resist any political, legislative and regulatory obstacles placed to limit their pursuit and enjoyment of wealth. For instance, I noticed that McNamee and Miller (2018) highlight the failure of legislative attempts to impose an estate tax, the political control of the elite class, and the excessive consumerism that is often displayed by the lucky few in the American society as some of the most obvious displays of social inequality in the United States.   

Frank’s Work

In analyzing the book by Frank (2016), I note that he delves into the issue of luck and meritocracy slightly differently from McNamee and Miller (2018) by focusing more on the major role that luck plays in the material success of Americans. I argue that unlike McNamee and Miller (2018) who dwells on a wider scope of the myth of meritocracy in the American context, Frank (2016) focuses more on the role played by luck, in its different forms, which has created a group of Americans that have become ignorant of their privileged status, exhibited by their excessive consumerism. In explaining the material success enjoyed by a minority of Americans, I note that Frank (2016) explains luck as a fundamental concept and the huge role it plays in maintaining social inequalities and the mythical accounts that extend an unrealistic rhetoric of meritocracy. After explaining luck as a series of random event that are usually trivialized in the trajectory to material success, I notice how Frank (2016) goes on to paint a picture of how the environment surrounding the lucky Americans is rigged to their advantage. I argue that such an environment is created at the expense of the larger society that keeps struggling with hard work to merit their elusive material success. I noticed that his work in the book is full of examples drawn from personal experiences with luck and those of others, particularly famous personalities, media depictions, and renowned writers, to support his conceptualization of the luck concept. Such a personal explanation makes his explanation more convincing than those of McNamee and Miller (2018), thus providing a better reflection of the theme of luck that I am trying to explain.

I observed that throughout the book, Frank (2016) embraces himself as an unembarrassed beneficiary of an already unequal society and market environment that helped project him to professorship in an Ivy League university at Princeton that has been helpful in creating several other lucky successful Americans. I noticed that he even explains the false belief about meritocracy that is perpetuated by his kind, who claims that their success is merited without revealing or admitting the role played by luck in their journey towards success. The other difference with the work of Frank (2016) is that he closes his narrative by addressing the policy issues around attempts to equalize society across the world and the reasons of their failure. I noticed that Frank (2016) extend the theme of luck further when he notes that the market is part of the indicators of luck because it creates luxury goods and encourages their trade and reckless consumption that does not consider the less fortunate in society. I am particularly drawn to his explanation of why consumption tax is a probable societal equalizer, yet its implementation and effectiveness are programed to fail by the political systems that also benefit from the prevailing social inequalities. This is because it helps explain that the wealthy Americans are protected politically to continue enjoying the fruits of their luck.    

Luck at Birth

In addressing how Frank (2016) deals with the theme of luck at birth, I notice that he uses the concepts of genes and environment to explain why some people are luckier than are others in the pursuit of economic success. He notes that some people are predisposed to intelligence and talent because they have genes, which they inherited from their parents. Often, it also requires a major stroke of luck for such genes to become activated in the body for positive personality, physical and mental outcomes to shine. This is why I feel that Frank (2016) insists that some American children are programed for success even before they are born, a point that differentiates his explanations from those of McNamee and Miller (2018). Moreover, I notice that Frank (2016) explains this theme further when he insist that  the environment in which one is bred, socialized and nurtured is critical in promoting one’s luck at economic success. i feel that Frank (2016) does justice to the theme of luck by presenting a global perspective to the role of luck at the beginning of life by observing the luck to gain material prosperity shines only on those born in wealthy and highly-developed economies and diminishes for those in poor ones. I feel that this explains the situation in the United States considering that highly-developed countries spend substantially on public utilities that increase the luck of succeeding materially for its citizens, unlike poor countries in which public expenditure is low and therefore good luck is a rarity. The mixture of biological and economic explanations of the origins of luck by Frank (2016) brings out the subtheme of luck as a cause of being born to succeed better than does McNamee and Miller (2018).

