EDITORIAL

The false dichotomy of hand and heart vs head

    • In a broader meritocracy, society would ideally value a wide range of skills, which would likewise engender more open definitions and pathways to success.
    • In a broader meritocracy, society would ideally value a wide range of skills, which would likewise engender more open definitions and pathways to success. PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI
    Published Thu, Apr 13, 2023 · 05:50 AM

    PRESIDENT Halimah Yacob’s call for “a broader meritocracy” in Singapore could not be more timely, given the soul-searching already ongoing about whether mechanisms that have helped to steer social mobility in the past are still as well-oiled today.

    Meritocracy, as a sorting mechanism for people’s abilities, is highly efficient, and the system stands as a well-cherished pillar of Singapore’s economic success, especially in its early years. But increasingly the question is why it has ended up lavishing the purportedly meritorious with outsized rewards relative to those at the lower rungs of society. At some point, meritocracy also starts to undermine its very ethos, when the “winners” naturally use their rewards to give their offspring a head-start.

    Instead, President Halimah posits that in a broader meritocracy, society would ideally value a wide range of skills, which would likewise engender more open definitions and pathways to success. On its part, the government too has pledged to provide greater support towards Singaporeans in professions that involve “hands” and “heart” – to professionalise such trades and to raise their salaries.

    The intention is admirable, but labels, while convenient, sometimes do a disservice to the very thing thus tagged. Further emphasis on distinctions between “hand and heart” industries on the one hand, and those that presumably involve the “head”, presents a false dichotomy that only brings the gaps between the “categories” into sharper focus. In a knowledge-based economy that prizes “head” work, the underlying assumption of such a characterisation is that “hand and heart” jobs are less worthy. The latter jobs generally rank lower in the social rungs, and pay far less.

    To be sure, author David Goodhart, who wrote Head, Hand, Heart: The Struggle for Dignity and Status in the 21st Century in 2020, was precisely making the point that society over-rewards intelligence and should in fact reimagine the meaning of “skilled work” so that “hands and heart” workers are just as valued.

    Knowledge-based economy or not, our society literally cannot function without essential workers – a fact made patently clear particularly during the Covid-19 pandemic. These are the people who clear our trash and keep our living environment clean and pleasant; they also help bring us, if not produce, our food, and look after us when we’re sick. This must be a truth that we’ve always known but have swept under the carpet. Back in 2009, a British think tank found that hospital cleaners create £10 (S$16.54) of social value for every £1 that they are paid. Bankers, on the other hand, destroy £7 of social value for every pound they earn.

    The pandemic may be largely over but we should continue to re-examine our perspective of all jobs beyond the framework of a knowledge-based economy, with all the implicit assumptions of “knowledge-” or “brain-” work being more valuable than other jobs. As for truly appreciating the value of “other” roles, let’s go beyond just paying lip service – society and the economy must move towards recognising and rewarding far better, those who put hand and heart into carrying out essential work to support daily life.

    Copyright SPH Media. All rights reserved.