The New Meritocracy and the Poor

Day Laborers in New Jersey

Sometimes googling turns up some funny stuff in the "sponsored links" section.

I punched in “day laborers” and got two automated ads, one from ebay and the other from Kadazzle.

The first one read: “Day Laborers for Sale. Low Priced Day Laborers. Huge Selection!” The second read: “Compare Prices on Day Laborers and Save Money!” Somehow appropriate, I guess, for a post on class, culture and poverty.

OK, let’s get back to the aftermath of the hurricane and prophetic responses. This one is a bit longer because the topic is so complicated. Sorry about that. Think of it as a two posts for one deal.

Here are some too simple takes:

• A powerful multi-ethnic and dual gender meritocracy has arisen in the U.S. over the past few decades. A multi-ethnic and dual gender underclass is expanding at the same time. Diversity and a certain kind of priveleged racial reconciliation win but for the poor it may be the same old same old.

• Class and culture currently play a more significant role than race in perpetuating poverty. In fact, when people talk about “race” I think what they usually mean is “class and culture.”

• It's time to shake free of old school racial analyses of the American underclass and get a sharper picture of the importance of class and culture in perpetuating poverty, and a better picture of how the new meritocracy thinks and feels about the poor. Without that shift it could be hard to reduce the number of poor people in the U.S and improve the lives of those who remain in poverty.

The Oppression Model of Poverty

A generation ago most thoughtful people identified with what I'll call the oppression model of poverty. In short, they thought that poor people were poor mostly because people with influence and power did them at most every opportunity.

And during that time a lot of people thought racism was the heart of that abuse of power. In that model the powerful white upper and middle classes justified their systemic oppression on the basis of the supposed inherent biological inferiority of African-Americans or other "non-white" groups.

That's not to say that popular thinking in those days wasn't more subtle than the simple old school model suggests, but I think it gives a fair picture of people's basic 'worldview' of poverty from just after WW2 until the 1980's.

The Centrifuge Model of Poverty

I think a very different new school 'worldview' on poverty began to get up and go in the 80's and became the predominant way people understand poverty and society now. I'll call that new way of perceiving things the centrifuge model of poverty.

Scientists use laboratory centrifuges to separate out substances in test tubes from one another. As a centrifuge spins at high speed, various particles become “segregated” from each other due to their inherently different sizes, shapes and densities.

The centrifuge in this case is a highly competitive, American society built on the idea of meritocracy. As that societal centrifuge spins the winners get loose from the losers and the strong spin safely away from the weak. A natural segregation occurs as those without the “right stuff” remain in or descend into poverty while the others enjoy the economic and social benefits of their natural and social advantages.

As harsh as it can sound to some people, you've got to hand it to this model. It’s got deep roots in American soil because it has some important similarities to the old Puritan idea that God economically blesses the good with abundance and punishes the bad with poverty. But it’s different and even more powerful because it adds the critical elements of meritocracy and competition, both of which are also powerful—even totemic—American values. For all those reasons it packs a serious punch.

Again, most thoughtful people don't see things so simply, but I do think this new intutive "road map" of poverty and society lies behind a lot of the current discussion of poverty and the social policy meant to alleviate it.

The Rise of the New Meritocracy and the Expanding Underclass

Whatever intuitive road map folks might use to understand poverty and the poor, some developments are pretty clear to most fair-minded people right now.

Poverty's gotten worse over the past 4 years in the US in terms of percentages of people in poverty and in real terms. The appalling social situation of so many people in New Orleans didn't surprise any of us who have lived and worked in American inner cities. The hurricane exposed it in a new way.

And the expanding underclass continues to become even more diverse. African-Americans and Latinos are disproportionately represented, but whites make up the majority of the poor. In fact, the expansion in the numbers of the poor in the past 4 years has occured primarily among rural "trailer trash" whites. Women and children make up large percentages of the underclass.

The gaps between the middle class and the poor, and particularly between the well off and the poor have been getting a lot wider. In 1965 the typical CEO made 24 times as much as the average worker. Today that figure is 184 times as much. That would have been considered immoral and even obscene 40 years ago. How has it become acceptable now? Perhaps a change in world view?

Two longer term trends also contribute in a major way to the expanding numbers of the poor. The loss of a manufacturing based economy drove many people who previously worked at better paying jobs into low paying jobs with few benefits in the service industries. A lot of poor people, maybe most of them, work silly hours but still can't make ends meet. And the continuing flow of illegal immigrants swells the numbers of the poor while our government can't figure out what to do with lots of people who are simply looking for a better life.

We've also seen a steady effort on the part of our current political leaders to cut proven and beneficial programs for the poor while getting close and personal with the rear ends of the wealthy through dubious tax cuts for the rich and egregious pork.

Katrina stopped that momentum temporarily because people are now aware of poverty again and political leaders risk voter backlash if they press further cuts at the expense of the poor. But the ideological convictions of the congressional majority haven't changed. Americans have consistently voted over the last ten years for congressional leadership that clearly and obviously favors the "haves" and ignores or even punishes the "have nots" through cuts and the elimination of valuable and proven programs and approaches that help poor people better their lives.

But I think another very important development is making a decisive contribution to the current look of poverty in the U.S. I'll call that young thing The Rise of the New Meritocracy.

I believe the new school/centrifuge thinkers are right that America is far more competitive and meritocratic than ever. Large and thriving African-American, Asian-American, and Latino middle classes and even upper middle classes have arisen in the past 40 years, and woman have far more opportunities than ever before. Those are astonishing American social success stories by any historical standard.

