权利焦虑

Rachel Sherman
{"title":"权利焦虑","authors":"Rachel Sherman","doi":"10.4000/rsa.3878","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the rise of the “moral economy” as a frame for analyzing increasing inequality, few scholars have explored the moral dimensions of elites’ experience and interpretations of their own privilege. Based on in-depth interviews with 50 affluent New York parents, this paper focuses on how they manage the peculiar concept of “entitlement”. In U.S. political culture, this concept links individuals’ dispositions and behaviors to whether they deserve resources, as studies of welfare recipients have established. I argue that a similar analysis is needed for elites. These privileged actors want to interpret themselves as legitimately deserving of (i.e., entitled to) their social advantages, which means not being “entitled” in a behavioral and dispositional sense. They cast legitimate entitlement as depending upon moral worth in three areas: hard work, reasonable consumption, and “giving back”. They also feel a strong obligation to raise children who share the­se values. In invoking these criteria of worth, affluent respondents primarily attach themselves to the symbolically-worthy American middle class. The paper concludes with a discussion of how this relationship between dispositions and distributions justifies inequality.","PeriodicalId":20948,"journal":{"name":"Random Structures and Algorithms","volume":"55 1","pages":"61-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anxieties of Entitlement\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Sherman\",\"doi\":\"10.4000/rsa.3878\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Despite the rise of the “moral economy” as a frame for analyzing increasing inequality, few scholars have explored the moral dimensions of elites’ experience and interpretations of their own privilege. Based on in-depth interviews with 50 affluent New York parents, this paper focuses on how they manage the peculiar concept of “entitlement”. In U.S. political culture, this concept links individuals’ dispositions and behaviors to whether they deserve resources, as studies of welfare recipients have established. I argue that a similar analysis is needed for elites. These privileged actors want to interpret themselves as legitimately deserving of (i.e., entitled to) their social advantages, which means not being “entitled” in a behavioral and dispositional sense. They cast legitimate entitlement as depending upon moral worth in three areas: hard work, reasonable consumption, and “giving back”. They also feel a strong obligation to raise children who share the­se values. In invoking these criteria of worth, affluent respondents primarily attach themselves to the symbolically-worthy American middle class. The paper concludes with a discussion of how this relationship between dispositions and distributions justifies inequality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Random Structures and Algorithms\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"61-86\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Random Structures and Algorithms\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4000/rsa.3878\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Random Structures and Algorithms","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/rsa.3878","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管“道德经济”作为分析日益加剧的不平等的框架已经兴起,但很少有学者探索精英经历的道德维度以及对自己特权的解释。基于对50位纽约富裕父母的深度访谈,本文关注他们如何管理“权利”这个特殊概念。在美国政治文化中,这一概念将个人的性格和行为与他们是否应该获得资源联系起来,正如对福利接受者的研究所证实的那样。我认为,精英们也需要进行类似的分析。这些享有特权的行为者想要将自己解释为合法地应得(即有权)他们的社会优势,这意味着在行为和性格意义上没有“权利”。他们认为合法的权利取决于三个方面的道德价值:努力工作、合理消费和“回馈”。他们也感到有强烈的义务要培养与他们有共同价值观的孩子。在援引这些价值标准时,富裕的受访者主要将自己与具有象征意义的美国中产阶级联系在一起。本文最后讨论了这种倾向和分布之间的关系如何证明不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Anxieties of Entitlement
Despite the rise of the “moral economy” as a frame for analyzing increasing inequality, few scholars have explored the moral dimensions of elites’ experience and interpretations of their own privilege. Based on in-depth interviews with 50 affluent New York parents, this paper focuses on how they manage the peculiar concept of “entitlement”. In U.S. political culture, this concept links individuals’ dispositions and behaviors to whether they deserve resources, as studies of welfare recipients have established. I argue that a similar analysis is needed for elites. These privileged actors want to interpret themselves as legitimately deserving of (i.e., entitled to) their social advantages, which means not being “entitled” in a behavioral and dispositional sense. They cast legitimate entitlement as depending upon moral worth in three areas: hard work, reasonable consumption, and “giving back”. They also feel a strong obligation to raise children who share the­se values. In invoking these criteria of worth, affluent respondents primarily attach themselves to the symbolically-worthy American middle class. The paper concludes with a discussion of how this relationship between dispositions and distributions justifies 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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信