I feel the truth in what you write here so much that it's almost like it's about me (though I know it's not). My education wasn't an elite one, but I did manage to make myself seen and respected and impressed the "right" people enough that I drew the kind of attention that propelled me into nonprofit board member roles, into politics, and into Learning & Development positions for the Department of Energy, Microsoft, Depuy Synthes (Johnson & Johnson), and Harvard Business Publishing.
But it was once I reached that latter platform and was tasked to help a team develop a leadership program on professional networking that I really soured on aiding and abetting the institution. I "saw how the sausage was made" and felt deepening resentment. I grew hateful of everything they stood for and saw them as signifying the source of all my pain and suffering and that of my loved ones, and as an outsized culprit behind most of the socioeconomic ills in the U.S. and beyond.
It was that "beyond" that became my last straw. Feeling like an accomplice to their neoliberal imperialist ambitions was heavily contributing to my increasing mental and physical unwellness. In the end, the day I quit was the day I got threatened for authentically exercising my agency to draw a professional boundary. People who need to maintain a firm grip on an institution's image dislike someone from my class having the audacity to exercise such autonomy.
Yes, social class mobility has waned in America so badly that I left the country forever. I don't want to play the elite's stupid power games anymore. I just want to be left alone to live my life as I like. I brought my youngest kid and his partner with me. There's nothing left for them in there but a short and brutal life. The U.S. as "the land of opportunity" is a dead idea.
The thing I learned once I made my way into elite circles, including the kinds of political campaign events where you (or your patron) must pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to even be allowed into the venue is just how incredibly mediocre the people at the top are. Seeing people less intelligent (and less empathetic) than yourself living in luxury while ruling the world in such a way that most of our lives are being actively made worse puts a bad taste in one's mouth.
Yes, absolutely. I would push that a bit further, arguing not just from a moral viewpoint, but also from a governance viewpoint, that democratic governance without generosity from the ones with control cannot survive for long.
agreed. FDR through LBJ bought us about 50 years...then the greed really crept in...luckily my Dad received his boost in the 1950s and 1960s. just in the nick of time before the great abdication of responsibility kicked in...
I think the desire for agency varies across individuals on a pretty wide spectrum, just like other psychological attributes. There's probably an innate component and a socially instilled one -- the usual conflation of nature & nurture. Agency provokes anxiety in some people, who prefer the safety and predictability of a particular social role they find themselves in early on, even if that role isn't something to brag about. Erich Fromm wrote about the allure of "escape from freedom" in the context of politics, but I think this concept also applies to individuals choosing their life paths.
agreed. neurological traits definitely affect the pursuit of agency which can create ironies of class privilege (i.e. opportunity) and weak agency. This basically describes my graduate school years.
Thank you for this article...I think it succinctly sums up a point often overlooked in a U.S. culture seemingly besotted with the hope that attaining apparent agency is enough: one can seem to have scrabbled up onto the playing field of "the elites," should one "try hard enough," but even if that occurs, one's agency is not as nuanced, nor as full of potential. Agency is a social function, not merely an individual characteristic, and so, as you point out, society and the self can believe that opportunities are equal enough, yet fail to realize until too late that those without elite or elite-adjacent networks from the start are facing a much more challenging go of it, one that comes with much fewer opportunities. I think, even for those who have the personality and resources to leave their (non-elite) communities to pursue ambitions, be creative, and earn comparatively well, the odds of falling through the system's systematic cracks are much greater. Lacking a well-developed network is a form of starting from behind, and even if one can manage to develop a moderately good network, one's background, current connections, and access to wealth/opportunity still shadow one's ability to exercise agency. Someone from a less-than-elite background is also often put in a "one down" position of networking and seeking to exercise influence without their efforts being perceived as being as valuable of those with more connections and access to opportunity -- the striver, in that case, is closer to pleading for pity and "a break" than someone better connected who can exercise greater autonomy and agency because they are situated more reciprocally and don't have face the same degree of opportunity scarcity. Feeling as though you have higher dependency and fewer connections does, I think, limit agency and more quickly leads to blind alleys and careers that fail to flourish fully while also engendering more desperation or befuddlement. Which is part of life, but which also doesn't further fairness or even effort-based or merit-based advancement. I would hope people with higher-value connections and richer opportunities would, as you advise, perceive the inequities, realize the potential in others who are less fortunate, and be willing to extend invitations to more and better opportunities. Relying on voluntary responses, however, is not systematic and furthers an erratic, pinball-like approach to exercising individual agency. I wonder what policies could assist or how people could be supported in enhancing their own agency sustainably?
This post is one of the most profound insights for me. The need to escape the social world you know so well is what holds so many. Even me, the low family engaged individualist had a youthful tribe of friends that I chose over opportunities I wanted to pursue. It may have all turned out for the best and helped avoid going it alone. But just never quite connected the dots. That is what I love about your work.
Thanks, Sharon. Millions of Americans 'escape' only to find themselves unable to re-create strong relationships beyond a life partner. This is very risky, as it only takes one sudden death, and that person is bobbing around in an ocean of weak ties who can't be bothered.
I enjoyed your article and writing. I’m fascinated with social class and social mobility and agree with your points about agency and non-agency.
My partner and I talked about mobility on the way back from a wedding in reference to my niece’s fiancé who grew up middle class, but is now a physician. As you know, moving from one class to another within one’s lifetime is statistically uncommon. But he has the teeth to prove it.
To answer your question, I was a beneficiary of @robhenderson’s (Yale) generosity, having been mentioned in one of his Substack roundups.
Generosity is definitely on the wane. Not exactly sure why though. Maybe the competition and complexity of life ? makes people less apt to assist someone else? Vaguely reminds me of Little Feat lyrics: People fly high, begin to lose sight
‘cause you can’t see very clearly when you’re in flight.
Very thoughtful and thought-provoking article!
thanks for reading!
I feel the truth in what you write here so much that it's almost like it's about me (though I know it's not). My education wasn't an elite one, but I did manage to make myself seen and respected and impressed the "right" people enough that I drew the kind of attention that propelled me into nonprofit board member roles, into politics, and into Learning & Development positions for the Department of Energy, Microsoft, Depuy Synthes (Johnson & Johnson), and Harvard Business Publishing.
But it was once I reached that latter platform and was tasked to help a team develop a leadership program on professional networking that I really soured on aiding and abetting the institution. I "saw how the sausage was made" and felt deepening resentment. I grew hateful of everything they stood for and saw them as signifying the source of all my pain and suffering and that of my loved ones, and as an outsized culprit behind most of the socioeconomic ills in the U.S. and beyond.
It was that "beyond" that became my last straw. Feeling like an accomplice to their neoliberal imperialist ambitions was heavily contributing to my increasing mental and physical unwellness. In the end, the day I quit was the day I got threatened for authentically exercising my agency to draw a professional boundary. People who need to maintain a firm grip on an institution's image dislike someone from my class having the audacity to exercise such autonomy.
Yes, social class mobility has waned in America so badly that I left the country forever. I don't want to play the elite's stupid power games anymore. I just want to be left alone to live my life as I like. I brought my youngest kid and his partner with me. There's nothing left for them in there but a short and brutal life. The U.S. as "the land of opportunity" is a dead idea.
thanks for sharing your experiences...getting networked into the 'top' is indeed disillusioning for many. Increasingly so.
The thing I learned once I made my way into elite circles, including the kinds of political campaign events where you (or your patron) must pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to even be allowed into the venue is just how incredibly mediocre the people at the top are. Seeing people less intelligent (and less empathetic) than yourself living in luxury while ruling the world in such a way that most of our lives are being actively made worse puts a bad taste in one's mouth.
Noblesse oblige is by its very nature quiet. So, you won't hear about "elites" lifting up other people very often.
Yes, absolutely. I would push that a bit further, arguing not just from a moral viewpoint, but also from a governance viewpoint, that democratic governance without generosity from the ones with control cannot survive for long.
agreed. FDR through LBJ bought us about 50 years...then the greed really crept in...luckily my Dad received his boost in the 1950s and 1960s. just in the nick of time before the great abdication of responsibility kicked in...
