At the heart of the American social identity pulses the glorification of the individual. We are told from birth that we, as individuals, are the sole masters our socio-political destinies, that we have the power to act how we want, to become what we want, to condemn and conquer by our desire, so long as we supply an adequate passion and ingenuity to achieve our ends. As such, we perceive ourselves not only as completely free, but also as completely responsible, for our own fruitage is the direct result of our own labor. This is the claim of meritocracy, this is the promise and cornerstone of the American dream.



It was unsurprising to see the meritocratic ideal result in the American industriousness of the early-to-mid 20th century. To the average non-meritocratic laborer, one’s position in the socio-political environment is a combination of birth, education, personal achievement, and happenstance. The average laborer carries out his role diligently out of social and familial obligations, and consequently achieves just enough to satisfy those conditions, for there is little else to be gained (there are of course exceptions, power and position are always lusted after but the possibility of their attainment in all other socio-political climates has been scarce). Now immediately with the adoption of the meritocratic ideal, which assumes fluid class mobility, all those conditions for one’s socio-economic position, except personal achievement, fall into the void. One can no longer use his birth or his luck as a scapegoat; all he can blame for his lot is himself. A vision of glamor rises from the haze. From this pure individual autonomy all paths are opened, for all fantastical possible futures exist if you have the mettle, and all manners of wealth or dream may await down the arduous, mercantile Silk roads of time. Advancing one’s individual socio-political position becomes a shared parallel enterprise, where all strive towards a separate but identical end. All were then working for their own gain, and as creatures of egoism, all worked harder. A fierce American work ethic spawned from these fundamental values, resulting in America overtaking the manufacturing and financial sectors by storm. Much was produced, much was gained.



Material commodities were not the only attributions supplied by the American value of merit. Conveniently, but not accidentally, absolute responsibility supplies precedent for absolute pride. Just as those additional conditions for stagnation and failure fell away, so too do the conditions for success, and again birth, education, the community, and happenstance were written off as inconsequential. You, the individual, are now to blame for yourself. If your position in the econosphere is favorable, you are permitted by social logic to gaze into the tide pools and exalt in your own image, you have every right to admire the life that you constructed, your work, your shrine! Of course, throughout human history success has sown hubris. What makes the American pride unique (in addition to the complete neglect of non-personal socio-economic conditions) is its embraced proliferation. The social approval of narcissism in (what was at the time) the wealthiest nation in the world resulted in conspicuous opulence, catalyzing the already potent drive for competition, and most importantly, the subjection of generations of relatively well-off individuals to lifetimes of continuously reinforced egoistic pleasure. As a vice, pride is highly addictive. It has been culled in other societies by the implementation of virtues such as the Stoic restraint seen in ancient Greece, Victorian England, and both modern and historical Japan, or in more religious nations where to be proud is to threaten the Gods. We have no such combative morals. No, our addiction is well-fed, and for nearly a century we have been in a constant state of self-celebration. It should take little more than a glance about to verify. The items and activities that become heavily popularized in the US are those that enhance one’s capacity for pride; even ignoring the obvious cultural fetishes such as brand name fashions and social media outlets, when was the last time a product appeared as a nationwide sensation that could not be flaunted ? Honestly, I cannot recall.



Despite having a personal bias against deep-seated hubris, I recognize the massive functional value that it played in the great American boom. If the same early post-war era balance between the meritocratic ideal and individual pride remained intact, I would welcome them both as positive ideals. Unfortunately, this was not to be. As noted, we had already developed quite the taste for pride. Children, who had no accomplishments to speak of, adopted their parents’ affinity towards the vice without the requisite responsibility. The large wealth that the country had amassed allowed for these children to rise into adulthood fairly easily, taking particular advantage of their upbringings to acquire a similar socio-economic status in adulthood, the status that they continued to take unadulterated responsibility for. After only a modicum of generational departure from the original American powerhouse, pride superseded responsibility as the primary motivator in our social psyche; the drive that allowed our pride to flourish was drained by the very pride it birthed.



