优点的意义:天赋与努力的合法性

IF 3.3 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Social Forces Pub Date : 2023-09-30 DOI:10.1093/sf/soad131
Sam Friedman, Christoph Ellersgaard, Aaron Reeves, Anton Grau Larsen
{"title":"优点的意义:天赋与努力的合法性","authors":"Sam Friedman, Christoph Ellersgaard, Aaron Reeves, Anton Grau Larsen","doi":"10.1093/sf/soad131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Elites often use merit to explain, justify, and make sense of their advantaged positions. But what exactly do they mean by this? In this paper, we draw on 71 interviews with elites in Denmark and the UK to compare self-justifications of meritocratic legitimacy. Our results indicate that while elites in both countries are united by a common concern to frame their merits as spontaneously recognized by others (rather than strategically promoted by themselves), the package of attributes they foreground vary significantly. In the UK, elites tend to be “talent meritocrats” who foreground their unique capacity for ideational creativity or risk taking, innately good judgment, and “natural” aptitude, intelligence, or academic ability. In contrast, in Denmark, elites are more likely to be “hard work meritocrats” who emphasize their unusual work ethic, extensive experience (as a signal of accumulated hard work), and contributions outside of work, particularly in civil society. We tentatively argue that one explanation for this cross-national variation is the role that different channels of elite recruitment play in amplifying legitimate notions of merit. In the UK, for example, elite private schools act to nurture ideas of exceptionalism and natural talent, whereas in Denmark elite employers socialize the connection between hard work and success. These findings suggest that nationally specific understandings of merit can have quite different implications for the legitimation of inequality.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Meaning of Merit: Talent versus Hard Work Legitimacy\",\"authors\":\"Sam Friedman, Christoph Ellersgaard, Aaron Reeves, Anton Grau Larsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/sf/soad131\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Elites often use merit to explain, justify, and make sense of their advantaged positions. But what exactly do they mean by this? In this paper, we draw on 71 interviews with elites in Denmark and the UK to compare self-justifications of meritocratic legitimacy. Our results indicate that while elites in both countries are united by a common concern to frame their merits as spontaneously recognized by others (rather than strategically promoted by themselves), the package of attributes they foreground vary significantly. In the UK, elites tend to be “talent meritocrats” who foreground their unique capacity for ideational creativity or risk taking, innately good judgment, and “natural” aptitude, intelligence, or academic ability. In contrast, in Denmark, elites are more likely to be “hard work meritocrats” who emphasize their unusual work ethic, extensive experience (as a signal of accumulated hard work), and contributions outside of work, particularly in civil society. We tentatively argue that one explanation for this cross-national variation is the role that different channels of elite recruitment play in amplifying legitimate notions of merit. In the UK, for example, elite private schools act to nurture ideas of exceptionalism and natural talent, whereas in Denmark elite employers socialize the connection between hard work and success. These findings suggest that nationally specific understandings of merit can have quite different implications for the legitimation of inequality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48400,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Forces\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Forces\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soad131\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Forces","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soad131","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

精英们经常用功绩来解释、证明和理解他们的优势地位。但他们这么说是什么意思呢?在本文中,我们对丹麦和英国的71位精英进行了采访,比较了精英统治合法性的自我辩护。我们的研究结果表明,虽然两国的精英们都有一个共同的关注,即将自己的优点描述为他人自发认可的(而不是自己战略性地提升的),但他们所强调的一系列属性却大相径庭。在英国,精英往往是“人才精英”,他们突出自己独特的创意或冒险能力,天生的良好判断力,以及“天生”的才能、智力或学术能力。相比之下,在丹麦,精英更可能是“努力工作的精英”,他们强调自己不同寻常的职业道德、丰富的经验(作为积累努力工作的信号)以及工作之外的贡献,特别是在公民社会。我们暂时认为,对这种跨国差异的一种解释是,不同的精英招聘渠道在放大合理的价值观念方面发挥了作用。例如,在英国,精英私立学校的作用是培养例外主义和天赋的思想,而在丹麦,精英雇主将努力工作与成功之间的联系社会化。这些发现表明,国家对优点的具体理解可能会对不平等的合法性产生截然不同的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Meaning of Merit: Talent versus Hard Work Legitimacy
Abstract Elites often use merit to explain, justify, and make sense of their advantaged positions. But what exactly do they mean by this? In this paper, we draw on 71 interviews with elites in Denmark and the UK to compare self-justifications of meritocratic legitimacy. Our results indicate that while elites in both countries are united by a common concern to frame their merits as spontaneously recognized by others (rather than strategically promoted by themselves), the package of attributes they foreground vary significantly. In the UK, elites tend to be “talent meritocrats” who foreground their unique capacity for ideational creativity or risk taking, innately good judgment, and “natural” aptitude, intelligence, or academic ability. In contrast, in Denmark, elites are more likely to be “hard work meritocrats” who emphasize their unusual work ethic, extensive experience (as a signal of accumulated hard work), and contributions outside of work, particularly in civil society. We tentatively argue that one explanation for this cross-national variation is the role that different channels of elite recruitment play in amplifying legitimate notions of merit. In the UK, for example, elite private schools act to nurture ideas of exceptionalism and natural talent, whereas in Denmark elite employers socialize the connection between hard work and success. These findings suggest that nationally specific understandings of merit can have quite different implications for the legitimation of inequality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social Forces
Social Forces SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
123
期刊介绍: Established in 1922, Social Forces is recognized as a global leader among social research journals. Social Forces publishes articles of interest to a general social science audience and emphasizes cutting-edge sociological inquiry as well as explores realms the discipline shares with psychology, anthropology, political science, history, and economics. Social Forces is published by Oxford University Press in partnership with the Department of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
期刊最新文献
Entering the mainstream economy? Workplace segregation and immigrant assimilation Defenders of the status quo: energy protests and policy (in)action in Sweden A room of one’s own? The consequences of living density on individual well-being and social anomie Can fertility decline help explain gender pay convergence? Double standards in status ascriptions? The role of gender, behaviors, and social networks in status orders among adolescents
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1