@LouiseCollins28
Presenting the "privileged" character Richard in the worst light possible and the "less priviledged" Paula as severely lacking in agency (which might or might not be true) is an interesting take.
What I find most interesting is that, in common with so many other dichotomous "the priviledged/wealthy are evil - boo!" type presentations is says absolutely nothing to anyone who's lives might be 'part Richard' and 'part Paula'.
I completely disagree that Paula is portrayed as someone severely lacking in agency. She goes to school. She gets decent grades. She gets a job in a restaurant kitchen. She applies for a loan. She finds herself in a position many, many women find themselves in - caring for a relative. She does not enjoy the kind of success that diligence in school and willingness to work are supposed to bring.
The point of the cartoon is to highlight how the privileged eventually come to see themselves as products of a meritocracy.
It questions meritocracy itself and highlights the way the concept of merit carries with it the concept of 'undeserving'. Those who fall into the trap of believing they live in a meritocracy are predisposed to see everyone's condition or situation, good or bad, as deserved.
The cartoon doesn't have to address the situation of others along the spectrum from Richard to Paula.
Meritocracy is the target. Not individuals or the classes they symbolize.
press.princeton.edu/ideas/a-belief-in-meritocracy-is-not-only-false-its-bad-for-you
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad...
...Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just.
However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there.
This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are ‘self-made’ and over the effects of various forms of ‘privilege’ can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much ‘credit’ people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of ‘luck’ can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit.
Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate.
Ever heard of the Prosperity Gospel?
It's another version of the backward logic of meritocracy, this time with God thrown in.