![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jewelfoxMatthew Garrett's recent post on depression touched a nerve, because I've been dealing with it for most of my life and it was especially bad all of last year. I'm trying to arrange to get help, but even that is extremely difficult right now.
I'm going to try to add some things to his post without going on for too long. Specifically, I'm going to address ideas we have and stuff we take for granted that makes the experience of being depressed much, much worse.
The "Just World" fallacy
This is a fancy name for the idea that people tend to get what they deserve. Here in the States, we call it "liberty" and "objectivism" and "reducing dependence on government." In the Linux and Free Software communities, we call it "meritocracy."
It's an extremely convenient belief to have if you're at the top of your pecking order. It tells you that you deserve to be there, because of how awesome you are. And it tells you not to worry about anybody beneath you, because if they're deserving they'll make it eventually. And if they're not, well, don't worry about it. It's their fault, and helping them will just keep them dependent on you. Better to throw them out of the nest and watch their carcasses smear on the rocks, until you find one that can fly like you could.
This mindset stigmatizes being weak or in need of help. It turns being a newb, at life or at Linux, into something to be ashamed of. And when you have this mindset yourself, and are weak or injured, you're ashamed of everything. You have a desperate need to please others and show that your life is worthwhile. You're afraid to admit failure, to yourself or to anyone else, because you know that you'll be destroyed and it'll be your fault.
Preordained winners and losers
If you aren't so conscientious, of course, none of that matters. Of course you'll get the help you need. Of course you deserve it. Ayn Rand herself went on Social Security. My parents have no qualms about getting cheques from the government, via dad's military retirement. But I sold off almost all my possessions to keep from needing to apply for "food stamps," which are one of the only reliable social welfare programs here for people who aren't senior citizens. I didn't want to be a burden.
And that's what these beliefs are all about. They take people who care about others, who want to help others, who want to be part of a team and community and work together to do something awesome, and very often make them into nervous, self-loathing wrecks. At their best and most productive, they may have impostor syndrome and depression, may fail to promote themselves and their projects, and may put up with crap no one should. At their worse, they may want to kill themselves, like I almost did a few years ago after being thrown out of the house.
The fact that my parents let me back in an hour or so later didn't change anything. There was no apology. The status quo, in which this event wasn't even surprising and I just needed to live with it, did not change. And my family laughed and joked with each other later that day, without saying a word about what'd happened, as I went catatonic right there on the couch. I knew now that I was worthless, and no matter how much reassurance or encouragement I get from others that "fact" is still the core of my being.
I guess what I'm trying to say is,
The idea of "meritocracy" causes depression and kills people
And so whenever I see people glorify it, I know right away that to the degree that they take this belief seriously I'm looking at a good ol' boys' network with preordained winners and losers. Where people they like and consider worthwhile get rewarded and get away with anything, and people they dislike get blamed for their "failures" and punished.
This is why there's historically been so much hostility towards Apple, and towards everything in GNOME and Free Software and politics that tries to make stuff easier for newbs or bring new people into the fold. The people complaining have decided who's a "real" hacker or gamer or contributor or American, and who's undeserving of the label. They want the undeserving to run off somewhere that they don't have to see them, and they close their eyes so they don't see the smeared carcasses on the rocks.
When you grow up with this mindset and then realize that you're undeserving, you want to die.
I guess that's all.
I'm going to try to add some things to his post without going on for too long. Specifically, I'm going to address ideas we have and stuff we take for granted that makes the experience of being depressed much, much worse.
The "Just World" fallacy
This is a fancy name for the idea that people tend to get what they deserve. Here in the States, we call it "liberty" and "objectivism" and "reducing dependence on government." In the Linux and Free Software communities, we call it "meritocracy."
It's an extremely convenient belief to have if you're at the top of your pecking order. It tells you that you deserve to be there, because of how awesome you are. And it tells you not to worry about anybody beneath you, because if they're deserving they'll make it eventually. And if they're not, well, don't worry about it. It's their fault, and helping them will just keep them dependent on you. Better to throw them out of the nest and watch their carcasses smear on the rocks, until you find one that can fly like you could.
This mindset stigmatizes being weak or in need of help. It turns being a newb, at life or at Linux, into something to be ashamed of. And when you have this mindset yourself, and are weak or injured, you're ashamed of everything. You have a desperate need to please others and show that your life is worthwhile. You're afraid to admit failure, to yourself or to anyone else, because you know that you'll be destroyed and it'll be your fault.
