"I expected that the poor and the disadvantaged would be done down"
December 22, 2016 10:34 AM Subscribe
The man who coined "meritocracy" envisioned it as a a dystopia.
He imagined a "final revolt against the meritocracy in 2033" in his 1958 satire, The Rise of the Meritocracy.
He imagined a "final revolt against the meritocracy in 2033" in his 1958 satire, The Rise of the Meritocracy.
This article is from 2001. The book is from 1958. Young died in 2002. I imagine he's positively awhirl in his grave as the rough beast of 2017 slouches toward its Bethlehem to be born.
As a result, general inequality has been becoming more grievous with every year that passes, and without a bleat from the leaders of the party who once spoke up so trenchantly and characteristically for greater equality.
posted by chavenet at 10:47 AM on December 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
As a result, general inequality has been becoming more grievous with every year that passes, and without a bleat from the leaders of the party who once spoke up so trenchantly and characteristically for greater equality.
posted by chavenet at 10:47 AM on December 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
tl;dr: 'meritocracy' is reified Calvinism.
posted by PMdixon at 11:01 AM on December 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by PMdixon at 11:01 AM on December 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
What I find missing from the 2001 piece is any guidance towards a fairer alternative.
One of Young's primary laments is that the "lower classes" have had their leaders stolen from them, because those leaders will succeed in the meritocracy. But take the meritocracy out, and all you get is a situation where a person's lot in life is determined by the birth lottery which which seems objectively worse.
The solution, of course, is some kind of middle way, and I wish that the essay spoke more about that. The best I've been able to come up with is meritocracy+robust safety net, which of course, begs the question of who determines what "merit" is, and how do you get the people at the top of the pile to realize that the safety net is needed?
posted by sparklemotion at 11:11 AM on December 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
One of Young's primary laments is that the "lower classes" have had their leaders stolen from them, because those leaders will succeed in the meritocracy. But take the meritocracy out, and all you get is a situation where a person's lot in life is determined by the birth lottery which which seems objectively worse.
The solution, of course, is some kind of middle way, and I wish that the essay spoke more about that. The best I've been able to come up with is meritocracy+robust safety net, which of course, begs the question of who determines what "merit" is, and how do you get the people at the top of the pile to realize that the safety net is needed?
posted by sparklemotion at 11:11 AM on December 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Meritocracy to the left of me, kakistocracy to the right, here I am, stuck in the shitter with you.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:15 AM on December 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by mondo dentro at 11:15 AM on December 22, 2016 [8 favorites]
BTW, "meritocracy" is only a bad thing if it's not sincere, isnt' it? I mean, if you take it at its face value, what could possibly be wrong with a government comprised of those who truly merit it? This distinguishes it significantly from kakistocracy.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:17 AM on December 22, 2016
posted by mondo dentro at 11:17 AM on December 22, 2016
"... and without a bleat from the leaders of the party who once spoke up so trenchantly and characteristically for greater equality."
You think it's bad now? Wait 'til they decide our planet has too many people on it ...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:18 AM on December 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
You think it's bad now? Wait 'til they decide our planet has too many people on it ...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:18 AM on December 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wait 'til they decide our planet has too many people on it ...
My fear is that this decision has already been made. The only choice being offered is a more humane Malthusian collapse (Now with DIVERSITY!), or a brutal winner-take-all version.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:22 AM on December 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
My fear is that this decision has already been made. The only choice being offered is a more humane Malthusian collapse (Now with DIVERSITY!), or a brutal winner-take-all version.
posted by mondo dentro at 11:22 AM on December 22, 2016 [3 favorites]
But take the meritocracy out, and all you get is a situation where a person's lot in life is determined by the birth lottery which which seems objectively worse.
Or, y'know, actual fucking equality, where a person's lot in life is determined to be of the same quality as everyone else's and there is no lottery in either birth or arbitrary skillset valuation.
posted by Dysk at 11:52 AM on December 22, 2016 [9 favorites]
Or, y'know, actual fucking equality, where a person's lot in life is determined to be of the same quality as everyone else's and there is no lottery in either birth or arbitrary skillset valuation.
posted by Dysk at 11:52 AM on December 22, 2016 [9 favorites]
Or, y'know, actual fucking equality, where a person's lot in life is determined to be of the same quality as everyone else's and there is no lottery in either birth or arbitrary skillset valuation.
