Download
1 / 12
E N D
Meritocracy is the idea that rewards should go to the best performers. In a meritocratic system, desirable or leading positions in society are distributed on the basis of merit alone. Everyone should have the same chance to compete for social rewards (opportunities, power, wealth, status) under the same rules.
For instance, since educational and professional opportunities are in limited supply, we need some principles of selection to match people to position (such as the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of formal equality of opportunity).
In a meritocratic society, individuals can get ahead and earn social rewards in direct proportion to their individual efforts and abilities. As such, social mobility (i.e. the idea that those who do well can rise and those who don’t will fall) is a key component of meritocracy.
According to a recent essay published in The Guardian titled ‘The Myth of Meritocracy: Who Really Gets What They Deserve?’, the term ‘meritocracy’ was coined 60 years ago by British sociologist Michael Young in his book titled The Rise of Meritocracy.
For Young, meritocracy represents a vision in which power and privilege would be allocated by individual merit, not by social origin.In other words, social rewards should go to those best qualified for them, regardless of their background.
Ironically, Young’s book was meant to be a satire because the sociologist knew exactly how things could go wrong in a so-called ‘meritocratic society’.
For one thing, the elite or meritocratic class can employ strategies to game the system. In a meritocracy, the best and brightest have the chance to climb to the top, but then they can also find ways to pull the ladder up behind them.
For example, affluent families (rich parents) can send their children to the best private schools. Besides, they can give their children a substantial leg up because they can afford luxuries like foreign travel, music lessons, tutoring in difficult subjects, and preparatory classes for standardized tests/public exams.
As one author puts it: ‘The meritocratic class has mastered the old trick of consolidating wealth and passing privilege along at the expense of other people’s children.’
Another problem with meritocracy is that ‘zero-sum’ competition for opportunities produces both winners and losers. Those who failed to get the social rewards (the prizes of competition) are likely to be seen as incompetent or worthless.
But what exactly do we count as ‘merit’? Does a young student who struggle with traditional subjects like math and science but is otherwise very good with art and music not possess ‘merit’?