I think the desire for agency varies across individuals on a pretty wide spectrum, just like other psychological attributes. There's probably an innate component and a socially instilled one -- the usual conflation of nature & nurture. Agency provokes anxiety in some people, who prefer the safety and predictability of a particular social role they find themselves in early on, even if that role isn't something to brag about. Erich Fromm wrote about the allure of "escape from freedom" in the context of politics, but I think this concept also applies to individuals choosing their life paths.
agreed. neurological traits definitely affect the pursuit of agency which can create ironies of class privilege (i.e. opportunity) and weak agency. This basically describes my graduate school years.
Thank you for this article...I think it succinctly sums up a point often overlooked in a U.S. culture seemingly besotted with the hope that attaining apparent agency is enough: one can seem to have scrabbled up onto the playing field of "the elites," should one "try hard enough," but even if that occurs, one's agency is not as nuanced, nor as full of potential. Agency is a social function, not merely an individual characteristic, and so, as you point out, society and the self can believe that opportunities are equal enough, yet fail to realize until too late that those without elite or elite-adjacent networks from the start are facing a much more challenging go of it, one that comes with much fewer opportunities. I think, even for those who have the personality and resources to leave their (non-elite) communities to pursue ambitions, be creative, and earn comparatively well, the odds of falling through the system's systematic cracks are much greater. Lacking a well-developed network is a form of starting from behind, and even if one can manage to develop a moderately good network, one's background, current connections, and access to wealth/opportunity still shadow one's ability to exercise agency. Someone from a less-than-elite background is also often put in a "one down" position of networking and seeking to exercise influence without their efforts being perceived as being as valuable of those with more connections and access to opportunity -- the striver, in that case, is closer to pleading for pity and "a break" than someone better connected who can exercise greater autonomy and agency because they are situated more reciprocally and don't have face the same degree of opportunity scarcity. Feeling as though you have higher dependency and fewer connections does, I think, limit agency and more quickly leads to blind alleys and careers that fail to flourish fully while also engendering more desperation or befuddlement. Which is part of life, but which also doesn't further fairness or even effort-based or merit-based advancement. I would hope people with higher-value connections and richer opportunities would, as you advise, perceive the inequities, realize the potential in others who are less fortunate, and be willing to extend invitations to more and better opportunities. Relying on voluntary responses, however, is not systematic and furthers an erratic, pinball-like approach to exercising individual agency. I wonder what policies could assist or how people could be supported in enhancing their own agency sustainably?
This post is one of the most profound insights for me. The need to escape the social world you know so well is what holds so many. Even me, the low family engaged individualist had a youthful tribe of friends that I chose over opportunities I wanted to pursue. It may have all turned out for the best and helped avoid going it alone. But just never quite connected the dots. That is what I love about your work.
Thanks, Sharon. Millions of Americans 'escape' only to find themselves unable to re-create strong relationships beyond a life partner. This is very risky, as it only takes one sudden death, and that person is bobbing around in an ocean of weak ties who can't be bothered.
I enjoyed your article and writing. I’m fascinated with social class and social mobility and agree with your points about agency and non-agency.
My partner and I talked about mobility on the way back from a wedding in reference to my niece’s fiancé who grew up middle class, but is now a physician. As you know, moving from one class to another within one’s lifetime is statistically uncommon. But he has the teeth to prove it.
To answer your question, I was a beneficiary of @robhenderson’s (Yale) generosity, having been mentioned in one of his Substack roundups.
Thanks for your writing.
Thanks for sharing Ryan!
The wealthy keep getting opportunities long after the rest of us would be in jail or dead.
Very timely. Just what I needed to read
Generosity is definitely on the wane. Not exactly sure why though. Maybe the competition and complexity of life ? makes people less apt to assist someone else? Vaguely reminds me of Little Feat lyrics: People fly high, begin to lose sight
‘cause you can’t see very clearly when you’re in flight.
And the rest of the lyrics are great too.
My time at Stratton Oakmont (The Wolf Of Wall Street) https://open.substack.com/pub/michael880/p/another-chapter-from-can-i-have-your?r=3b6pw1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web