Accumulating a lot of wealth is often justified as a result of intelligence and hard work, and the roles of privilege, systemic advantage, networks, safety nets, and timing are commonly overlooked. If wealth is frequently seen as a sign of merit, then poverty could easily be interpreted as a sign of failure. When this happens, empathy from the wealthy slowly starts to fade away. Those at the top are viewed as deserving of respect and authority, along with the money they earn. They can easily spread influence, while those at the bottom are blamed for their circumstances. These barriers are constantly dismissed as excuses, and the act of not accumulating wealth to survive is regarded as a flaw, even if someone got to the top through a systemic outcome. When, at the end of the day, “success” is a product of the same system. Once this happens, inequality has shifted to a hierarchy. And once someone’s wealth is confused or seen as proportional to their virtue or moral value, challenging the very inequality that helped them rise is often seen as a personal attack, even when it isn’t.
Let’s break it down:
SELECTIVE EMPATHY. You are constantly taught to be empathetic. However, in reality, empathy from a common person is often extended to those who resemble themselves, and this can obviously support one’s own internal biases. However, when it’s personal, the struggle is much better understood. Selective empathy allows a society to care in theory while remaining indifferent in practice. As a result, suffering that exists outside one’s immediate circle becomes so much easier to ignore, and empathy is often given selectively. Many studies help showcase this divide, along with a study done by Piff et al. (2010; 2012). Through a series of experiments, researchers found that “people of higher socioeconomic status show lower empathic accuracy”. Over time, this pattern starts to normalize inequality, and certain struggles are made visible and considered worthy of concern or help, while many others remain completely invisible altogether.
FRAGILITY. Going back to what probably hooked you into this article in the first place, the belief that wealth is earned purely through intelligence and effort in a naive society can serve a psychological function: It reassures the wealthy that the world is fair. When success is attributed to personal merit, those so-called “successful” people try to avoid themselves from facing the ugly truth, or the discomfort of recognizing advantage, luck, or inherited wealth- Therefore placing a deep need for control into their minds. If one believes their current position is well deserved and stable, then poverty becomes threatening. Threatening in the sense that if one acknowledges the structural causes of poverty, they would imply that success itself is fragile and could easily be reversed, therefore distancing themselves from vulnerability and empathy as much as possible.
STATUS ANXIETY. The fear of falling down the social hierarchy is the driving force of the upper classes’ resistance to equality. However, the wealthy constantly cling to this hierarchy because it offers relative safety. This provides them with a way to locate themselves above someone else in an unstable, unfair world. Even those who are not at the top of the system still cling to the hierarchy. Why? Due to the fear of losing what little advantage they even have in the first place. Why this hierarchy works is because it reduces overall status anxiety- As long as there is someone beneath you, your position feels secure. System Justification Theory helps show that people tend to “rationalize and maintain unfair systems” to cope with this threat. This further convinces people to believe that inequality is deserved. Total fairness in a system such as this, on the other hand, challenges comfort. It takes away the illusion of guaranteed status, making people realize and confront how conditional or contingent their security really is, therefore meaning that a fairer world would reveal how fragile the hierarchy has always been.
FEAR. The fear of losing it all…scary, right? That’s why money is clung to so tightly. Money is important for basic human needs, but a lot of excess is treated the same way as well. On top of being safeguarded as comfort, it’s been a way to showcase one’s identity. Especially for those at the top. But if I’m being honest, who could blame them? As if right now, money has become proof of someone’s intelligence and overall worth as a human being. The idea of losing it all, however, might sound like losing yourself to many. Losing your own legitimacy. This fear is another major driving force of resistance towards redistributing one’s money. One won’t feel superior to another.
So what if I burned all your money? Is your status going to diminish within the flames? Will your moral shortcuts burn down, leaving you with the char of what you once stood up for? More importantly, would your values remain the same? Money has the power to excuse so much harm. If I were to burn one’s money, however, it leaves many with an important question:
Without it, who are you? And what do you stand for?
I know her. She is so cool and can write really well too! 😊