Cliquism

Recently I have criticised the authoritarian structures in our education system, where much emphasis is placed on memorisation. I blamed them for the fact that the wrong people are at the helm here.

But there is another aspect:

Careers are not necessarily only made by those who distinguish themselves through (particularly) good performance. But also the "social" plays a role: Who knows whom? What can you "get" from whom?

In our world, the clique economy prevails. Both formal and informal networks are used to give people jobs to each other. Anyone who believes that a career primarily depends on performance is still very naive.

It is precisely the case that someone who takes his duties in training very seriously and learns accordingly diligently risks being disadvantaged because he has not had the opportunity to invest time in making the necessary connections.

Networks are based on the principle of mutual dependencies - "one hand washes the other". As a rule, it works like this: you give in at the beginning and go "drinking" together. This makes the tongue loose and leads to some people revealing things about themselves that are better kept out of the public eye. This can be used against them. It gives the others the power to put them under pressure and to get benefits from them that they couldn't motivate these people to with normal means. But these dependencies are usually reciprocal in career networks. The one knows something about the other, the other about the one, so they both stick together and don't pat each other up.

That's how it works. And that is a disgrace to humanity. But that's the way it is. And you can't do much about it.

In any case it is unfair and something I reject from my heart.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator