We’ve seen a lot of upheaval in recent weeks after Joris Luyendijks The Seven Signs – How Men Love Me Boss† Or actually not about his book, but about the interview with him at People’s Newspaper And his article in the language NRC HandelsbladBoth on Saturday, February 5th. Too bad for Luyendijk and newspaper readers, bring TV viewers to the end Buitenhof, Some critics have not read his book. For example, he seems to talk about the importance of health and wealth and that he shows compassion and empathy for those who have fewer ticks. He clearly explains how children with fewer ticks receive less advice when choosing a school with a Cito score, even though he could have paid more attention to all the teaching institutes of children of wealthy parents. There are now more than 5,400 in the Netherlands, which represents an increase in the number of teaching firms by more than 60 percent in five years. For example, for the Cito test, both parents and children want a high score.
Luyendijk is very general regarding the effect of education on check marks. The class gym he attended is more appreciated than a high school section. One type of higher education has a lower status than the other. Think of academically trained teachers with poor primary and secondary working conditions, culminating during the coronavirus crisis. Moreover, the rating of a PhD is higher than that of a master’s degree at Luyendijk. Further study abroad is an advantage again. How do you measure the impact of all these different elements?
So I find Luyendyk’s argument superficial, inconsistent, and sometimes even incredible, so it doesn’t contribute much to the inequality debate. His method – “I don’t know anything, people enlighten me …!” – It doesn’t work well. When he describes in detail how he had the appropriate financial, social, and cultural capital from an early age and how he could use it, hard work, ambition and risk-taking, you think, damn it, Luyendijk definitely knows how to put the fork in a sitting trunk.
Thus, the audience of his lecture, from whom he claims to have learned a great deal, is only partially representative of the Seven Signs. Take Luyendijk’s story that he always starts his presentations with a woman who says “He was on Facebook” and that’s why there’s always a laugh. This actually tells us a lot about the environment of good and successful consultants, advisors, marketers, etc. Also called nonsense jobs mentioned. However, it seems to me that the reaction of a group of scholars, teachers or museum staff would be strong. Such a group makes this woman particularly apprehensive as an advocate for all those who believe in fake news and think bad news is very important.
Moreover, Luyendijk does not stop at his enlightened audience in his argument. He mentions a number of authors’ names and several times also refers to their books. Not a handful yet, but for example about Gloria Wicker’s argument about “white innocence”. He is cheerful because he is ignorant of innocence leitmotif Van Luyendyk’s book. “treasure” in Seven signs He even mentioned the Alarm Clock in The Disastrous Element for him last Sunday in Buitenhof†
It is remarkable that praise, because stimuli white innocence (2016) knows only one sign: race. Like flags in blind sparrows, it intersects with many other features that differ from the dominant white, heterosexual, and secular man. According to Wekker, Muslims also constitute a “race”, which is racism in our country worst Than in the United States and has everyone Dutch White About “White Privilege”. According to the Wekker School, there are actually socially weaker whites, “although it just means that life can be hard, something as random as the color of your skin is not the cause.” According to her follow up Clarice Gargard.
In Luyendijk’s view, this weak group is already missing a sign, which means that their “class privilege” makes more sense in the inequality debate than “white privilege”. He also isn’t alarmed by Wekker’s cross taboo about attacking conservative believers for their views on women and homosexuals.
Luyendijk could have read more to prove his story. He writes about “class migration” as if he had not invented the concept in this way, or explained it to the workers. But I read it, it was published last year indispensable By Ron Meyer You know about the hat and the brim. Same with politician Wim Major (2016). Luyendijk would also have helped with books by Akyol, Baldi, Gül, Benzakour and others describing what it’s like to grow up with little or no ticks. Ditto, Robert Vujechis interview package But where did you really come from? (2020).
More important than Luyendyk’s ‘artificial’ self-flagellation is his appreciation for the myth of merit. Merit indicates that everyone has the same opportunities, so it no longer matters where you are born, what you look like, or what your gender identity is.
Decades ago, the skeptics rightly pointed out that he who does not succeed socially, then has to blame himself well and not on all sorts of circumstances through no fault of his own. Other critics speak of “diplomacy,” a term coined by David van Reybroek in 2009, in which only the highly educated succeed socially.
On the other hand, Luyendijk rightly points out that not all people with higher education have seven marks. Unfortunately, he does not see that if you really want to reach the top in our country, you need more than seven check marks. his experiences with Watchman In London he should have given him this idea. Luyendijk tells the story of the man who wouldn’t belong, despite his best efforts. Known, the external that does not seem to correspond to the codes, whether it is hidden or not, and who does not have the necessary cultural capital.
Hence the eighth check mark. The merit myth is essentially that the system has completely supplanted its predecessors – riddled with inequality. Thus, the nobility, solidarity and the bourgeoisie will only play a marginal role in society?
The above helpful reading list did not include the studies of sociologist Jaap Drunkers, who died not so long ago. In 2000, he demonstrated that during the twentieth century, the Dutch nobility had a steady progression in obtaining elite positions, first in running women’s assemblies and later in government jobs. Three years earlier, he had already pointed out to members of the board of directors in Leiden and Utrecht who had a greater chance of immediately occupying an elite position, “but are also often of noble or patriarchal descendants, and more often follow legal study.”
But nobility and solidarity act only as peculiar variables within the seventh sign of Luyendijk. Something like playing in a student orchestra, jazz group, bobsleigh, or sailing competitions. “Almost my entire class joined the corps and moved into the big business.” So Luyendyk did not contact them again, because he says that “in the face of brotherhood balls in a group, he still had an acute allergic attack.”
You can imagine something if you recently read the recent interview with author Philip Huff in People’s Newspaper “The Wire motivated me in so many ways,” she says. It also made me arrogant, and I wish that to the students too.
Some of his informants who tested the seven assert that they were not members of the legion. No, they made it “with their own power”, without it Old Boys Network. The other informants were members of the corps and seemed to see this as an advantage.
All this does not make an impression on Luyendijk. He reveals at the end of his book that the membership of the corps has not been verified, “because a good part of the upper class was never there”, such as Rutte, Balkenende, Kok and Lubbers.
As with education, it is very global here and the weighting problem plays a role. Balkenende was a member of the student corps at the Free University. Lubbers of the Catholic Student League Sanctus Laurentius and became president of the Federation of Catholic Student Societies in the Netherlands. Rutte interrupted his studies to become the president of JOVD. Finally, Cook studied at the prestigious Ninrod.
According to Luyendijk, Kok is of humble origin, just like Hans Wijers and Herman Wijffels. The last two were members… of the student body. If you search the internet for a while, you will notice that there are many other heroes Seven signs Members of the corps, including those who play a positive role in Luyendijk’s story. Because although he “always gets an acute allergic attack when playing fraternity balls in a group,” he has no objection to individuals. Like Kees van Lyde, with whom Luyendyk prepared a pamphlet in 2020 about the little flaws that great capitalism also has.
Former corps member Neelie Kroes performed on Sunday at Buitenhof Minced meat from it. He misrepresented her parents’ beliefs and falsely accused Cross of learning to speak formally. Read Stan de Young and Quinn Fosquel, Nelly Cross. How a Rotterdam girl became the most powerful woman in Europe (2011) could not only save him from inaccuracy, but also warn him. Because, unlike Marion Koopmans mentioned by Luyendijk, bodily women like Kroes don’t need a course to create “space for themselves”.
So be there soon Eight check marks At the bookstore?
Devoted music ninja. Zombie practitioner. Pop culture aficionado. Webaholic. Communicator. Internet nerd. Certified alcohol maven. Tv buff.