Luck in Opportunities

In revisiting the theme of luck as providing opportunities to succeed and the explanations that Frank (2016) provides, I noticed he introduces critical insight about luck by equating it to wastefulness. He notes that the few lucky American flaunt their wealth though consumerism in the guise of sharing with others. This is insightful because it brings out the theme of luck using the contradictory behavior of the wealthy in society. In addition, I feel that the marketplace has conspired with this elite societal segment to create ways in which it can differentiate itself from the rest of society in a bid to act as beacons of hope for all those that seek to pursue the American dream. The use of the term ‘Mathew Effect’ by Frank (2016) to explain how seemingly minor events have a ripple effect to those already positioned to recognize and utilize such opportunities. I am not lost to how Frank (2016) explains how luck landed him a lecturing job at the prestigious Cornell University amid a bout of flu through several interviews during which he felt he have made a terrible impression as a candidate. Again, he uses personal examples of his tortuous journey towards writing and publishing to explain that although he worked hard generating manuscripts, he was not lucky enough to have them published until on one unprecedented occasion, publishers just accepted his work, an event he attributes to shear good fortune. This author brings out the luck theme very well by insisting that many people work hard, but do not enjoy economic success because luck is not on their side.

Luck as an Entitlement

In revisiting the subtheme of success as an entitlement for those that are lucky enough, I refer to Frank (2016) who notes that the rich segment of the American society feel entitled to enjoy societal privileges. It is interesting that the wealthy still expect society to recognize their higher status and grant them advantages, which are often denied to the underprivileged. From his writings, I understood that this feeling of entitlement is created early through schooling in high-class private schools and universities, and explanation used by McNamee and Miller (2018) as well. Again, Frank (2016) uses a personal example from an experiment he conducted in which, a group leader ended up enjoying the extra cookie because not only did the teammates expect their leader to benefit but the leader also expected to be privileged and also expected others to accommodate such expectations (Frank, 2016). He continues to explain that the feeling of entitlement increases with age and is characteristic of lucky people that do not want to explain their good fortunes using random strokes of luck but rather using its inevitability. The way Frank (2016) deals with the subtheme of entitlement through his life experiences makes it clear that luck is not a myth but a reality when explaining why the successful Americans do not acknowledge its role in their lives.   

Conclusion

Although McNamee and Miller (2018) and Frank (2016) address the same controversial and highly-debatable theme of luck and meritocracy, their narratives differ in focus, form, and structure. Both authors acknowledge the critical role that luck or a series of unique social accidents favor a select few and disenfranchise many others in the American society. However, while McNamee and Miller (2018) take a philosophical angle in explaining the myths surrounding meritocracy and the concept of luck that has become accepted silently to avoid upsetting the status quo in the American society, Frank (2016) adopts a realistic approach.  McNamee and Miller (2018) addresses the issue of luck by highlighting the disconnect between belief or principle and actual practice in the American society. According to them, Americans generally embrace the principles of diligence and revulsion towards artificial nonmerit privileges, yet they tolerate their persistence in society and the continuing social and material inequalities they maintain. Contrastingly, Frank (2016) is more lucid about the luck theme and therefore, deals with it more expansively compared to McNamee and Miller (2018). He uses personal narratives to set the discussion tone ending in a practical proposition towards equalizing the American society and ending the privileged status that few Americans have perpetually enjoyed across generations at the expense of many hard working others. He even proposes the imposition of consumption tax as a practical solution to end the fruits of luck and unearned privileges, and a route to social justice in the American society, while McNamee and Miller (2018) delve into a series of ambitions and unattainable propositions of ending the social effects of luck and unmerited privileges of the select few. Nonetheless, despite the different approaches that both authors use to address the theme of luck and its role in the pursuit of the American dream, they agree that it has contributed to the growing, pervasive and persistent inequalities that exist in the American society. More importantly, the authors invite a critical debate on exposing and addressing the myths of the famous American dream that would eventually help convert myths to realities.      

References

Frank, R. H. (2016). Success and luck: Good fortune and the myth of meritocracy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

McNamee, S. J., & Miller, R. K. (2018). The meritocracy myth, 4^th edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.