Metaphors. We
all use them more often than you may recognize. They don’t live strictly in
poetry or literature; they even extend into the way we think. Take sports for
example, we often think about athletics in terms of war:
The Bulls were really attacking the
Piston’s defense
We need to be more aggressive on offense
We got killed last night
The coach just sent in his second
unit
(Read “Metaphors We Live By”, by George
Lakoff and Mark Johnson for greater insight on the subject http://www.amazon.com/Metaphors-We-Live-George-Lakoff/dp/0226468011)
In other words, we
live metaphors, and we don’t even know it. One of these metaphors is people as
numbers. Numbers are beautiful because they’re so straightforward. It’s why
people always ask, “On a scale from one to ten, what do you think about
(fill in the blank). But, by that very same quality of directness, numbers seem
to make inequality inevitable.
Let’s think about
it— whether we’re measuring skill, attractiveness, intelligence, etc. Numbers
can reduce people to just another measurement or a mark on a scale. Now how
this plays into social division is clear: people as numbers creates some that
are unarguably ‘better’ than others (i.e. “That 9 is clearly better than the 7”).
And because people are constantly looking at themselves through these social
lenses, it’s natural to surround themselves with people of similar “rating” or
stature, because people don’t like feeling inferior. This is the same way
social groups and cliques form.
But
let’s look even deeper. Numbers define groups of people, not just individuals. Take
the 1% movement for instance. An extreme divide which essentially groups people
as either part of this tiny wealthy minority, or the rest of the country. And
this exposes two things:
First is the
misleading nature of numbers. What about those sitting on the cusp of the 1%?
Let’s say, the 2%ers. It’s absolutely ridiculous to think that they’re the same
as the 90th percentile of the nation in terms of wealth.
Second is the
relative nature of inequality. Percentages inherently depend upon relative
measurement, making what’s considered the top percent of a nation subjective to
that society. I found an internet meme that was pretty popular as the 1%
movement developed:
And it’s
incredibly accurate. Poverty is a completely relative construct; it all depends
on the wealth around you.
So the next time you decide to trust the
absolute value of numbers, think twice, because in the end they’re just metaphors
for the people that they’re trying to represent.