The economic problems that America faced in the Cold War era and in the current age (which were not solely caused by the new imbalance of pride and responsibility) changed things once more. The pride that Americans had grown so accustomed to (and perhaps, dependent upon?), was becoming more and more difficult to sate. One’s self-image is proportional to one’s self-worth, which is more-or-less directly equivalent to one’s societal worth, which is more-or-less directly equivalent to one’s financial worth (this is not the ultimate formula and all men differ, but it acts as a pretty good general rule of thumb). Most living Americans at this point had lived with the pride prime motivator all their lives, and to lessen the dosage was very hard for many to stomach. To avoid any crisis of pride, many turned towards debt. Debt offered what appeared to be an elegant solution; the apparent socio-economic position of the individual remains stable despite their net worth trending downwards. We saw the loaded needle in the hands of the bankers, and we begged for its nectar. As addicts, we ignored the future and the responsibilities of our behaviors, in staunch contradiction to the meritocratic ideal, hoping faithfully that we may have continued to indulge in our bloated wallets, ad mortem. Then came collapse.



We find ourselves wounded by severe debt trauma. What has been our reaction? Have we taken personal responsibility? Have we made efforts to reduce spending and balance our budgets? Some have. The majority, however, have taken the opposite approach. Blame has become the predominant response for both individuals and organizations. Suddenly, the socio-economic conditions are the primary culprits for our lots. Actually, let me clarify. The socio-economic conditions are the primary culprits if our lots are not up to the level that we desire, but if we are satisfied with our position, then the socio-economic conditions were again completely irrelevant. A clear contradiction lies in this framework, and it persists due to the current corrupted state of the value of American meritocracy. This must be rectified, and there are two possible solutions.



The first, the weaker, and the traditionally American solution is the return to the original meritocratic ideal of absolute responsibility. This would be an extremely difficult task given our current situation as it would necessitate a withdrawal from pride for those in the middle and lower classes. They would cease their decline into debt by living more responsibly, and forgo the impulses of conspicuous consumption purchasing only life essentials. All those in lower socio-economic conditions would bear a caustic mark of personal shame, which likely would persist until, at the earliest, the next generation, who would grow up with that socio-economic position as their benchmark. Unfortunately, a return to the original meritocratic ideal also means a return to the assumption of fluid class mobility which is simply not the reality. Most individuals continue their lives in the same socio-economic class in which they were born, and to return to the original ideal in these stringent conditions would be to benefit the wealthy; they would have all blame for the national crisis removed from their shoulders, and be primed to continue their decadent pride orgies. To safely return to the ideal that fueled our once-robust American engine, we would first need to ripen the middle class, reverse class polarization, and cultivate public education, all of which are noble goals, but my hopes for such goals feel utopian. Until then, we must not give in.





The second, more logical, and less satisfying solution is the dismissal of the meritocratic ideal altogether. Even in its original state the ideal was logically inconsistent and characterized by ignorance. Its very formulation purposefully ignores not only one’s individual beginning position but the very socio-economic and socio-political conditions themselves, which are the strongest, most effectual agents in the entire schema. To overlook these is to overlook the world, and this is exactly what is being called for by the rebuke of certain contemporary conservatives of, “Stop complaining about the socio-economic conditions, man up and work harder, better, and smarter!” Like many bites of rhetoric, this has its truth to it; the individual should focus on his self-improvement, however, this mentality prevents true grand-scale responsive change, as the largest structures of our country become absolved from critical analysis, and thus from reformation. Furthermore, the moment we declare full responsibility for our socio-political positions we assume a circular mode of self-affirming socio-political becoming that sets our individual values at our positions and our individual positions at our values. We cannot alter our worth without shifting position in the socio-political spectrum, and conversely, we cannot alter our position without shifting our value. At this juncture the two are inextricable; there is no longer an indentifier to distinguish between the man and his class. This is neither accurate nor human; and when the notion of complete responsibility is dissolved this perception will be thinned.