I think this approach puts a lot on the individual. In my experience, inequality in structural relationships on several levels (most obviously economic) impact interactions. Very elitely educated individuals tend to disregard the knowledge and wisdom accumulated by less structurally privileged individuals because the context for such accumulation is extremely (and fortunately) very foreign. Meritocracies are constructs and knowledge is contextual over time. If society is unequal, it's going to be hard to have mutual exchanges. Yet those in privileged positions are (due often to the competitive nature of their immediate environment) less likely to accept this to be the case. They drastically underestimate their own privilege and that kills any conversation before it can happen. It's not just an individual level humility that is required but a structural humility that enables this discussion. The USA (and it's academic structure) tend to dismiss this because we like the idea that we can achieve mutually beneficial exchanges without accepting the environmental discomfort that will enable them. I like to donate money and time in a way that feels good but requires no real change to my underpinning advantages. To paraphrase Nora Bateson or Margaret Drabble, I want equality without the inherent discomfort it may cause me.