

How America's Broken Meritocracy Drives Our National Anxiety Epidemic  - Firebrand
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/trickle-down-distress-how-americas-broken-meritocracy-drives-our-national-anxiety-epidemic/259383/

======
arethuza
The term "meritocracy" is one of those annoying words that appears to have a
current common usage that is almost the opposite of what its originator
actually meant.

Michael Young, in his satirical essay _The Rise of the Meritocracy_ was
actually warning about a managerial style where people are promoted based on a
definition of "merit" that is exclusive and self-serving for those currently
in power and _not_ based on actual objective performance. Anyone who has had
any contact with long-established bureaucracies (e.g. the UK Civil Service)
will recognise this kind of "meritocracy".

Here is Michael Young righting fairly recently on the topic:

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/29/comment>

It's worth noting that the Wikipedia page on meritocracy describes Young's
essay as:

" _The essay was based upon the tendency of the then-current governments in
their striving towards intelligence to ignore shortcomings and upon the
failure of education systems to correctly utilize gifted and talented members
within their societies._ "

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy>

------
redwood
I see what the author is getting at and agree. However we need to analyze this
statement... "Far more important, he argues, is debunking the myth of
meritocracy, harmful 'because it provides an incomplete explanation for
success and failure, often mistakenly exalting the rich and condemning the
poor.'"

It's important for people on the one hand to not feel too terrible if they
don't achieve their dreams. But it's also important that people not become so
self-obsessed with the impossibility of dreaming that we stop dreaming to
begin with. There are people who always have a reason for why something didn't
work out... you know those kinds of people. They never achieve their dreams.
They've doomed themselves from the start.

We need to find a way to be a less anxious society that can still dream and
accept failure.

------
john_horton
Interesting article, but one quote from the sociologist was way off the mark:

"The historical decline in self-employment and the concomitant rise and
dominance of large oligarchic corporations (including chains and franchises)
have created barriers of entry for starting and sustaining small businesses
and sharply reduced the entrepreneurial path to mobility."

I don't know what time period he's talking about, but self-employment has
grown dramatically in the US between 1969-2006, by about ~244%
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-employment>

~~~
gph
I think what he means by 'historical decline' is that in centuries past the
vast majority of people were either farmers or what would be considered small
business owners. Only around the time of the industrial revolution did there
start to be mass employers in the private sector.

Also it's probably a bit misleading to throw out the 244% statistic without
giving the overall relation of self-employment to regular employment.

"In relative terms, the share of self-employed within the labor force grew
from 14% in 1969 to 21% in 2006 in metropolitan counties, and from 11% to 19%
in non-metropolitan counties."

So while there has been a 244% growth, the self-employed still make up around
1/5 of the total work force. Historically I'd assume more than 60-80% of the
work force would have been considered self-employed. Ignoring certain
circumstances such as slavery, the only historical mass employers would likely
be governments/military. Perhaps in times of war a large portion of the work
force would be conscripted into military service, but most of the time the
majority of the population would be farmers or local tradesmen.

~~~
john_horton
Agreed about the 244% - apologies. I glossed over the relative part which is
kind of important here. There's still been growth, but it hasn't been that
dramatic.

------
shazam
The article claims that the US is "near the bottom in terms of actual social
mobility", but only supports this with some points about how social mobility
in the US isn't that good.

The US is still one of the most meritocratic countries in the world.

~~~
gph
>The article claims that the US is "near the bottom in terms of actual social
mobility", but only supports this with some points about how social mobility
in the US isn't that good.

They clearly reference several books by the people quoted in the article. I
assume that their claims are quite thoroughly discussed within said books. You
may not believe or agree with them, but it's not as though they are pulling
them from nowhere, sort of like this:

>The US is still one of the most meritocratic countries in the world.

And you base this claim on...?

------
foidman
Quoted from the article, Obama's father and mother "passed some excellent
genes to the current president."

I don't think the author knows what "meritocracy" means. Someone with good
genes "making it" is what a meritocracy is.

~~~
chrischen
He continues with "An April 2012 report out of UCLA provides further evidence
that DNA determines intelligence, to a large extent"

And if you agree that intelligence is a large enabler of merit (I don't), then
the connection between genes and meritocracy is blurred enough that you might
be able to argue that good genes is correlated with more merit, or at least a
larger potential for merit.

------
DanielBMarkham
It's getting so that I'm running out of snarky things to say about some of
these God-awful Atlantic pieces that keep showing up on HN. They're like
cockroaches.

 _...In other words, as Hayes argues in his book, America isn't truly a
meritocracy. Sure, the Civil Rights movement, feminism, and equal opportunity
laws have helped to remove many of the barriers to success..._

A _merit_ ocracy, by definition, is some sort of social hierarchy based on
merit -- you take a test, you gather in the most bottle-caps, you beat your
classmates at arm-wrestling. Whatever. Things like the Civil Rights Movement
deal with correcting historical and societal injustices. Instead of something
you _do_ , you are being judged, at least partially, by something you _are_.
This is done for the betterment of society.

Don't want to argue social engineering, but viewing somebody by what they are
is 180-degrees away from viewing them by how they perform in some kind of
merit-based system. For the author to juxtapose these two concepts in his mind
as one being an example of the other is just.......sad. Perhaps his premise
was more about the matter of how he felt various social ideas that are
supposed to create a equatable social result such that more minorities or
women succeed but instead create additional stress. That's fine, but that's
not a meritocracy.

The article goes downhill from there.

~~~
irickt
This article is quite well-researched and argues that the meritocracy that you
imagine doesn't exist in practice. As such you don't respond to the article at
all, but for some reason feel compelled to use snarky tropes (whatever, sad,
downhill) even when you admit the you have nothing to say. Why?

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I believe I made my point that the author either doesn't understand or is
purposefully misusing the term "meritocracy". Not really sure why you think I
have nothing to say. Was my point not clear enough?

The reader is invited to make further critiques.

If you don't understand parts of your premise, no matter how well-reasoned and
well-researched your article, it's going to tank.

By the way, this is an editorial problem, not a problem with the author, or
perhaps even the thrust of the piece. I think in terms of content the author
did a great job. It just needed another set of critical eyeballs to shine it
up. It's a damn shame if you ask me: obviously a lot of work went into this.
HN isn't the most author-friendly place in the world. If somehow my critique
appeared facile, you have my apologies. I'm not going to further argue with
you. I'm sorry if somehow a few colloquialisms threw you off the trail of my
point.

Having said that, I still am getting tired of The Atlantic Article Of The Day
appearing at the top of the page. They do some great long-form work every now
and then, but in my opinion the amount of coverage it gets here is quite
disproportionate to the value it provides the community.

