We do not live in a meritocracy. Only the most deluded, infantile minds could ever think we do. For example, inheritance completely invalidates meritocracy since it places people who have not demonstrated their talents (children) at the very top and guarantees them a life of success.
Meritocracy as a basic idea is this: the duty of the State is to place everyone in the particular position for which they have the most aptitude and talent, and to help them actualize that talent. It then rewards the people who make the most of their talent. For it to work, everyone must have an equal opportunity, so no inheritance. Some objections exist to this, and that’s what we’re going to discuss today.
Generally, objections are worth raising if you find them, but if you’re one of those people who can come up with objections but never any solutions, then you’re obviously not a meritocrat. Where’s all your thinking really going? Are you looking for problems or are you looking for solutions?
But that said, there are a handful of considerations worth addressing, so here we go.
Merit Is Subjective
One of the most common objections is a doubt as to the fact that we could truly measure or assess merit and who would do the assessing. The answer is of course that those proficient in a particular field would be the judge. Who else? Only an expert in a given field can properly assess someone else’s progress in that field.
But wouldn’t people act selfishly to secure their own spot at the top and not let anyone else in? Well, that would apply if it were a zero sum game – i.e., if they had something to lose by letting other people in. In a meritocracy, that’s not so. Besides, in the future, thanks to the efforts of a State that will understand psychology, most people will not be selfish. Committees could also be established to ensure that the decision-making is always rational and root out the source of systemic or recurring violations of the merit principle.
As for merit being subjective, it rather depends on which field we’re talking about. But given equal opportunity, if everything is handled correctly, there’s no reason why the results of merit shouldn’t be measurable. For example, in science, meritorious work results in theories that work and correctly predict what we see, and clear, explanatory papers. In fiction writing, the results are the author’s sales, how satisfied readers were with the author’s work (which will be in part a natural consequence of the author’s talent), etc. In this field, merit is a lot more subjective because the exercise itself (writing) is subjective. People going into subjective fields would of course have to acknowledge and be okay with that.
Politics would be a lot more scientific than it is now. Policies would be tested for success, and the people who routinely came up with the best policies (that help everyone) would be able to assume higher positions.
Any attempts to create power structures that oppose merit or structures of inheritance would be immediately dismantled. Such things are intolerable in a meritocracy.
The Most Meritorious Would Become Arrogant
Some may. But it’s ultimately a person’s actions that affect society, and any arrogance that’s opposed to merit would produce non-meritorious results, and that’s easy to see.
None of this is to say that meritocracy is right for humanity, psychologically, right now. We’re not creating a meritocracy tomorrow – it would take many steps to get there, but by the time we did, the psychological makeup of humanity would be vastly changed. The problem is that right now we live in a world where selfishness is incentivized. We must turn round and go the other way if we want to reach a good society.
Meritocracy Would Lead to an Intellectual Elite
Yes. The question of elites is not whether they should exist (check out the theory behind communism for what a society without any possibility of elites looks like) – the question is whether or not they are serving the general good of everyone. In a society like this one, where the rich elites routinely screw over everyone else to secure their own spots at the top, revolution is warranted. The whole point of meritocracy, on the other hand, is to create a society whose elites are beneficial to everyone.
Talent Should Not Be Rewarded Because It’s Inborn or Genetic
And you can’t control what you’re good at, right? That’s true, but allowing everyone to optimize themselves by pursuing their talents is the best possible outcome, given that we cannot change a person’s talents. People love to do what they’re good at. They might wish they were good at other things – that’s natural – but everyone is good at something, everyone has a use, and meritocracy is all about finding that use, setting them up for success, and then rewarding that success. People will be fulfilled when they achieve recognition and reward for their talents. And talent achieves results.
No one would say you’re not responsible for being an asshole if you’re an asshole. Your talent is part of who you are. You may not be responsible for how it originated, but you are responsible for where you take it.