Preordained winners and losers
If you aren't so conscientious, of course, none of that matters. Of course you'll get the help you need. Of course you deserve it. Ayn Rand herself went on Social Security. My parents have no qualms about getting cheques from the government, via dad's military retirement. But I sold off almost all my possessions to keep from needing to apply for "food stamps," which are one of the only reliable social welfare programs here for people who aren't senior citizens. I didn't want to be a burden.
And that's what these beliefs are all about. They take people who care about others, who want to help others, who want to be part of a team and community and work together to do something awesome, and very often make them into nervous, self-loathing wrecks. At their best and most productive, they may have impostor syndrome and depression, may fail to promote themselves and their projects, and may put up with crap no one should. At their worse, they may want to kill themselves, like I almost did a few years ago after being thrown out of the house.
The fact that my parents let me back in an hour or so later didn't change anything. There was no apology. The status quo, in which this event wasn't even surprising and I just needed to live with it, did not change. And my family laughed and joked with each other later that day, without saying a word about what'd happened, as I went catatonic right there on the couch. I knew now that I was worthless, and no matter how much reassurance or encouragement I get from others that "fact" is still the core of my being.
I guess what I'm trying to say is,
The idea of "meritocracy" causes depression and kills people
And so whenever I see people glorify it, I know right away that to the degree that they take this belief seriously I'm looking at a good ol' boys' network with preordained winners and losers. Where people they like and consider worthwhile get rewarded and get away with anything, and people they dislike get blamed for their "failures" and punished.
This is why there's historically been so much hostility towards Apple, and towards everything in GNOME and Free Software and politics that tries to make stuff easier for newbs or bring new people into the fold. The people complaining have decided who's a "real" hacker or gamer or contributor or American, and who's undeserving of the label. They want the undeserving to run off somewhere that they don't have to see them, and they close their eyes so they don't see the smeared carcasses on the rocks.
When you grow up with this mindset and then realize that you're undeserving, you want to die.
I guess that's all.
Thoughts
Date: 2013-01-18 06:57 am (UTC)There's nothing inherent inherent in meritocracy that says people with less ability should be discarded. There can be a place for everyone. That includes people who don't want to pour their whole life into a career; maybe they care more about raising a family or their spiritual life or a hobby, and want just a job to put beans on the table.
The idea of job = identity = worth is pernicious and destructive. It can get into all kinds of different systems and mess them up. Just the idea that it's okay to throw people away will do that.
What I like about meritocracy is that it's supposed to find what people are good at and encourage them. It's not just flinging people into any old job whether they're good at it or not.
The things I do best are not what this society values. But I can still see that they are marvelous, worthwhile, valuable things. I still feel that everyone has a right to personal safety and the basics necessary for life. I think a lot more would get done, better, if we looked at what people do well instead of just what someone will pay to have done.
Sadly, we have yet to figure out any kind of social, economic, political, religious, or other system that cannot be wrecked by putting humans into it.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2013-01-18 11:20 am (UTC)So if groups of people aren't succeeding in the organisation, they don't ask themselves "What about this organisation is preventing these groups from fulfilling their potential?" but instead say "I guess those people didn't have the gift. The system is working as it should." The people at the top pat themselves on the back for having the gift without considering what privileges and unfair advantages the system was giving them which allowed them to develop their ability.
Meritocracy and its meaning
Date: 2013-01-18 02:02 pm (UTC)Which I think is a generally sound idea, and at least to some degree how a lot of projects work. But of course with any intellectually designed system its ideals are not matching reality 100%. And I am sure people in GNOME and elsewhere have been giving people the smackdown and claimed its about meritocracy, but someone abusing a term or an idea doesn't disqualify the idea.
And what other models would we have for open source development? A democratic system for instance where people think they command the time,effort and design of others through voting is destined to fail in a volunteer system.
Re: Meritocracy and its meaning
Date: 2013-01-18 02:28 pm (UTC)I think democracy is the best compromise for systems you have to be part of, by their nature, and voluntary participation is best for things you want to be a part of. The more people's lives a project affects, the more it should give them a say in its process. And if a group of people affected by a project aren't represented in its governance, I see that as a bug.
Believers in "meritocracy" tend to make it out to be a nonissue, and develop a number of strategies for marginalizing such people and preventing anyone from hearing or empathizing with their stories. Since the perpetuation of this system requires selective ignorance of (or refusal to collect) relevant data, as well as a colossal waste of lives and abilities which could have been part of it, it's fucked from the get-go, and will not be remembered fondly even by the "worthy" it purported to serve in a few decades.
