Exactly. There is a deep-seated appeal to meritocracy for a reason — it should be cutting out those who would get places and opportunities due to nepotism & favoritism, but who don't have the chops to do the work in comparison to the competition. Yes, there will always be an element of luck — family situation, diet, social or economic states — but giving a chance to those with stronger abilities, as well as to those who are willing to put in the work needed (which certainly can help someone push past those with more inborn ability who don't put in the effort) is a feature of the system, not a bug. The main argument against it is usually that the favored groups/individuals of the arguer won't get the advantages they think they should get. Many in the corporate and government worlds seek to reinstate feudalism; meritocratic advocates don't want such a terrible future for themselves or for anyone else.
I do not think you are presenting the strongest critique of meritocracies in your imagined counter argument. Similarly to you, I like the idea of meritocracy for the reasons you outlined in your first few sentences.
However, in practice meritocracy frequently devolves into classism: yes, the hard working kids of the families of higher class would be awarded more than the lazy kids of the same demographic. But the kids of the lower class would not have the same opportunity to invest in and grow their merit, because they would have to worry about taking a second job to help feed their family (or less extreme examples). I do not see a version of meritocracy in the USA that is not at least partially also classism, given the current state of the social safety nets.
And IMHO the statement Churchill used to describe democracy also applies to meritocracy: "It's the worst of all possible systems... until you consider the alternatives."
The concept of merit itself is phenomenologically suspect. We don’t live in a platonically ideal world. Merit is a subjective distinction and is thus itself able to be gamed, and it is by those with the means and the gumption.
Comments
There's a difference between belief in meritocracy in terms of how the world actually works, and in terms of how it ought to work.
Exactly. There is a deep-seated appeal to meritocracy for a reason — it should be cutting out those who would get places and opportunities due to nepotism & favoritism, but who don't have the chops to do the work in comparison to the competition. Yes, there will always be an element of luck — family situation, diet, social or economic states — but giving a chance to those with stronger abilities, as well as to those who are willing to put in the work needed (which certainly can help someone push past those with more inborn ability who don't put in the effort) is a feature of the system, not a bug. The main argument against it is usually that the favored groups/individuals of the arguer won't get the advantages they think they should get. Many in the corporate and government worlds seek to reinstate feudalism; meritocratic advocates don't want such a terrible future for themselves or for anyone else.
I do not think you are presenting the strongest critique of meritocracies in your imagined counter argument. Similarly to you, I like the idea of meritocracy for the reasons you outlined in your first few sentences.
However, in practice meritocracy frequently devolves into classism: yes, the hard working kids of the families of higher class would be awarded more than the lazy kids of the same demographic. But the kids of the lower class would not have the same opportunity to invest in and grow their merit, because they would have to worry about taking a second job to help feed their family (or less extreme examples). I do not see a version of meritocracy in the USA that is not at least partially also classism, given the current state of the social safety nets.
I agree.
And IMHO the statement Churchill used to describe democracy also applies to meritocracy: "It's the worst of all possible systems... until you consider the alternatives."
Both equally misguided for entirely different reasons.
I would love to read more. Do you have any further information?
The concept of merit itself is phenomenologically suspect. We don’t live in a platonically ideal world. Merit is a subjective distinction and is thus itself able to be gamed, and it is by those with the means and the gumption.