My "Speech" on Meritocracy

For more than two millennia philosophers have discussed the problem of choosing a system of

government which is just and fair, yet maintains production at reasonable levels. Then, in 1958,

Michael Young's book 'Rise of the Meritocracy' was published and it spawned a new 'ideology'

despite Young's obvious intent at the opposite as he uses the word in the pejorative sense. (The fact

that his intentions was in opposition to meritocracy suggests that it already existed prior to his novel

though there may not have been a word for it.)

So far the arrival of meritocracy hasn't made the biggest of impacts on our world, although most

governments share some traits with meritocracy.

To achieve a system which fulfils the requirements of being fair and productive meritocrats strive

towards the realization of a system where people are rewarded in accordance with their own desert.

This is supposed to remove the benefits of inheritance as you cannot inherit merit (or desert for that

matter), thus removing the class system (at least in its aristocratic form) and as merit does not make

distinctions when it comes to race it ought to remove elements of racialism from society as well.

Rewarding people for their merit is also thought to be an incentive to work harder, or more efficient

at least, which would increase productivity.

But this promise of removing classes from society seems an empty one as I don't see why classes

would disappear simply because they are no longer inheritable? The argument, of course, is that the

higher classes in a meritocracy have achieved their status through hard work, and therefore their

right to affluence is self-evident in that all rewards of a meritocratic society are relative to the merit

of the individual, which implies that the benefits one receives from society is on par with how much

one benefits society. But how much does one benefit society? By what means do we measure the

'benefit to society'? Unfortunately 'benefit to society' easily translates into 'that which benefits the

market forces' as it is a common misconception that an excess of physical resources is indicative of

wealth and even happiness.

If the market will be determining merit most tedious, yet important, jobs will earn merit below their

desert. And would that be just? Wouldn't it encourage people to choose careers in deference to the

market rather than pursuing their own personal goals. We already live in a society where the market

has great influence over our evolution and meritocracy could easily become a "benefactor" to the

market. Especially as modern societies today tend to be capitalistic and therefore an incentive to

materialism which implicitly reinforces my theory that the market would benefit from meritocracy

as most materialists would agree that: "that which benefits the market, benefits society."

Removing inheritable classes from society requires a free education system. This is to ensure that

everybody gets equal opportunities. Ryan Bell of South London gets involved in this particular

discussion of meritocracy as Trevor Phillips of New Labour recruits him for an experiment which is

to show that meritocracy could work (Phillips also wants to show that race, colour or background is

not what keeps certain communities in the dark, but rather that society and poor schools are to

blame.) The experiment fails as Ryan is kicked out of the school though not before having proven

that he was indeed able to learn despite being a working class kid from the streets. This indicates

that a well-funded education system would indeed help remove classes from our society. But as

classes won't cease to exist, as some people will still be more influential than others, and as most

parents will do all they can to help their children get a 'bright' future one might expect nepotism to

become fairly common in a meritocracy despite initial vows to fight it. What this basically means is

that there will be very little downward movement in the system while the updrifts are supposed to

be incessant. The result? Well basically we should all become kings which I must concede is a nice

thought.

But lets pretend, just for a minute, that the ideas of meritocracy were indeed possible.

If it was possible that everyone got exactly according to their "worth", their merit, so that all who

were rich and affluent were so because they deserved it while the poor had likewise earned their

own desert and truly deserved to be poor? But who truly deserves to be poor? What wrongs must

one do to be punished such? Well obviously they are of less merit, less ability and maybe even

stupid, which makes them undeserving of luxuries and as the meritocrat will undeniably argue, the

poor suckers have put themselves in this situation as they have had exactly the same opportunities

as those who become rich. It is difficult, however, to imagine who would have such great insight as

to ensure that everyone gets what they deserve. The way I see it it would have to be someone

standing on the side watching the whole thing happening. Indeed it seems that divine interference

would be on the line here. But if one believes in God (or some other omniscient, ubiquitous deity of

immense power) I see no reason to try and create a meritocracy on earth as He will surely, according

to dusty old books, exercise His divine power when we die and in that case I really don't see what

all the fuss is about.

To sum up and conclude this essay.

Meritocracy will likely result in the elite (possibly the market forces) defining merit, and therefore

merit will be defined according to the general believes of the elite which will likely exclude the

working class (where is my trust in these people). So there you have it. Social science isn't exactly

my field but that doesn't mean I'm not opinionated (maybe its an implicit indication implicating that

I am indeed opinionated on grounds of ignorance, but that is not within the scope of this essay).

Obviously (well not that obvious really) there are good things about meritocracy as well. I certainly

find that the idea of equal opportunities appeal to me and I believe that a lot of good could grow

from it - especially in the US but in England as well. And while I don't believe it will root out

racialism it would definitely be a step in the right direction allowing blacks (well some at least) to

achieve their goals and fight their way out of poverty.

So in the end success is not merely based on talent and abilities as social class and wealth must also

be taken into consideration when assessing the possibility of accomplishing an achievement,

whether it is to gain the recognition of your friends or a deliberate attempt for career improvement

which will motivate you you can only praise those who take the opportunity to unravel their true

potential.