Nepotism is a hotly debated topic in recent times. The larger consensus is that, nepotism is a bad thing within any society/industry. But my point of debate is that nepotism isn't something that is avoidable.
Nepotism is part and parcel of any opportunity, how could any society be devoid of it?
Any parent who has had an entire career in a particular industry/field would have acquired the necessary skills and expertise in that area. They would have developed an understanding of what it takes to succeed in that field. They would have made a network of close friends and colleagues within their industry as a result of their career.
It is highly likely that the child would have developed an interest for that field of profession as well, as they would have grown up under the influence of their parent, consciously or unconsciously. It is only practical to think that the kids have a natural tendency to drift towards their parents' profession having always been around discussions and friends from that field.
All this makes it a straightforward decision for the next generation to carry on from where their parent left off in their career. This is exactly why I think nepotism is inevitable. I see it as the son/daughter en-cashing their parent's goodwill to create a path for themselves in their career. I even feel, they are right in being entitled to do so.
It is just the entry we are talking about. Nepotism/Nepotists don't even stand a chance to succeed in their entitled profession if they don't show enough merit once they enter. I believe, nepotism is not a flaw in the society as long as there is always enough place for merit, in the opportunities on offer.
Once there is no place for merit at all, then I would agree that nepotism would have gone too far. But I don't see that happening at all, as no one can have a full control of a field or profession so much so that others can't enter.
The main argument in this debate is that we should give equal opportunities to everybody... As discussed here, I don't see how every one is equal in this regard when clearly there are some who have an advantage due to a generation of work in that field. It only is too idealistic to expect equal opportunity, when the means to achieve it is not equal to everyone.
So, in conclusion, I believe the argument of nepotism being a flaw in the society, in terms of equal opportunity creation, is a lost one. It is highly impossible to have an ideal system which only selects based on merit. A nepotist will always have an edge in terms of entry. But, his/her success is certainly not a determinant of the parenthood. Until merit is the biggest factor in success of a person in their chosen field, nepotism is hardly an issue to grapple with.
Vignesh Nagappan
Nepotism is part and parcel of any opportunity, how could any society be devoid of it?
Any parent who has had an entire career in a particular industry/field would have acquired the necessary skills and expertise in that area. They would have developed an understanding of what it takes to succeed in that field. They would have made a network of close friends and colleagues within their industry as a result of their career.
It is highly likely that the child would have developed an interest for that field of profession as well, as they would have grown up under the influence of their parent, consciously or unconsciously. It is only practical to think that the kids have a natural tendency to drift towards their parents' profession having always been around discussions and friends from that field.
All this makes it a straightforward decision for the next generation to carry on from where their parent left off in their career. This is exactly why I think nepotism is inevitable. I see it as the son/daughter en-cashing their parent's goodwill to create a path for themselves in their career. I even feel, they are right in being entitled to do so.
It is just the entry we are talking about. Nepotism/Nepotists don't even stand a chance to succeed in their entitled profession if they don't show enough merit once they enter. I believe, nepotism is not a flaw in the society as long as there is always enough place for merit, in the opportunities on offer.
Once there is no place for merit at all, then I would agree that nepotism would have gone too far. But I don't see that happening at all, as no one can have a full control of a field or profession so much so that others can't enter.
The main argument in this debate is that we should give equal opportunities to everybody... As discussed here, I don't see how every one is equal in this regard when clearly there are some who have an advantage due to a generation of work in that field. It only is too idealistic to expect equal opportunity, when the means to achieve it is not equal to everyone.
So, in conclusion, I believe the argument of nepotism being a flaw in the society, in terms of equal opportunity creation, is a lost one. It is highly impossible to have an ideal system which only selects based on merit. A nepotist will always have an edge in terms of entry. But, his/her success is certainly not a determinant of the parenthood. Until merit is the biggest factor in success of a person in their chosen field, nepotism is hardly an issue to grapple with.
Vignesh Nagappan
No comments:
Post a Comment