Thursday, April 19, 2007

The Myth of Equality of Opportunity in America

There is a myth in the United States that anyone can get ahead if they work hard enough. It is implied that anyone who fails to succeed is lazy or otherwise inferior. This is often untrue however, as the discrepancy between the achieved successes of individuals is more commonly linked to inequality of opportunity. This is an important point addressed by both Virginia Woolfe and John Galbraith.

In Woolfe’s piece, “Shakespeare’s Sister,” she addresses the problems of Judith Shakespeare, the imaginary sister of William. Judith, like William, possesses a penchant for writing and a passion for the theater. Like William, she is driven and talented. Unlike William, she does not receive the benefits of education. Unlike William, she is trapped in a society that laughs at her attempts to get ahead. After she runs away from her house to avoid being forced into an unwanted marriage, she tries to get involved in the theater the same way her brother had. Instead of being allowed to work, she ends up with an unwanted pregnancy that drove her to suicide. Woolfe tells this story in order to respond to a bishop’s comment that no woman could have written the plays of Shakespeare. The bishop presumably meant by this remark that women were of an inferior intellect to men and that the writings, being of a high intellectual quality, were much more advanced than the limited mental facilities a woman possessed. . Woolfe agrees with his assertion that no woman in the time period could have written Shakespeare’s plays in that women did not have the opportunities necessary to match the achievements of men. The social structure of the time prevented that kind of advancement.

Galbraith wrote about the different kinds of poverty, insular and individual poverty. Individual poverty can be linked to some deficiency in an individual, such as a mental disorder or alcoholism. Insular poverty affects an entire region, or island of people. It remains over many generations and is difficult if not impossible to escape from. This is because people who live in these impoverished areas are not presented with the same opportunities as people born in higher classes. This inequality of opportunity is reflected in most aspects of people’s lives. Schools, being largely funded by property taxes, are necessarily poor in poor neighborhoods. The schools are often crowded and dangerous, not an environment conducive to learning. People with more money can afford to send their children to a private school or a public school in a good district. Jobs are often scarce in low income areas; the jobs that do exist are often below the living wage. Drugs and crime are commonly prevalent in low income areas as a way to fight off despair and, in some cases, as a viable way to get ahead and make money. Class mobility, contrary to the American myth, is difficult to obtain. The opportunities given to the poor of America are not usually enough for them to “pull themselves up.”

With both women and the poor, it has been assumed over the years that the reason for their lack of success is some flaw in their composition or lack of effort on their part. The same can be said of minorities and other victims of discrimination. The truth of the matter is that many groups do not succeed because they do not have the same opportunities available to them. Women were held back by the idea that the only way they could achieve greatness was to stay in their house and generally escape notice. Those in poverty are held back by the conditions in which they live. Over the years many groups have been held back by the idea that everyone who does not rise to greatness is held back only by their own inferiority.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree that there is a definite inequality of opportunity present in today's world. I also believe such inequality is of a lesser extent than in previous generations. Notwithstanding discrimination, inequality of opportunity is a fact of life. Communism has tried to eliminate it, and it has failed miserably multiple times. I guess I'm a skeptic of insular poverty. I've been told this is product of my being raised in a rural area that consists of sufficiently successful people. Almost all of my friends in high school lived in homes owned by their parents. The area was about as middle-class as it gets. While I concede that that objection has merit, I stand by my claim. Insular poverty is little more than fancy terminology for groups who are resistant of self-improvement. The people in these areas will undoubtedly have to work harder to succeed, but many have done it.

Navielle said...

If they have to work harder to achieve, than opportunity is not equal. Can everyone achieve if they work hard enough? And if whole groups of people are resistant to self-improvement are their children socialized to resist self improvement in the same ways? Does this give these children less of a chance to succeed for themselves, being trained to believe they cannot or should not strive to succeed? Does anyone actually WANT to resist self-improvement?