Thursday 19 September 2024

Yes, you *did* build that


"[I]f you’re praising an achievement of someone, [an] anti-capitalist will chime in that the person was able to achieve such primarily due to the person possessing, before the fact, some social privilege that other people lack. ... [M]aybe you will be waxing about how impressed you are by Steve Jobs and Stephen Wozniak having founded Apple Computer. An anti-capitalist will chime in that this is actually because of privilege. .. 
"Even if it is true that the achiever was born into privileges that gave the achiever a head start, it doesn’t invalidate your premise that the achiever still made choices for which accolades are deserved. The reason is that many other people were born into the same privileges as the achiever, but, on account of different choices, did not perform the feats that the achiever did.
    "In the case of Stephen Wozniak: the fact is that there were hundreds of other white boys his age, who were the sons of Californian engineers, who attended the same schools that he did. But those other sons of Californian engineers did not invent the Apple II. Stephen Wozniak did. Even if the “privilege” made it easier for him than it otherwise would be, the privilege was not sufficient. The missing pieces that needed to be added were the choices of Steve Jobs and Stephen Wozniak. ... 
"Unearned social privileges do exist. But when someone — even a very privileged person — accomplishes an important feat, it’s usually the case that there were many other people who bore those same privileges but refrained from that feat. The choices of individuals are still what make the difference. And for that, they still deserve credit. To the degree that you make your own choices — choices not made and risks not taken by people from backgrounds similar to your own, and who have the same privileges that you do — you are indeed self-made in character."
~ Stu Hayashi. from his post 'A Fallacy Called ‘Privilege, or It Didn’t Happen’'

 



1 comment:

MarkT said...

That’s right. An achievement is an achievement. If someone starts from a lower baseline and achieves the same thing as someone starting with more, we perhaps admire them more. But they both warrant admiration.

In any case, it’s not primarily about admiration, but recognising value. Even if we assume it was easy for someone to achieve something because of the good start they got in life, it’s the achievement itself and the practical benefit it brings to human existence we should be valuing. If someone can add this value easily rather than with difficulty and struggle, isn’t that a good thing?