
Meritocracy and its discontents: The merits of revisiting Michael Young - nopinsight
https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21736524-book-published-60-years-ago-predicted-most-tensions-tearing-contemporary-britain
======
mcafeeryan92
There are a lot of interesting ideas to unpack here:

\- As the initial meritocrats (does that pass as a word?) benefit from the
meritocracy and accumulate wealth, they use that wealth to increase the odds
for their children, resulting in a future where the "meritocracy" is made up
of people whose merits in education were largely paid for, and so it ceases to
be a meritocracy and ends up resembling an oligarchy.

\- People outside the meritocracy can't stand the smugness of elites, who have
better opportunities and thus better outcomes.

\- This results in the breakdown of democratic function over time, because
hating elites results in fact-denying when those elites are factually correct.
An example is how the uneducated largely voted for Brexit, and won't change
their minds in the face of evidence that it was a bad vote, because they don't
want to admit that they were wrong and the elites were right.

For me this presents some of the issues brought about by large inequality,
whether brought about by traditional feudalism, oligarchy, or new-fangled
"meritocracy." It causes unrest such that inevitably results in revolution.

I also question the value of a meritocracy on its basic premise. It seems
unfair in a society with so much wealth that "lazy" people or "dumb" people
get such a short end of the stick when it is not their fault that they were
born that way. Many of us _want_ to build cool things and make money and
contribute to the world, and capitalism makes sure we're rewarded for it, but
for those of us who don't I see no reason they should be condemned to poverty
while there is the means to feed them.

~~~
mc32
I don't know if the first point is accurate.

If a system is meritocratic, doesn't that mean that merit is the filter?

Unless it's not based on merit (ability to deliver + actual delivery) then it
does not guarantee that offspring of the meritous will merit advantageous
position.

I think the presumption is everyone is given access to tools and then its up
to the participants to take advantage of those tools. Not everyone has the
same aptitude or ability, so not everyone will merit the desired achievements.
What the spread between achievement and non achievement is, depends on their
rules (taxes, other handicaps, etc).

Regarding Brexit, does it not potentially narrow the divergence between
wealthy and non-wealthy? I.e. it has an opportunity to decrease inequality,
even if it may result in diminished wealth for both?

~~~
frobozz
That first point is one of the main thrusts of The Rise of the Meritocracy.

A true meritocracy is unlikely because of the advantages that the entrenched
higher classes pass on to their descendents.

In part this can be higher ability due to better education.

However, another feature is by shaping the attitudes of a society to favour
particular forms of achievement over others.

The only way to achieve a "pure" meritocracy as you describe it, would be to
separate children from their parents before age 1, raise them all
collectively, and instigate a 100% inheritance tax.

------
tinokid
Meritocracy is just a bare-bones version of a "founding myth" that a society
adopts when enough people reject the traditional narrative.

The problem is that it is so absolutist that it is easy to find holes and
internal inconsistencies in its story. Hence it can scarcely perform its
function--namely, to provide a narrative that establishes the legitimacy of
the ruling class--for very long.

Look only at the examples given in the article.

>The most effective way to rile the meritocrats is to attack their faith in
expertise: Lord Turnbull, a former Cabinet secretary, has said that
Brexiteers’ willingness to question current Treasury forecasts of the impact
of Brexit was reminiscent of pre-war Nazi Germany.

Of course there is nothing wrongheaded about contesting the findings of
government economic forecasts--governments produce such forecasts out of
necessity, not because they exemplify any paragon of scientific truth.
Reasonable people often disagree about them.

>The easiest way to rile the populists is to imply that their attachment to
symbols of national identity, such as blue passports or the Cross of St
George, is a sign of low intelligence.

This is so absurd it barely needs any mention. Nation-states have existed for
a long time, and preference for their symbols has nothing to do with
intelligence or lack thereof.

So you have a dissident group making a claim about a point of fact, and the
_soi-disant_ intellectually superior group responding with an ad hominem that
slurs vasts swaths of the population. This is not a sustainable situation.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
_Of course there is nothing wrongheaded about contesting the findings of
government economic forecasts--governments produce such forecasts out of
necessity, not because they exemplify any paragon of scientific truth.
Reasonable people often disagree about them._

It's an interesting situation in the UK because the civil service which
created those forecasts cannot respond to the criticism, they are not allowed
to under their remit. Normally politicians would defend this work but what
government politician would defend something so bleak, no matter how accurate
it may or may not be.

------
incompatible
It's not a true meritocracy if some people have better access to opportunities
such as education and jobs because of where they were born or who their
parents are.

That's not to say that the criticism of meritocracy isn't valid.

~~~
yourcousinbilly
I think we can agree meritocracy means the best people for the job get the
job. But, your contention points out what factors we evaluate when we say
"best". Do we take "best" to mean when they apply for the job after years of
some environment? Or "best" to mean the original genetic disposition
independent of environment?

~~~
incompatible
Good point. The article suggests that the original definition was more
oriented to finding those with the "best" attributes at a young age and
putting them at the top. E.g., 'They were the 1854 Northcote-Trevelyan report,
which opened civil-service jobs to competitive examinations, and the Education
Act of 1944, which decreed that children should be educated according to their
“age, ability and aptitude”.'

------
js2
See also:

\- "Down with meritocracy" by Michael Young –
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment)

\- "What’s (still) wrong with meritocracy" by Toby Young –
[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/whats-still-wrong-
with-m...](https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/whats-still-wrong-with-
meritocracy/)

