Impact of Perception of Power on Our Ability to Address Social Issues
PROMPT
In “Biographies of Hegemony,” Karen Ho explains, “To be considered “smart” on Wall Street is to be implicated in a web of situated practices and ideologies, coproduced through the interactions multiple institutions, processes, and American culture at large, which confer authority and legitimacy on high finance and contribute to the sector’s vast influence. The culture of smartness is not simply a quality of Wall Street, but a currency a driving force productive of both profit accumulation and global prowess” (162). Ho’s “culture of smartness” is a cultural hegemony, based in practices, associations, and ideologies, that contributes to both Wall Street’s perceived elitism and its potential sociocultural power. Klein and Coates examine ways in which attitudes towards climate change and politics impact our ability to understand and respond to complex phenomena.
Citing textual evidence from Klein, Coates, and Ho’s texts to substantiate your analysis and synthesis, answer the following questions: How does our perception of power affect our ability to address social issues?
THOUGHT-PROVOKERS
Below are some further questions that may be useful to consider in generating your argument. Remember that you only need to address the above prompt in bold:
➢ What is power?
➢ Should we think of power as something possessed by individuals or groups, or does it have to be created and sustained by the actions of the powerful?
➢ How does Wall Street use the Ivy League to create its power?
➢ What is hegemony?
Professor
Course
Date
Impact of Perception of Power on Our Ability to Address Social Issues
Human intentions and perception predominantly depend on how a person approaches the concept of power. From hegemonies to democratic patterns, power has been among the key determinants of the interaction between personal motives and social problems (Ho 160). While talking about the perception of power, referring to contrasting views is essential because every single ideology has a solid bundle of arguments lying at its base. Three texts to be analyzed in this paper including “We Were Eight Years in Power: An American Tragedy” by Ta-Nehisi Coates; “Liquidated: An ethnography of Wall Street” by Ho. K; and “This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs. The Climate” by Naomi Klein have highlighted how people, intoxicated with power, sideline social problems and let their motives and personal interests guide their moral stance.
There is a wide-held consensus that there is a tradeoff between personal and social gains. Whereas socialists continue to advocate the value of the triple-bottom-line intertwined into their model of sustainability, neoliberals are never tired of opposing such reforms for their interventionary or forced nature. He states “Neoliberal orthodoxies have thwarted various attempts to lower carbon emissions worldwide” (Klean 205). Based on a close assessment, it is evident that how much an institution, region, group, or individual shows willingness to solve the social problem is dependent on their underpinning philosophy that they derive from their preferred ideology.
Before diving into the interdependence between power perception and social tendencies, it is imperative to dissect the typology of human take on this concept. For some people, power is the ability to control the subordinate without regard to the master’s actions or any other criteria of eligibility. It is the accumulation of sources that enable a person or a group of people to exercise control and authority over another group of people. This concept of power is rooted in hegemony, as explained by Karen Ho. It is the dominance of one group by another and is justified under the overarching principle of “might is right”. To say differently, an individual or group of people is powerful for the sole reason that they are powerful.
Karen Ho, in his discussion focusing on the interaction between power and actions, sets forth the analogy of Wall Street. Ho terms people successful at Wall Street as “smart” or accumulators of “hegemony”. To him, Wall Street has created “probably the most elite work-society ever to be assembled on the globe” (161). The interdependence of the smartest people and their interest makes them smart and raise them above their counterparts (devoid of smartness).
With tongue in cheeks, Ho scoffs at the emerging social norms where finance is the pivotal force. People’s odds of survival are hinged upon the extent of their ability to integrate into this strata. According to him, an ideal worker is “A worker who is constantly retraining, a worker who is constantly networked, a worker whose skill set is very interchangeable, a worker who thinks of downsizing as a challenge--a worker who thrives on this” (Ho 162). Ho brings into the light the complex paradox of social responsibility that goes unattended as the societies continue to place faith in Wall Street. It leads to an ecosystem where environmental protection or social welfare remains out of the equation.
At one point, Ho remarks that once the subjects taught at educational institutions “have given many generations of students the opportunity to broaden their minds” (160). He goes on to say “But now this ideal of higher education as an exploration of possibilities has come under intense pressure from the influence of "financialization"” (Ho 160). This growing tendency towards the accumulation of money has led to the development of a culture where personal interest takes precedence over all social or environmental causes. Every individual in the pursuit of success will hardly be concerned about the implications of their actions or decisions on an objective scale. This collective tendency deters philanthropy and any other form of spending for the social cause. The elitism of Wall Street is steeped into capitalistic values where an individual makes sense of gains in none other than monetary form.
This type of system promotes materialistic values. Ho’s use of the term “hegemony” is an indication of the rise of oligopoly which is also an off-shoot of the all-encompassing Wall Street’s self-serving culture. The word is applicable in its purest sense as “smart” individuals are far and few between while others continue to lament over the decreased sense of social security (Ho 161). A minority accumulates power and boast of it heedless of how it may affect the majority’s lives. This is where the accumulation of power can turn into a blindfold. Successful people may enjoy being labeled as “smart” or “elite”, but these labels hardly serve as an answer to the question marks raised against their blindness to the social cause and responsibility of others. They are reluctant to accept any such responsibility as it might put their status on Wall Street at stake. Therefore, their perception of social problems and consciousness abou...