In short, it’s a not-really-present ideal that’s often used to mask the existing power relationships that are really responsible for people being promoted/demoted to where they are.
The assumption underlying this analysis is that no merit exists outside of subjective value judgement. Furthermore, subjective value judgments are biased in favor of the existing privileged groups. Do I have that about right?
Sort of. “Merit” is more a measure of those groups’ definitions of success. Calling it a meritocracy overly simplifies the circumstances for that success, often reinforcing the power relationships.
So, how does one tease apart what is meant by the original definition of merit, let's call it 'accomplishment', from these subjective definitions of success? Or is that even possible?
> So, how does one tease apart what is meant by the original definition of merit, let's call it 'accomplishment', from these subjective definitions of success? Or is that even possible?
You can't. Merit -- including "success" or "accomplishment" -- is always a subjective value judgement. Even if there is an objective measure, the evaluation of the measure as something meaningful to measure (i.e., that the measure is one of merit or success) is a subjective value judgement.
We're talking about software development here. Writing code that works, and implementing features that make it to the website/product are easily quantifiable metrics (someone who contributes a lot of good code is judged as more worthy).
Nothing is an achievement or thing of merit outside of the judgement of some individual or set of individuals. Merit/achievement isn't something that exists independently.
And the dominant group in society is, pretty much by definition, the one whose judgement is most influential.
No, it’s “X isn’t really Y, despite what we say, and it’s actually harmful, so let’s stop reinforcing problems by pretending that it is Y”. As being discussed elsewhere in this thread, the problem with meritocracy is that it’s dependent on value judgements by those already in power. Simply, it is a fine ideal, but in practice it is unachievable, utopic. Establishing an organization or community as “meritocratic” means ignoring the role of existing dynamics.
Everything you've said is equally true of any hiring system. It makes sense why employers are drawn to the one that provides them with the most value, while also carrying the added benefit of also being the one that isn't systematically sexist/racist.
Meritocracy as an ideal may not be intrinsically sexist or racist, but declaring an organization a meritocracy doesn’t automatically eliminate existing sexism, racism, etc, and instead masks it. That’s the problem. It’s not unlike the “structureless organization”. It’s not really structureless — there are always informal social dynamics in play — and acting as if it is structureless results in avoiding problems instead of confronting them. Everything was all rainbows and unicorns at GitHub until the informal structure apparently resulted in an institutional inability to deal with certain issues. Valve has seen similar problems.
Are you suggesting that hiring less qualified women for the sake of diversity would help to dispel the notion that women are less qualified, and hired for the sake of diversity?
In short, it’s a not-really-present ideal that’s often used to mask the existing power relationships that are really responsible for people being promoted/demoted to where they are.