“making it by yourself” in the west has become a bit of a social currency, but why?

at its core, success and independence probably aren’t selected for by evolution; they are social constructs designed to keep the economy running smoothly without collapsing under the weight of inevitable inequalities.

it all goes back to individualism vs. collectivism

(sweeping generalizations lie ahead) in the western individualist model, the highest cultural ideal is autonomy. and so success is defined by severing financial ties with your parents, paying your own rent, and making it by yourself. the result of that is that ageing becomes institutionalized (pensions, RRSPs and 401ks, retirement homes) so that parents do not become a burden on their children

in the eastern collectivist model, the family (not the individual) is the core economic unit. family members pool massive resources to fund a child’s education and housing, and in return, the child is bound by filial duty to elevate the family’s status and eventually take care of their parents’ retirements.

so both systems demand some sort of sacrifice, and the western model in particular relies on the framing of “making it by yourself” as a moral virtue to keep it moving. where did this come from?

the origins of the hustle

Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism has an answer. it turns out that modern hustle culture is actually the secular remnant of 16th century religious doctrine.

before the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church generally taught that the highest spiritual life was one removed from the world. So basically being a monk, nun, or priest. Martin Luther changed this by introducing the idea of the “calling” (in German, Beruf). he argued that everyday work could be a way to serve God, and suddenly, being a diligent student or blacksmith or merchant was viewed as carrying just as much weight spiritually as being a priest. work became a moral duty.

John Calvin (through Calvanism) built on this by emphasizing predestination: the belief that God has already determined who is “saved” and who is “dammed” before they are even born. naturally, this created a lot of psychological anxiety—people were dying to know if they were part of the elect. over time, Calvinist pastors began preaching that while you couldn’t earn your salvation, you could look for signs of God’s favor. that sign? worldly success achieved through discipline and hard work.

okay, so take these two things and up to this point, we have the following: believers were compelled to work tirelessly to prove they were chosen by God but, their religion also forbade them from enjoying the fruits of their labor: splurging was considered sinful. you might know this as worldly asceticism. and so, the only use for the money is reinvestment back into your business, equipment, and community. this cycle (work hard, make profits, reinvest them) perpetuates capital building, and so money became a tool to make more money rather than just something for consumption

so Weber argues that over time, the original religious motivation (fear of damnation and the desire to please god) faded, but the economic system it created (hyperrationalized and profit-driven) remained.

he likened this modern secular capitalism to an “iron cage” or a “steel-hard casing” (depends who you ask to translate), where we have to prioritize efficiency, productivity, and the relentless pursuit of wealth just to survive even though the spiritual justification is long gone.

the myth of meritocracy

so the religious justification was gone. at the same time, we know that capitalism leads to the concentration of power. at some point, we needed a new way to explain wealth disparity under the system.

merit and a meritocracy, which says that those at the top are the smartest and hardest working, took the place of divine grace: by framing success as a purely individual achievement, the power of the people at the top becomes very difficult to question on the other side, it also makes people *not at the top internalize their failures: if you are struggling to pay rent or working 60-hour weeks just to survive, the meritocratic narrative tells you it is your own fault for not studying harder, working harder, whatever. in reality, these are systemic, structural failures, not a personal moral failure.

Weber’s Iron Cage forces us to participate in capitalism to survive, but pure survival is a pretty grim motivator. i think another way meritocracy is good is because it provides hope that the cage can be climbed. the belief that “if I just work hard enough, I can become a winner too” keeps people working like dogs.

So Weber explains why we’re trapped in this system. what about how the people at the top stay at the top without explicitly breaking the rules of the meritocracy?

cultural capital

French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu introduced the idea of Cultural Capital in response to why, in supposedly equal and merit-based societies, the children of the wealthy almost always stay wealthy, and the children of the working class almost always stay working class.

while we all understand economic capital (money and property) and social capital (who you know/networking), Bourdieu argued that the most insidious way the elite pass on their power is through cultural capital. this is the collection of non-financial social assets like knowledge, behaviors, tastes, and skills that promote social mobility.

Bourdieu says cultural capital comes in three distinct forms:

• embodied: this is what you absorb unconsciously just by growing up in a specific environment: your accent, your vocabulary, your posture, your table manners, and your comfort level in high-pressure or formal environments.
• objectified: the physical objects you are surrounded by; growing up in a house filled with books, classic art, and musical instruments. it’s more about having the ingrained knowledge of how to consume or discuss them than the actual ownership, btw
• institutionalized: this is how institutions officially recognize your cultural capital. an Ivy League degree is a stamp of approval that you possess the right kind of elite culture.

he goes on to argue that schools and corporate workplaces claim to reward pure intelligence and hard work, but since institutions are built by the elite, they naturally value the culture of the elite.

when a child from an elite background enters school, they already possess the vocabulary, reading habits, and the confident demeanor that teachers expect. they excel on standardized tests because the tests are written using the same “language” they speak at home. now the system looks at this child and says “wow! look how naturally brilliant and meritorious they are!” in reality, the school is simply rewarding the cultural capital the child inherited. the working-class child, who might be just as intelligent but lacks that specific cultural fluency, is penalized and viewed as lacking “merit.”

you see this peak in the modern corporate hiring process. when a law firm, tech giant, or investment bank interviews candidates, they are often looking for a “good culture fit.” they aren’t just looking at who can do the math or write the code; they are looking for someone who speaks, acts, and thinks like they do. they want someone who can comfortably banter with wealthy clients. the working-class applicant might have the exact same degree, but they lack the embodied cultural capital.

and this can operate within the rules of the meritocracy because, if a billionaire simply buys their underqualified child a position as a CEO, society gets angry. but if that billionaire raises their child in an environment rich with elite vocabulary, sends them to schools that refine their debate skills, and surrounds them with high-art and literature, that child will genuinely ace their Columbia admissions interview. they will appear to have earned their spot entirely on their own. cultural capital allows the elite to launder their economic privilege into “natural talent.”

tangent: industrialized meritocracy in the east

the East utilizes the exact same mechanism of disguising privilege as merit, but the currency looks different.

instead of subjective “culture fit” interviews, eastern systems rely on mathematically objective standardized tests (like the Gaokao or Suneung). because everyone takes the same test, success looks even more like pure merit.

but really, wealth still dictates the outcome through the “shadow education” system. wealthy families pour astronomical amounts of money into private cram schools and tutors. in the East, the embodied capital passed down by parents is extreme, policed academic discipline.

so WHY do BUCS students think like that??

now we get to the original question: why does the Western system aggressively push the narrative that ‘making it by yourself’ is the only valid form of success?

modern corporate capitalism requires this myth to survive for a few reasons (and we can sit here and name 1000 more):

1. if society admits the game is rigged, the working class will organize, unionize, and revolt. by pushing the myth of individual meritocracy, you only have yourself to blame to not working hard enough.
2. multi-generational, communal living requires fewer goods. a society of atomized, rugged individuals is vastly more profitable.
3. if the public understood that billionaires largely succeed due to inherited capital and exploited labor, democratic intervention would make it more likely that they are taxed and regulated.
4. to keep corporate profit margins high, the economy needs workers to accept long hours and stagnant wages. if you convince workers to sever their communal safety nets to prove they can “make it on their own,” they become entirely dependent on their employers for survival.
   • and we see this with the US model of healthcare, where health insurance is tied to employment!

i saw people talk about “they start culture wars to distract from the class war” a lot after the Luigi Mangione incident, and this is basically what it is.

tl;dr, “making it by yourself” is not an objective measure of human worth or merit. it’s an incredibly expensive social currency designed to mask inherited privilege, isolate individuals to maximize consumption, and keep a desperate workforce quietly turning the gears.