Enculturation > Education: Being in the Right Place and Time
Updated: Jan 21
Most of us intuitively know this already. We've summarized it in aphorisms; "it's not what you know, but who you know." We've likely practiced it in school, socializing with whomever we think is cool (however we perceive it), and shunning others or being shunned by those cooler than us. As deeply social and communal creatures, humans cannot separate themselves from their instincts even if they might know better than to favor the less capable person they know and like, over the potentially more capable one they don't.
Part of our preference for the familiar is about risk tolerance. Most humans are a lot more risk averse than they let on. Living/working with a toxic but familiar person is often (subconsciously or not) seen as preferable over venturing out into the darkness and finding someone else. "Better the devil you know than the one you don't" they say, because who knows what disaster might await us on the other side of the unknown? Another way of looking at it; the social instincts which would protect us in a survival situation, are not simply turned off in other contexts. This is why being in the right place and time is such a powerful predictor of success.
Another well-known fact; being in the wrong place and time is also a powerful predictor of poverty. In our highly developed society, that is both by instinct and design (our instincts motivate our designs after all). This begins with the preference of ourselves over others, and then to that which is closer to us over that which is farther. One's own children are naturally preferred over the children of another, as well as one's own friends and family. When we look around and see people that are like us in some way, we tend to prefer them as well. We gravitate toward members of our own alma mater later in life, or to those who root for the same sports team as us.
But it doesn't stop there. We are acutely attuned to detect variations in the speech, appearance, and mannerisms of those around us. We can tell where people come from, including their social strata, even if we live in the same country and city. And while we might all subjectively think our way is best or right, those with power have the ability to enforce their views on others, creating consensus whether anyone likes it or not.
This is where whatever dividing line may exist between enculturation and education, begins to blur. When we become "educated," we learn how to speak and write properly. But what is considered proper? The language habits of the elite of course. People from the upper castes of society have always had their own social circles and as a result, their own customs and linguistic habits. They subjectively believed their way was right, but also had the power to declare it to be so in dictionaries and academia; that is how the way wealthy people talk naturally through enculturation, became over time the accepted "proper" way to speak and write for everyone else through education.
Therefore modern education is, in some contexts, the art of emulating the ethnic and social circles of the wealthy. This explains why specific bodies of knowledge are considered the markers of an "educated" person, as opposed to unaccepted bodies of knowledge which do not connote to being "educated" in the popular sense no matter how much one may know within that field. Knowing Shakespeare shows one to be educated; knowing Spiderman does not. Knowing classical music connotes class obviously (and indeed the etymology of the term "classical music" harks directly to the upper class of society which enjoyed such music), knowing pop songs does not.
My point is that there is no extricating perceptions of class from perceptions of education. You may very well be educated in your own estimation when it comes to the vast bodies of knowledge which are arbitrarily not considered to be within the realm of "education." But that does not mean you will be judged accordingly. Naming one or two Baroque composers bespeaks more and better knowledge than naming ten punk rock bands. Because "education" - again, in the popular sense - is more about showing that you are part of the tribe than that you possess any special intellectual or academic prowess.
My goal here is not to denigrate education itself, as education is a most worthy pursuit and one which I believe we must engage in with all diligence to reach our full potential. Yet there are many kinds of education which one could receive, each one conferring its own value differently. Education doesn't need to look like lectures in a university classroom. It doesn't need to look like thick, dusty, books with strange vocabularies. Education in the purer sense is about pursuing answers and staying humble enough to admit when you find one.
But when it comes to securing a coveted job or official position, one is attempting to encroach on that which has already been claimed by the elite. As such, one must either be a member of the elite in fact, or else do a good job of imitating them, to take such a position. In my country and culture (USA) most people know that they should communicate in "proper" English when confronted by an authority, writing a thesis, or interviewing for a job. No other lingo is acceptable. Thus, a performative display of enculturation is what these situations call for, and not any particular education.
To take us back to the proscriptive, the right kind of education may be more attainable than you think because the right kind of education for you may have more to do with proximity than capability. In other words, you simply need to be in the right place long enough for the right thing to likely happen to you. Which is not to say that getting a "place at the table" is easy either. But orienting one's self in a particular direction is only a matter of making the choice to do so. This could be taken literally, like moving to Hollywood to pursue an acting career, or more often figuratively as in engrossing yourself in a pursuit so thoroughly that you become naturally encultured within the circles you want to become a part of.
All of us "fake it 'til we make it" from the time we are babies to whenever we stop caring or die - likely the same event. That's ok, because everyone else is faking it too. And it doesn't mean that you cannot or should not be authentic, but rather that you are constantly en route to the person you want to be and the life you want to live, manifesting that vision in word and deed. It isn't something you achieve once and then quit. It is about focusing on your aspiration until you slowly become the aspiration.
Comments