The Meaning of Merit: the American Idea of What We Have Earned, What We Deserve, and Whether We Got Lucky
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 The Meaning Of Merit: The American Idea Of What We Have Earned, What We Deserve, And Whether We Got Lucky Doron Taussig University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Journalism Studies Commons, and the Sociology Commons Recommended Citation Taussig, Doron, "The Meaning Of Merit: The American Idea Of What We Have Earned, What We Deserve, And Whether We Got Lucky" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2773. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2773 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2773 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Meaning Of Merit: The American Idea Of What We Have Earned, What We Deserve, And Whether We Got Lucky Abstract This dissertation is about the notion of merit in America. I examine what it means in American culture for a person to have merit, how we assess its role in individual lives, and whether those constructions are changing as Americans’ belief that we live in a meritocracy wavers. The project draws on analyses of mediated life stories of prominent figures from politics, sports, and business, as well as on in-depth interviews with a diverse group of 60 Americans, asking in both cases how narratives are used to explain professional and socioeconomic outcomes. What I find is an ideology that is more nuanced and less blinkered to social dynamics than is implied by popular clichés about meritocracy. American stories do not typically convey that opportunities are distributed in equitable fashion or that rewards accurately reflect performance. Rather, they describe complex interactions between individuals, systems, and circumstances, and a balance between agency and accident in life outcomes. But they demonstrate a strong commitment to the idea that this parsing of internal and external factors should and can be done, and that the result of the parsing tells us something important about the deservingness of an individual. In making their assessments, the stories use a number of identifiable storylines and standards – some of which are logically coherent, some of which are not; some of which are consistent with meritocratic principles, some of which are not – to navigate the relationship between internal and external factors and individual deservingness. I argue that the ideology of merit is powerful precisely because it is accommodating to a variety of circumstances, perspectives, and conclusions. The ideology has been evolving in recent years, as our stories give more credence to the possibility that external and systemic factors are decisive in individual outcomes. To a certain extent, the ideology has also been eroding, as a few sources question the premise that determining the role of merit in individual outcomes is feasible and important. I propose that we ought to embrace this opportunity to rethink our assumptions about merit and our ability and need to assess its role in our lives. Degree Type Dissertation Degree Name Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Graduate Group Communication First Advisor Michael X. Delli Carpini Keywords Inequality, Journalism, Meritocracy, Narrative Subject Categories Communication | Journalism Studies | Sociology This dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2773 Acknowledgments I cannot thank my interviewees by name, but they spoke with me because they are the type of people who help other people out, and I am in their debt. Several people helped me to recruit potential interviewees, and them I can name: Maurice Walls, Sheree Moore, Andrew Zitcer, Alex Shorb, Jeff Milman, Greg Anderson, Juliana Reyes, James Beale, Molly Eichel. Thank you. Michael Delli Carpini was a terrific adviser on this project, steady and confident that it was going somewhere, maybe even somewhere good. Barbie Zelizer and Joseph Turow provided characteristic insight as members of my dissertation committee, and along with Michael and Kathleen Hall Jamieson were extremely important parts of my graduate education. Jeff Lane, Nancy Morris, and Doug Porpora provided generous guidance as well. Mike Ambrogi Primo kindly listened to me complain on many commutes. The members of Mt. Airy Dadball patiently allowed me to shoot my way out of many slumps. My parents, Gabe and Ethel Taussig, have been unfailingly supportive of everything I have done or tried to do in my life. I have also been blessed with kind in- laws in Paul Koehler and Luray Gross, and a great sister in Dana Taussig. My children, Sam, Leo, and Hana Taussig, are all so wonderful in so many ways, and I want to thank them for it. I don’t know where I’d be without Chelsea. ii ABSTRACT THE MEANING OF MERIT: THE AMERICAN IDEA OF WHAT WE HAVE EARNED, WHAT WE DESERVE, AND WHETHER WE GOT LUCKY Doron Taussig Michael X. Delli Carpini This dissertation is about the notion of merit in America. I examine what it means in American culture for a person to have merit, how we assess its role in individual