In this very wise essay, Michael Young reminds us that the 1958 book in which he coined the word "Meritocracy" was meant to be a warning.
There is one other argument which I encountered on Andrew Gelman's blog, but have not seen elsewhere. In a post about an article by James Flynn (of the "Flynn effect"), Gelman says
It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.There are any number of arguments against Meritocracy:
- It reassures the powerful and it demoralizes the powerless.
- It removes all checks on rent-seeking. As Michael Young notes in his essay
So assured have the elite become that there is almost no block on the rewards they arrogate to themselves. The old restraints of the business world have been lifted and, as the book also predicted, all manner of new ways for people to feather their own nests have been invented and exploited.
- It confuses merit and marketability.
There is one other argument which I encountered on Andrew Gelman's blog, but have not seen elsewhere. In a post about an article by James Flynn (of the "Flynn effect"), Gelman says
Flynn also points out that the promotion and celebration of the concept of “meritocracy” is also, by the way, a promotion and celebration of wealth and status–these are the goodies that the people with more merit get.Thus, because we believe that we reward virtue with wealth and power, not only do the wealthy and powerful gain legitimacy, but wealth and power themselves gain a moral sheen by association with virtue. At the limit, we no longer believe that virtue can be its own reward: it has to be accompanied by the insignia of social acclaim.
4 comments:
So a meritocracy is doomed to always devolve into a plutocracy? I can see the argument.
The saving grace of a true meritocracy is *supposed* to be that anyone outside the order can break into by proving their merit, or working for it. But you're right, the first order of business of any clique, formed by merit or not, is to erect walls to preserve itself.
So a meritocracy is doomed to always devolve into a plutocracy? I can see the argument.
The saving grace of a true meritocracy is *supposed* to be that anyone outside the order can break into by proving their merit, or working for it. But you're right, the first order of business of any clique, formed by merit or not, is to erect walls to preserve itself.
So a meritocracy is doomed to always devolve into a plutocracy? I can see the argument.
The saving grace of a true meritocracy is *supposed* to be that anyone outside the order can break into by proving their merit, or working for it. But you're right, the first order of business of any clique, formed by merit or not, is to erect walls to preserve itself.
Vivek, first, sorry about the delay in publishing your comments. Amazing how my blog attracts more spam than readers, so the filter.
What you say is true.
However, I think it goes beyond even that: that any "establishment" tends to assume that the criteria by which they are meritorious are given by nature. For example, here is Brad Delong:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/02/marginal-products-and-earnings-in-historical-perspective.html
I think we always forget the virtues of those outside the magic circle.
For example, I've been a *rabid* fan of Chris Dillow for at least five years now. He is on Twitter, and I am delighted to see that he is attracting the following he deserves: The Epicurean Dealmaker, Steve Waldman, Tim Harford, Brad De Long, etc. But who is he? A blogger from the village of Oakham. I *love* London, but he he is, placing explosive charges under the foundations of cosmopolitanism: http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2008/04/the-last-tempta.html No superstar academic, not a powerful financier, not a globetrotting celebrity. If I retire to a quiet life in Trivandrum, h ewill be at least partly to blame. :)
Post a Comment