>
>First, this is a misuse of the word "meritocracy" -- the root is RULE,
>remember. A meritocracy has to do with power over others, and that is
>not the subject of this thread, which involves giving reward (moral or
>material) for excellence, _not_ with power.
>
I was, as I often am, too cryptic. Let me lengthen a bit. The current
system is not a meritocracy but it advertizes itself as being one. Most
people believe that the best make it to the top; that if you're brave
enough, talented enough, tough enough, hard-working enough,
etc.,....you'll make it.... you will succeed. One way to look like a
meritocracy is to have awards -- Oscars, Nobels, etc. In reality, it's
much more the reverse. The more it's not a meritocracy, the more
"contests" there are. True in the depression; true now. Survivals,
marathons, "So you think you can dance...", etc.
I was not arguing against the need for appreciation, gratitude, understanding....I was arguing against adulation and the kind of "honors" that justifies the desperate conditions under which everyone who is not a "winner" works and lives.
>And I am beginning to resent your insistence on this -- you are claiming
>that YOU, YOURSELF, are superior to the rest of us in that you can take
>proper satisfaction in your achievement in isolation while we weak and
>silly others want someone to admire our mud pies.
>
No, I never said anything about isolation. In fact I argued vehemently
that stuff doesn't happen in isolation. I said that having the respect
of people I respect matters a lot. Having people understand what I am
saying matters a lot.
Obviously, I have failed.
Joanna