lives, and whether those constructions are changing as Americans’ belief that we live in a meritocracy wavers. The project draws on analyses of mediated life stories of prominent figures from politics, sports, and business, as well as on in-depth interviews with a diverse group of 60 Americans, asking in both cases how narratives are used to explain professional and socioeconomic outcomes. What I find is an ideology that is more nuanced and less blinkered to social dynamics than is implied by popular clichés about meritocracy. American stories do not typically convey that opportunities are distributed in equitable fashion or that rewards accurately reflect performance. Rather, they describe complex interactions between individuals, systems, and circumstances, and a balance between agency and accident in life outcomes. But they demonstrate a strong commitment to the idea that this parsing of internal and external factors should and can be done, and that the result of the parsing tells us something important about the deservingness of an individual. In making their assessments, the stories use a number of identifiable storylines and standards – some of which are logically coherent, some of which are not; some of which are consistent with meritocratic principles, some of which are not – to navigate the relationship between internal and external factors and individual deservingness. I argue that the ideology of merit is powerful precisely because it is accommodating to a variety of circumstances, perspectives, and conclusions. The ideology has been evolving in recent years, as our stories give more credence to the possibility that external and systemic factors are decisive in individual outcomes. To a certain extent, the ideology has also been eroding, as a few sources question the premise that determining the role of merit in individual outcomes is feasible and important. I propose that we ought to embrace this opportunity to rethink our assumptions about merit and our ability and need to assess its role in our lives. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………………………...ii ABSTRACT ………………………………..…………………………………………....iii CHAPTER 1: The question of merit ….…………………………………………………..1 CHAPTER 2: Merit and meritocracy …...………………………………………………22 CHAPTER 3: Methods …...……………………………………………………………..72 CHAPTER 4: “We’ve all done great things or we wouldn’t be on this stage”: Presidential candidates debate why they reached the top………………………………..80 CHAPTER 5: “They knew how to try”: Do star athletes deserve stardom? ...................135 CHAPTER 6: “Certainly luck plays a part. But …”: Business leaders grapple with critiques of meritocracy ...……………………………..………………………….168 CHAPTER 7: “The opportunity was there, but I took it”: Americans take stock of how they got to where they are, and whether they deserve it ...…………………………..…200 CHAPTER 8: “There’s no way to know if the person sitting across from you in a job interview or a negotiation is there on his or her own merits or with an assist of one kind or another”......................................................................................................................253 APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………………268 BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………….…………………………..271 iv Chapter 1 The question of merit “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.” -Will Munny in Unforgiven and Snoop in The Wire Nick1 grew up in south Jersey, the middle child of parents who had, in his words, “white collar jobs but a blue collar work ethic.” They lived in a less-wealthy section of a more-wealthy suburb. Nick got his undergraduate degree at a satellite campus of New Jersey’s state university system, working 40 hours a week at a bank to pay his way. After that, he attended an elite law school, discovered a passion for tax law (!), and landed a job at a law firm with Fortune 50 clients. At 28, he walks around downtown Philadelphia in a fancy suit. He feels successful. When I ask Nick why he’s been able to be successful, while interviewing him one afternoon outside his office building, he points to a few different factors: enthusiasm for his field, good fortune that his particular area of the law is not especially competitive, hard work, and (when I inquire about it specifically) talent, including interpersonal skills and intelligence. I give a little spiel about how one of the “big ideas” about America is that it is supposed to be a meritocracy, meaning people are supposed to end up about where they deserve to be professionally based on their efforts and abilities. I ask whether Nick has experienced his life this way. “Yes and no,” he says. He is not sure that he 1 All participants’ names have been changed. 1 deserved to get into his elite law school, and thinks it may have been due to networking – Nick had a good relationship with the chancellor at his undergraduate school, who recommended him to someone at the fancy law school. Nick regards this as less meritocratic than getting in on the strength of one’s LSAT scores, and his were not especially strong.