3 ms·

> I feel like this trope that self-made success is a myth comes almost entirely from people like the author of this article. People who were born with lots of a

> I feel like this trope that self-made success is a myth comes almost entirely from people like the author of this article. People who were born with lots of advantages, who still couldn't hack it. They want to justify their own failure to live up to their family's expectations by tearing other people down. And there we go. That kind of attitude is why this trope was created initially. The problem people have with "self-made success" trope is that the self-made success story of someone with severe disadvantages is being equated, on an astoundingly regular basis, with the success of people with substantial advantages. That's how Bill Gates and Arnold Schwarzenegger are both dubbed "self-made" successes, despite their rather different histories. Even worse, it is being used to justify, defend and perpetuate inequality, by convincing everyone that the American Dream is that "anyone can make it". After all, if such-and-such person coming from dirt poor origins could become wildly successful, anyone can. Therefore, we must strive at all costs to avoid removing "incentives" that motivate people to reach for that elusive success. Naturally, this will generate resistance, and rightfully so. Despite the endless propaganda that permeates the fabric of our society, the self-made success story of Bill Gates is not the same thing as that of John Paul DeJoria. So yeah, I agree with you in one aspect: the self-made success is not a myth. It's something much worse -- it's propaganda. It brings to mind that quote by Anatole France: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

darawk 8y ago
> The problem people have with "self-made success" trope is that the self-made success story of someone with severe disadvantages is being equated, on an astoundingly regular basis, with the success of people with substantial advantages. That's how Bill Gates and Arnold Schwarzenegger are both dubbed "self-made" successes, despite their rather different histories. They are both self-made success stories. Schwarzenegger even moreso than Gates. > Even worse, it is being used to justify, defend and perpetuate inequality, by convincing everyone that the American Dream is that "anyone can make it". After all, if such-and-such person coming from dirt poor origins could become wildly successful, anyone can. Therefore, we must strive at all costs to avoid removing "incentives" that motivate people to reach for that elusive success. Anyone can make it. Not everyone can be Bill Gates or Arnold Schwarzenegger, but it is abundantly clear that anyone willing to put in the time and effort can make it into a well compensated profession. Software engineering, medicine, law, these are all things that an average person willing to dedicate themselves can learn and excel at. If you come from nothing, i'd say getting into any of those professions more than qualifies for "making it".
- CodeMage 8y ago
  > They are both self-made success stories. Schwarzenegger even moreso than Gates. That second part is precisely my point. They're both self-made success stories, but they are in no way equal. They're both self-made success stories in the sense that a dolphin and a cat are both mammals. > If you come from nothing, i'd say getting into any of those professions more than qualifies for "making it". I would like you to closely examine what you said and the way you said it. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just didn't pay a lot of attention to what I wrote, rather than ignoring it and cherry-picking parts to focus on. The inequality in United States is very, very pronounced and it's getting worse with time. The "self-made success" trope, which involves treating different self-made success stories as equal, is a way of defending and perpetuating that inequality. People who are getting more and more oppressed by that inequality are rallying against the use of that trope. Yes, I agree with your definition: an individual that exceeds the median success level of their peer class group can be, under certain circumstances, be defined as a "self-made success". My point is that it's just a definition. What people are arguing about -- in general, not just this article -- is not really the definition. Rather, they are arguing about the concept in its socioeconomic context. Which brings me back to what you said about "making it": if you come from nothing, then just having a well-compensated profession is qualifies as "making it". Is that self-made success? Because that's the topic of our discussion here, remember? Sure, you could just repeat your definition and say that both "well-compensated professional who came from nothing" and "Bill Gates becoming a billionaire" are examples that fit the definition and that you're just stating facts and that there are no value judgments involved. In which case, you're just nit-picking the article and not making a useful point at all. Or maybe you just took issue with the literal words I used to describe the American Dream and are nit-picking those, outside the context of the rest of the sentence, or indeed the rest of my comment? The truth is that the discussions about the "self-made success as a trope" are not really about the clear cut definitions. It's turtles all the way down, in the sense that almost everyone relies on other people in some ways, so arguing about the precise definition of "self-made success" is a bit pointless. The discourse is really about the role of the trope in the growing inequality in this society and, to that purpose, arguing about some of the most common abuses of the trope -- like this article does -- is much more useful.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

darawk 8y ago

> The problem people have with "self-made success" trope is that the self-made success story of someone with severe disadvantages is being equated, on an astoundingly regular basis, with the success of people with substantial advantages. That's how Bill Gates and Arnold Schwarzenegger are both dubbed "self-made" successes, despite their rather different histories. They are both self-made success stories. Schwarzenegger even moreso than Gates. > Even worse, it is being used to justify, defend and perpetuate inequality, by convincing everyone that the American Dream is that "anyone can make it". After all, if such-and-such person coming from dirt poor origins could become wildly successful, anyone can. Therefore, we must strive at all costs to avoid removing "incentives" that motivate people to reach for that elusive success. Anyone can make it. Not everyone can be Bill Gates or Arnold Schwarzenegger, but it is abundantly clear that anyone willing to put in the time and effort can make it into a well compensated profession. Software engineering, medicine, law, these are all things that an average person willing to dedicate themselves can learn and excel at. If you come from nothing, i'd say getting into any of those professions more than qualifies for "making it".

CodeMage 8y ago
> They are both self-made success stories. Schwarzenegger even moreso than Gates. That second part is precisely my point. They're both self-made success stories, but they are in no way equal. They're both self-made success stories in the sense that a dolphin and a cat are both mammals. > If you come from nothing, i'd say getting into any of those professions more than qualifies for "making it". I would like you to closely examine what you said and the way you said it. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just didn't pay a lot of attention to what I wrote, rather than ignoring it and cherry-picking parts to focus on. The inequality in United States is very, very pronounced and it's getting worse with time. The "self-made success" trope, which involves treating different self-made success stories as equal, is a way of defending and perpetuating that inequality. People who are getting more and more oppressed by that inequality are rallying against the use of that trope. Yes, I agree with your definition: an individual that exceeds the median success level of their peer class group can be, under certain circumstances, be defined as a "self-made success". My point is that it's just a definition. What people are arguing about -- in general, not just this article -- is not really the definition. Rather, they are arguing about the concept in its socioeconomic context. Which brings me back to what you said about "making it": if you come from nothing, then just having a well-compensated profession is qualifies as "making it". Is that self-made success? Because that's the topic of our discussion here, remember? Sure, you could just repeat your definition and say that both "well-compensated professional who came from nothing" and "Bill Gates becoming a billionaire" are examples that fit the definition and that you're just stating facts and that there are no value judgments involved. In which case, you're just nit-picking the article and not making a useful point at all. Or maybe you just took issue with the literal words I used to describe the American Dream and are nit-picking those, outside the context of the rest of the sentence, or indeed the rest of my comment? The truth is that the discussions about the "self-made success as a trope" are not really about the clear cut definitions. It's turtles all the way down, in the sense that almost everyone relies on other people in some ways, so arguing about the precise definition of "self-made success" is a bit pointless. The discourse is really about the role of the trope in the growing inequality in this society and, to that purpose, arguing about some of the most common abuses of the trope -- like this article does -- is much more useful.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]