As for how good you are – there’s an argument to be made for the idea that you can improve at something beyond your innate ability. But even if you couldn’t – again, meritocracy is the fairest way things can be. If everyone were rewarded the same, then no one would be motivated to excel in their field. Reward must always come in proportion to achievement.
If someone is prepared and willing to do their best (which any good meritocratic society will help them in being), then that’s the decisive factor in their success. As Woody Allen said, “80% of success is showing up.” How many people have heaps of talent yet do nothing with it? The world has failed them. In a meritocracy, it will not.
The function of a meritocratic society is to minimize factors such as luck and fortune in a person’s ultimate success – and it does that by providing equal opportunities for every child, to the maximum possible extent. No elite gated communities. No nepotism. No cronyism.
It’s the irony of markets that, once you make them smaller, they actually have more space. Anyone who dominated would only dominate one small market, not a global one. There’s room for everyone. We just have to find it.
Ultimately, factors like luck can never be fully eliminated from a person’s life. There is no perfect solution, no matter what political system you advocate for, but meritocracy’s solution is the best you’ll find, and it’s certainly better than democracy + free-market capitalism, where the odds are so heavily against the ordinary person that most of them will never achieve much of anything.
People Will Be Racist or Discriminatory
A meritocratic society would seek to instill the values of merit in everyone, and that means the eradication of racism and discrimination of any kind. What matters about a person is what they can do, not the color of their skin or their sex or their sexuality. All of these are anti-meritocratic, so they would be heavily discouraged or even shunned in a meritocracy. It would take time (and proper handling), for sure, but eventually, discrimination would be marginalized to the point of being a non-issue.
And of course, it would not be tolerated to discriminate while assessing someone else’s merit. Such an assessment must always be as impersonal as possible, and always focused on merit alone. We could even anonymize work if necessary.
If You Fail, You’ll Be Demoralized
This objection says that in a society that judges you by merit, if you fail, you must be no good. You could easily get into a depressive rut.
A meritocracy must always promote optimism. Pessimism – the emphasis of the worst – is always dangerous if it gets out of hand. People must be taught to be optimistic, strong, resilient, and capable of handling failure. If you fail, try again. Or it may be that you did not successfully find the field you’re best suited for at first, so a reassessment of your capabilities might be in order.
People must be conditioned away from depressive states. Cognitive behavioral therapy is a therapy that aims to change a patient’s thought patterns. Often, these patterns become ingrained and habitual – and the way out is to challenge those unhelpful thoughts, confront them and establish helpful ones in their place. We could take techniques from CBT and other therapies and apply them to everyone – actually teach them how to think in a positive way and create a positive cycle instead of a negative one.
Another point worth bringing up is that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with not being the best at something. It’s a reality many of us have to endure, and there’s no shame in it. Celebrate what you have, don’t become wistful and regretful because of what you don’t have.
Meritocracy Discourages Cooperation
No it doesn’t. It encourages healthy (friendly) competition, but it does not rule out cooperation. It might be that you’re at your best when you cooperate with others; this can all be taken into account. It doesn’t preclude meritocracy at all. Again, this is something that would be taught to everyone in a meritocracy. Competition would not be seen as something hostile. People would be taught to relate to their opponents. People would be open to collaborating with each other.
Meritocracy Would Make People Overwork
That’s a possibility. It’s therefore important for a meritocratic society to emphasize mental health as a priority. Nothing wrong with taking a break, if that’s what you need. It may also be true that you don’t burn out as easily when you’re doing something you love. This is a topic open to research. As previously noted, these kinds of decisions need to be scientific and based on evidence of success or failure. When a policy is instituted, it should be followed up on and scrutinized to see if it really is working as intended. What’s for sure is that people should indeed be taught how to prevent themselves from falling into a cycle of overworking, failing to achieve, losing motivation, and then overworking again to compensate for the lack of work.
