Posted by alexandra_k on April 28, 2009, at 12:36:37
In reply to what happened?, posted by alexandra_k on April 28, 2009, at 11:20:55
I never heard of this before but someone here mentioned it.
One perspective (the most prevalent in the literature) is that people who excel are cut down. That there is some kind of resentment when people succeed. The thought is that Australasian society has 'tall poppy syndrome'.
Another perspective (that I really haven't seen much of in the literature) is that people who think their success is due to intrinsic features of them that makes them better than or worth more than others are cut down.
E.g., Edmond Hillary is celebrated as a NZ icon of accomplishment in part precisely because of his attitude towards his success.
I guess there are two takes on the redistribution of wealth, too (the notion that there should be limits on the wealth that people are allowed to accumulate in order to compensate for the lack of wealth that others are allowed to endure).
If one thinks that people all basically have the same intrinsic freedom to accumulate wealth or fail to accumulate it as they see fit then I guess it makes sense to say 'to each their own'. If one thinks that people all basically have the same intrinsic worth and value as people then I guess it makes sense to place limits on the wealth that some are able to accumulate in order to improve others quality of life. A little of both goes on in both systems (sure we want to reward people who sacrifice more than others e.g., people who work much longer working days and give up leisure to help others but then sure we want to help those who aren't able to get their basic needs met).
poster:alexandra_k
thread:893271
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20090424/msgs/893288.html