We like to think that we live in a meritocracy, that what we get is what we deserve. Peter Sanders, an Australian sociologist and right wing academic, rightly said that merit could be gauged by ability plus effort. In other words, talent usually requires application to bear fruit.
The funny thing is, that the concept of meritocracy, as I’ve stressed elsewhere, was created by Michael Young as a joke and as a warning. He believed that a system run simply on the basis of ability plus effort, an unequal society, where ‘merit’ was the justification for differentiation in status and reward, would be an evil society. Better to be a peasant in a feudal system than a poor person in a meritocracy because at least a peasant was blameless for their (heritable) societal position.
Ultimately, a meritocracy, traditionally defined, implies an acceptance of economic inequality. If you are better at something than someone else, then you deserve higher rewards. Although there are two issues with this as far as I can see it. On the one hand, there is no automatic connection between greater merit and greater reward, just because someone is better at something there is no divine reason they should reap more material rewards. Where meritocracy makes most sense to me is where it relates to fitness for purpose, we want the people with the most merit doing the work they’re most suited for.
Personally I don’t buy the ‘let’s give those who are best qualified (a lot)more money’ argument, because the jobs they train for are more rewarding than many others. Would a clinician rather train less and work in a sewage plant? Besides, if they only take on those roles because they want more cash, then they probably aren’t the best people for the job. I don’t believe that – not in the majority of cases.
Perhaps we could assign greater rewards on the basis of the relative contribution each person makes to society? But how would we measure that? A surgeon may save fewer lives than a public health official, what then? Even if we came up with a workable instrument, we have to question our commitment to the principle. Can anyone really argue that a footballer should be paid more than a paramedic?
I was playing a video game with my son a few years ago, and the premise of it was that a racing car franchise owner suffered a heart attack, and was rushed to hospital by a female ambulance driver. She went so fast that he made it, he survived. She went SO fast he recruited her to his racing team. My son watched the opening story unfold, then he said: ‘Dad, shouldn’t a racing driver want to drive an ambulance? Isn’t that more important?’ And the obvious answer, cutting away all the nonsense, is yes, ambulance drivers ARE more important than those who race cars. MUCH more important.
Aside from its conceptual heritage then, and the fact that I accept Young’s analysis, is the use and abuse of the term by Tony Blair in the manifestation of New Labour and it’s Third Way (thanks a bunch Anthony Giddens). Blair was an infiltrator, a fake Labourite, a bald-faced liar as brazen as Donald Trump, he undermined left and left of centre politics and in the end committed war crimes to boost his post premiership speaking fees.
Blair used meritocracy like he meant it, while crawling around the feet of the monarchy. No doubt for a knighthood given for the services to New Right ideological advancement. The glaring contradiction of supporting a head of state who obtains that title through birth, while spouting the superiority of merit, wouldn’t bother Tony The Phoney Blair, because he only cares about his family, celebrity and money. Maybe he’s slightly better than the Orange moron in the Whitehouse, but it’s close…
Finally, as the racing driver anecdote demonstrates, we are nowhere near attaining a system of rewards based on merit. We can see this in terms of statistics on social mobility. In a true meritocracy, we would see significant mobility up and down the hierarchy, but we don’t.
In fact, social mobility has worsened since meritocracy has been advanced as a political goal. The odds of you rising or falling very far from your original class position are minimal. https://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchive/social-mobility-summit-blog/
And who is surprised? The wealthy pay for their children to have the best education and where this doesn’t work, because they lack merit, they cheat, as the college admissions scandal in the States has recently underlined. My question is: was this really such a big revelation?
The better off understand the system better, they have networks and connections, and, more resources. Even Plato recognised the adverse impact family loyalty has on merit systems, which is why he advocated collective child rearing (we’ll talk more of this in a post about equality of opportunity…).
So, in summary, we don’t live in a meritocracy, the American Dream and it’s European counterpart are just that, dreams. As George Carlin said, they call it a dream because you have to be asleep to believe it.
But even if we did dispense with unfair advantages, there is no reason to believe that a system built on merit would be either efficient or effective, and much more doubt about whether it would even be humane.
Meritocracy should have remained a satirical warning to us, because the reality is farcical and dangerous. Merit doesn’t merit it’s current reputation. Time to move on and forget the ups and downs, mobility should be a collective endeavour where we strive to improve the lives of everyone fairly, and sustainably.
Radical Rhymes 