This multi-ethnic wave of men and women, most 50 years old and younger, share a core set of values. They value competition, efficiency, meritocracy, entrepreneurship, education, and family stability. By and large, they're comfortable in an information economy. They're the new economic and cultural bedrock with potentially the greatest political influence of any group beyond the rich. Both major parties are desperately trying to win them over. The conservative Republicans, with their recent and pivotal victories in the entrepreneurial exurbs, got out to an early advantage.

But the new meritocracy has also chosen to segregate itself from the urban and rural underclass. The educated white middle and upper middle class mostly abandoned the poor long ago, and now this new class is following the same pattern. African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Latinos who identify with this new "culture" and "class" have largely left the ghetto and the small town in the rear view mirror. The immense creativity and economic resources and social capital of this new class aren't--in most cases--being invested in efforts to shrink the growing American underclass.

Here's something ironic about this new class. Though it's been forged by a greater cultural emphasis on opportunity and meritocracy, the new meritocracy may be creating greater and even more impenetrable class barriers. There are clear signs, outlined in a recent series in the NY Times and in various articles in The Economist, that America is becoming more class stratified. The old American value of upward mobility and the cherished myth of the American Dream may be threatened.

Why? These new meritocrats pass their centrifuge friendly values to their children and concentrate heavily--in a way no previous American generation has done--on the education of their own children, sparing no expense or effort and often placing them in private schools. At the same time the poor struggle in appalling public schools and in contexts where many important values that help bolster career success are simply not modeled. Any successful neighbors who might have modeled those values left the inner city or the small rural town long ago. Hence, a widening gap, and in many ways, a gap that may no longer come with a ladder which the poor can use to climb out.

It's not too late for that new class and culture of movers and shakers to commit in a new way to solidarity with the poor and to a new and updated version of the American Dream, but the signs at this point aren't good. It may be that the ideology of the centrifuge, which most of them embrace on one level or another, gives them reason to view the poor as the inevitable losers that every game requires. I'd guess part of the reason so many people have responded to the poor so differently post-Katrina is that folks knew the poor were not "at fault" in that particular instance. The exception here may prove the usual rule.

Or they may feel the class divide between themselves and the poor is insurmountable when they look at some of the more dysfunctional realities in many poor communities like common teenage pregnancy, high levels of family instability, widespread substance abuse, and a lack of emphasis on education. They may view the poor as "them" rather than "us."

Well, that's enough recap of some key developments that I think are influencing the expansion and persistence of poverty.

What These Developments May Mean

Here are a few glimpses of my own responses to these developments to get the ball rolling:

• Both models of poverty and society tell part of the truth. But while the new school thinkers suggest that the rise of a new meritocrats is an obvious good, I'd argue the development of that emerging class and culture has created a new kind of social division in the U.S. that has serious and potentially troubling ramifications for the poor.

That increasingly large section of society, who often have more in common with each other than they do with poor members of their own ethnic or gender groups, is largely ignoring the poor or in many cases actively working to improve their own situation at the expense of the poor.

The old school oppression model has something pretty eternal and biblical to contribute. The new twist is that a different group of folks gathered more on the basis of meritocracy than skin color is now in a position to ignore or take advantage of the weak and dispossesed.

• Seems to me that dealing with current American poverty will mean exploring the attitudes this new meritocracy has toward the poor. And calling that new and powerful segment of society to accountability to a wider understanding of community, to a deeper committment to distributive justice, and to a energized effort to invest their talents, lives and resources in poor communities. The focus of these efforts has to be true development, not charity. Economic investment, ownership, practical training, entrepreneurship and education have got to be the cornerstones.

This will mean challenging people to respond to the poor not primarily on the basis of race or ethnic identification, but on the basis of fairness and social justice. I think that will mean acknowledging and grappling with class differences in a way Americans usually like to avoid. We've always viewed ourselves as a classless society and we've identified class analysis with Marxists and other "crazies." We'll need more "Class Matters" and perhaps fewer "Race Matters" seminars.

Christian theology and teaching will have to take on class again and the church and other religious movements and institutions will have to take the lead in prophetically calling the new meritocracy to a faithful identification with the poor. In many ways, this kind of broad societal shift will require the kind of major spiritual awakening we experienced during the civil rights movement in the 50's and early 60's.

• Racism—-at least in the way that the old school thinkers understood it—-is a secondary factor in the perpetuation of poverty and the lack of conviction about reducing and ending it. The current social and economic effects of historical racism are still a very significant factor however, something that has to be acknowledged clearly and addressed in policy and action in politics, the business community, and in faith communities like the church. I was pleased and surprised to hear President Bush concede the ongoing impact of historic racism in his speech on rebuilding New Orleans.

• Changing some aspects of the "culture of the underclass" could make a big difference. Reducing teen pregnancy, increasing the stability of families, increasing the value on education, and reducing the incidence of substance abuse are key. Many people rightly believe that unless poor folks can introduce more constructive values into their own midst most of them will be caught in poverty for generations. The "centrifuge" rewards education and stability.

Throughout history spiritual revivals among the poor created the conditions for an escape from poverty. The Methodist movement in England during the 18th century broke the power of despair and alchoholism and helped huge numbers of the poor to break out of poverty, a sea-change that altered English society and the English economy for the better.

• Anybody with a good idea or a proven plan for reducing poverty, no matter what their ideology or politics, should get a hearing. Right now American approaches to poverty are highly ideologically driven and have been for many years. That's part of why they usually don't work very well. Our national genius is pragmatism. I pray for a return of common sense and a concern for outcomes rather than harsh ideological battles.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on race, culture, class and poverty, and any thoughts on practical approaches to make a prophetic difference.