This essay is not a critique of any particular GNOME policy or any particular person in GNOME, so much as an attitude which affects many Free Software projects. It's like religion in American politics; based on feelings, purporting to be based on absolutes, and irredeemably stupid and mean.
Re: Meritocracy and its meaning
Date: 2013-01-18 02:47 pm (UTC)In regards to features and so on, sure a wider audience should have a say, and they do through filing bug reports and voting with their feet or paying a company to develop specific features for them. So as the creator, only developer and maintainer for Transmageddon for instance I do try to take user requests into account when working on new features, but the idea that someone have the right to complain or give me shit for not working on adding a feature because for instance a majority of my users want it seems crazy to me, especially considering that the time I do spend on Transmageddon is mostly my own spare evening and weekend time. So if people like the application I am making available to them for free that I spent my own time developing, great, and if they ask me in a nice way if I can change something or add something I try to take that into account, but just because I develop an open source application doesn't mean I signed up to be a punching ball just because they decided that they could have use of my application.
Re: Meritocracy and its meaning
Date: 2013-01-18 02:59 pm (UTC)Second, I'm not talking about the kind of meritocracy where you get to decide the direction of your personal projects and who helps with them. I'm talking about the kind of "meritocracy" that only wants the best persons to help with big projects which affect lots of people, and that either
In other words, the crap that the Outreach Program for Women is meant to correct, by going out of its way to provide the activation energy for people who were excluded from Free Software projects to provide their help and unique perspectives.
Meritocrats hate such affirmative action programmes, but then, they also hate social welfare programmes, acceptance of alternative religions and lifestyles, and basically anything that makes for a world where people different from them exist and are given an equal standing.
You're either defending them or making points which are completely tangential to the main discussion. Either way, any further comments you leave will not be unscreened.
Re: Meritocracy and its meaning
Date: 2013-01-20 12:21 pm (UTC)Re: Meritocracy and its meaning
Date: 2013-01-21 12:13 am (UTC)The term "meritocracy," as used in the Free Software community, actually means "the people in charge decide who to reward and who gets to do what based on their personal feelings and unconscious biases." That may not be what you want it to mean, but the research suggests that that's what it is, regardless.
My personal experience has been that every other conservative in-group comes up with its own justification for why they are awesome and everyone else is unworthy or dangerous, and that FOSS isn't alone in this regard.
Re: Meritocracy and its meaning
Date: 2013-01-18 05:43 pm (UTC)The problem is that they pretend that merit is something you have coming into the system and that you'll get rewarded if you have that merit. When actually the system itself determines who will be able to acquire and develop that merit and who won't.
For example, say Jane and Steve both enter a project. The project accommodates Steve's schedule, gives him help and feedback, and encourages him. The project makes things difficult for Jane's schedule, alienates her and doesn't give her the help/feedback she needs, and discourages her. Steve gets to fulfill his potential and succeed, but Jane doesn't. Then everyone says she didn't have the "merit" that Steve had, and she even believes it herself.
Re: Meritocracy and its meaning
Date: 2013-01-20 08:29 am (UTC)A meritocracy, like a capitalistic economy, might function more soundly if there exist certain checks in the system, put in place to keep the attainment and distribution of merit from being rigged and exclusive. I'm not sure what such checks would look like at present.
Edit: Apologies. I meant to reply to the entry and not this comment.
Re: Meritocracy and its meaning
Date: 2013-01-20 12:28 pm (UTC)Anyway, meritocracy (or rather meritechnocracy) specially makes sense in an open source project, because the merits you earn are normally because you have spent your personal free time to improve the project, you're volunteering your time. If that wasn't rewarded in any way, open source projects would just die.
And who else reward if it's not to the people that contribute the most?
Re: Meritocracy and its meaning
Date: 2013-01-21 12:07 am (UTC)It's the only sensible way to manage a small Free Software project, since those are largely about scratching the creator's personal itch and there's no reason to form a committee to solve a problem you don't have. It makes zero sense for a project with a large number of contributors or other stakeholders, since the in-group's personal biases and irrationalities can't possibly scale up to managing them.
The first step to solving this issue is just being aware it exists, such as by pointing out gender and income disparities among Free Software users and contributors. These indicate the in-group's blind spots, and the irrationalities in their thinking process which are causing people to be excluded and resources to be wasted.