And of course a meritocratic society would provide systems to help those who do get stuck in a rut – free mental health services for all, that ideally don’t have a months- or years-long wait list. With proper management of resources, this is achievable, although you needn’t ask today’s politicians how!
You Can’t Eradicate Inheritance; People Would Cheat the System
And those cheaters of the system would be punished and their efforts reversed. Any attempt to hand significant money or assets or corporate ownership to one’s child would obviously be punished because it’s a direct violation of merit. Do you just assume that a meritocratic government wouldn’t be able to enforce its own laws? Because you could claim that of any government; it’s not an objection to meritocracy specifically.
The State Has No Right to Tax Inheritance
On the contrary, it has every right. Inheritance directly affects the state of the world and it is therefore not only the State’s right but also its job to tax every cent of it. Inheritance creates privilege, which equals inequality. You cannot be for equality and also be for inheritance. And if you’re not in favor of equality, then you’re a pretty shit human being, aren’t you? Stop being selfish. Think of those who have nothing to inherit from their parents because their parents didn’t own anything of any significant value – they are being penalized through no fault of their own. Meanwhile, the super rich, who have endless amounts of money, more than anyone could ever possibly need or even spend, bequeath it all to their children, thus benefiting them more than inheritance will ever benefit you.
Come on! Get your head out of your own ass. Inheritance screws over everyone who is not part of the super rich. To defend it as your “right” is spectacularly dumb and extremely unhelpful to you.
If you make money doing art, it’s probably because you’re good at art. If you make a lot of money doing detective work, it’s probably because you’re good at detective work. But the person who makes money by inheriting it doesn’t have to be good at anything. Inheritance is the very opposite of merit, its antithesis. And it’s only when we get rid of inheritance entirely that merit will matter in the world, because right now it certainly doesn’t. You can work fantastically all your life and remain utterly poor, and who’s responsible for that? – the rich elite, and that’s who you’re sticking up for when you defend your so-called “right” to pass on your wealth.
Every person should make their own way in life. Why shouldn’t they?
Think about it. If no one is placed in the role they’re best suited for, how can you expect good results? How can you expect people to be fulfilled? In this world, you’re always expected to do work you probably aren’t best suited for, and what’s the result? – mass depression and growing unemployment, apparently. The veneer is splitting. It’s going to come off soon.
There are ways to do meritocracy wrong – that doesn’t mean there isn’t a way to do it right. These aren’t so much fundamental flaws with meritocracy as qualms about the execution. But this site has shown how the current political system is unjust by its very nature – the same is not true for meritocracy. Its emphasis is on fairness.
We must not be afraid to change things around if they don’t work. That will be the key in establishing a meritocracy over time. We must never settle for systems that aren’t at their best. You may think meritocracy is overly optimistic – again, it would take time, but it’s achievable. And in a world so drowned in pessimism, who could blame you for thinking that? Meritocracy is extremely ambitious since it calls for a total change in humanity, but it’s that achievement for which we strive – the greatest achievement of all.
There’s nothing wrong with working together. There’s nothing wrong with needing help. We all do. The crucial point is that we must always be willing to do our best with the talent we have. That doesn’t mean we have to do it alone or in staunch, miserable competition with others. Done right, a meritocracy is the light at the end of the long, dark age of humanity. It’s the end of the arduous march of the working class for the benefit of a few people – the super rich. You’d have to be a fool to oppose it.
The Promise of Merit
There is nothing in this world like realizing your talent – going from potential to actuality. Nothing is more fulfilling. We all have talent. Meritocracy is simply a state designed to optimize that transformation – from potential merit to real merit. There’s no reason why everyone on earth shouldn’t be able to live a fulfilling life. But the super rich don’t want you to believe that because it’s injustice that fuels their lavish lifestyles. They want you to think of systemic injustice as inescapable, to stop you trying to escape. In fact, it’s their tyranny that precludes true and complete justice.
Burn it all down. Axe it. Destroy their decadent, self-serving power structures. Then we will have justice!