First, some replies on Facebook to a previous post:
From my friend Hans:
The natural tendency of humans to self-segregate is why this classism occurs - the university gives one a sense of fraternity, which stands in opposition to the fraternity of being poor. In other words, to join one is to leave the other. Even in the case of the poor intellectual, there is a separation between her and the poor uneducated, merely by a difference of interests and priority and purpose, and as such she can never really be them, nor sooner they be her.
Similarly, for one person to be successful, s/he must consume resources (that could be available) to another. That’s the nature of finite resources. As long as we place a value on education, at least there is a higher chance of generating the rising tides that lift all boats, rather than allowing ourselves to pretend that ignoring our intellectual talents for the sake of solidarity with the poor, is somehow going to help the poor. It doesn’t and having seen enough smart people go down the drain looking for said solidarity, it is a complete waste of human talent.
No, we should not pretend that by getting an education, one becomes a better person, but at the same time, we cannot allow ourselves to believe that an education is not important.
My reply:
My point was really that if you are that person who has to walk that line, it’s incredibly straining on your sense of identity. The natural human desire to belong to some social group is exactly why it’s so hard to be in that position. And you can hardly solve the problem by simply choosing one or the other because it would be denying an essential part of yourself.
My friend Rodolfo:
How essential is that part? Wouldn’t you think that exchange of one for another doesn’t contradict the person. After all, the contradictions, if any, are in the social constructs but not in the personality of the person. I agree that changing status, positions, locations is straining on the person. You can just talk to first generation immigrants, first time rich, smart kids, and so on. But the necessity to adapt yourself makes you take new identities and new pieces of information. Self-segregation might occur, as you pointed out, but, as a Hans mentioned, the society needs a redefinition of success and status community mobility.
I wanted to write a more substantial reply to this question of “How essential is that part [of myself that was shaped by my socioeconomic and geographic roots]?” So here we are.
For me, that part of myself is absolutely essential. I really credit my friends and mentors from my Buddhist youth group for shaping my character and sense of self. I learned compassion, generosity, loyalty, and dedication from these people, who I still consider to be my family. They’re not doctors or lawyers or engineers, but they taught me the most important things I know. I’ve already forgotten most of the things I learned at MIT and Cambridge, but I will never forget what they taught me. And even though, for the rest of my career and life, my success will probably be measured by what’s on my resume, the only reason why I have accomplished anything to be admired is because of the values and convictions that drive me.
An education is a great thing to have if you can get it, but at the end of the day, collecting a bunch of credentials, or even knowing a lot of facts, doesn’t really make you an educated person. In our society, an education is certainly a means to a better standard of living, but maybe that shouldn’t be the only thing that we strive for. Besides, a college education without self-awareness and purpose is just a really expensive piece of paper. I know people with a college degree who are just kind of bumming around doing nothing in particular, not because they can’t find a job in this economy, but because they either don’t know what they care about or don’t care about anything at all.