Re: Meritocracy and its meaning
Date: 2013-01-21 12:22 am (UTC)The reason why white males are more frequent in open source projects is simply because white males are more likely to have free time in this society. Unfortunately this society, in general, still has discrimination (in all aspects of life, not just open source software) towards gender and race, and that's why the former are more likely to have more income, and therefore:
1) more savings to cover their costs of living while developing open source software altruistically
2) more chances of receiving a better education that gives them more probabilities of getting a job in the company they want (the one that pays them for developing open source, i.e. Red Hat).
So really, the battle you want to fight is much more broad than what you're focusing it. Don't battle meritocracy.
Re: Meritocracy and its meaning
Date: 2013-01-21 01:14 am (UTC)I'm not battling meritocracy, because it doesn't exist in this world and if it did I might not have a problem with it. I'm pointing that fact out, as well as the fact that being led to believe it exists is a problem, because then when you're on the outside you assume you deserve it.
I really don't need to be lectured about issues which I have more personal experience with than you do.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-18 06:20 pm (UTC)I hope you find some way to get medical treatment for your depression. Having access to health care and food is a right, even if you need to assert it yourself by applying for government assistance. I would encourage you to do it anyway, no matter how you feel about it.
I have one comment about your title. I really feel that, as a feminist (and I know that can be seen as a loaded term/be interpreted as not gender neutral enough, etc, but I guess it's the term I know and am comfortable with -- feel free to suggest something better) we need to take responsibility for ourselves. Your value as a person doesn't belong to other people, it belongs only to you. You have the right to be who you are, to be respected. You also have the responsibility for yourself: to make autonomous decisions, to care for yourself, etc. Your reaction to input is owned by you, not by the person you are interacting with. Anyway, I hope you are well, take care of yourself.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-20 11:58 pm (UTC)Speaking of doing so, victim-blaming language is not permitted on this journal. If you meant something other than "if you feel hurt by something it's your fault," you may wish to clarify in order to avoid comment moderation in the future. Thank you.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-21 01:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-21 01:21 am (UTC)Telling me to own my reaction to input sounds like you want me to make external political or social issues into internal ones, and to assume that I am at fault for feeling hurt (or exhibiting responses you consider to be undesirable) after being subject to harm. I will assume that this wasn't the case and was a miscommunication.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-21 01:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-19 02:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-20 03:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-21 12:02 am (UTC)When you're talking about personal hobbies and projects, that's the only approach that makes sense. It doesn't scale because as a project affects more and more people, it begins to require their oversight, to avoid harming them and to make it responsive to their needs and concerns. Which would be those points of failure that you were talking about.
I'm probably just restating the obvious, sorry. >_>
no subject
Date: 2013-01-21 08:12 pm (UTC)Restating the obvious has many advantages. Putting things in a different wording can allow new observations to be gained.
That's not quite what meritocracy means
Date: 2013-01-22 12:24 am (UTC)A meritocracy is a system where any given community member's veracity and level of expertise in a _specific_ area are measured by the quality and consistency of the work they do in _that_ _specific_ area. In order for it to work, there must be a critical mass of community members who have enough knowledge in that area to make a coherent assessment of the work, and clearly articulate that openly to everyone else. As long as the community meets these minimum standards, it is a meritocracy and (all other things being equal) development will essentially remain a virtuous cycle. If they do not, or there becomes an (usually unspoken) consensus that veracity and expertise are judged by personal feelings, nepotism, agism, or any other irrational biases, the development process becomes dysfunctional and is decidedly _not_ a meritocracy anymore.
Long story short-- if you feel you are developing in a free software community that _claims_ to be a meritocracy but is obviously dysfunctional in the way I described above, _fork_ the project and/or _leave_ that community ASAP. The cost of forking today is extremely low, especially compared to the risk to one's own well-being by remaining in a toxic social environment while knowing better. To do otherwise is to tacitly give cultural cachet to developers who don't believe in meritocracy, and to ultimately lose one's own integrity.
Finally, I'd like to point out that while no free software project functions perfectly, the healthier ones go out of their way to show good faith by making it technically infeasible for a small cabal of knowledgeable jerks to ruin the community. For example: as outspoken and plain rude as Linus Torvalds can sometimes be-- often in the interest of _users_, btw-- he purposely undermined his own authority over the "mainline" kernel by writing git and using it for the kernel. That goes a _long_ way toward his veracity as a proponent of decentralization _and_ as an advocate of free software. Even if he himself states that he is not really interested in Richard Stallman's philosophy of free software, the "proof is in the pudding". Deeds matter, and that's the whole point of meritocracy.
Re: That's not quite what meritocracy means
Date: 2013-01-24 04:46 am (UTC)Thank you for your comment.