That's my point. Young contrasts the meritocracy with Britain's rigid class system and says that the class system was better because at least the upper classes didn't falsely believe that they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Young doesn't propose anything that would lead to "actual fucking equality," and I would argue that meritocracy, as actually practiced today (which is still pretty terrible, don't get me wrong), is closer to "equality" than Young's alternative.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:23 PM on December 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
That's my point. Young contrasts the meritocracy with Britain's rigid class system and says that the class system was better because at least the upper classes didn't falsely believe that they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Young doesn't propose anything that would lead to "actual fucking equality," and I would argue that meritocracy, as actually practiced today (which is still pretty terrible, don't get me wrong), is closer to "equality" than Young's alternative.
posted by sparklemotion at 12:23 PM on December 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
sparklemotion: Young doesn't propose anything that would lead to "actual fucking equality," and I would argue that meritocracy, as actually practiced today (which is still pretty terrible, don't get me wrong), is closer to "equality" than Young's alternative.
Young was a utopian socialist. Read up on some of the stuff he did. And don't be thrown by his title; he took because "his many projects required frequent travel to London and the peerage offered free rail travel and attendance allowance at a time when he had run out of money."
posted by clawsoon at 12:34 PM on December 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
Young was a utopian socialist. Read up on some of the stuff he did. And don't be thrown by his title; he took because "his many projects required frequent travel to London and the peerage offered free rail travel and attendance allowance at a time when he had run out of money."
posted by clawsoon at 12:34 PM on December 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
this book is #1 on my list of Books I found on a bus bench in London that I never forgot
posted by kanemano at 3:38 PM on December 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kanemano at 3:38 PM on December 22, 2016 [2 favorites]
BTW, "meritocracy" is only a bad thing if it's not sincere, isnt' it? I mean, if you take it at its face value, what could possibly be wrong with a government comprised of those who truly merit it? This distinguishes it significantly from kakistocracy.
In a literal sense, yes, it's better to be governed by people who are capable of governing well.
My feeling, though, is that the word "meritocracy" is more often used to refer to a system in which people are rewarded in proportion to how much they are seen as contributing to the group's welfare. This strikes me as a good way to run a company, but a terrible way to run a society, because so many people are prevented from contributing because of factors like age, disability, lack of education, etc. There's also the problem of people—most often women or minorities—whose contributions are routinely underestimated or underappreciated.
posted by shponglespore at 3:40 PM on December 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
In a literal sense, yes, it's better to be governed by people who are capable of governing well.
My feeling, though, is that the word "meritocracy" is more often used to refer to a system in which people are rewarded in proportion to how much they are seen as contributing to the group's welfare. This strikes me as a good way to run a company, but a terrible way to run a society, because so many people are prevented from contributing because of factors like age, disability, lack of education, etc. There's also the problem of people—most often women or minorities—whose contributions are routinely underestimated or underappreciated.
posted by shponglespore at 3:40 PM on December 22, 2016 [10 favorites]
BTW, "meritocracy" is only a bad thing if it's not sincere, isnt' it? I mean, if you take it at its face value, what could possibly be wrong with a government comprised of those who truly merit it?
That they act in the interests of their own group, and not the interests of society at large. No-one is opposed to competent government, but (in a fair and just society) such power as we allow to government, rather than individuals, must ultimately reside with the people, not the ruling class. The idea that one can "merit" power over others is no less odious than the idea that one can justly inherit such power. I suspect you are briefly overlooking the fact that governments do not typically act in the interests of the people, but in the interests of the government. That is a real problem that needs to be addressed, and a meritocratic system does nothing to address it.
These are abstractions, of course. No political system is perfect, and compromises of even deeply held principles can be necessary in a complex and dangerous world. But that makes it even more important to have a clearsighted understanding of what a good society would look like. The notion that meritocracy is a virtue is a poor foundation for one's political praxis.
posted by howfar at 4:50 PM on December 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
That they act in the interests of their own group, and not the interests of society at large. No-one is opposed to competent government, but (in a fair and just society) such power as we allow to government, rather than individuals, must ultimately reside with the people, not the ruling class. The idea that one can "merit" power over others is no less odious than the idea that one can justly inherit such power. I suspect you are briefly overlooking the fact that governments do not typically act in the interests of the people, but in the interests of the government. That is a real problem that needs to be addressed, and a meritocratic system does nothing to address it.
These are abstractions, of course. No political system is perfect, and compromises of even deeply held principles can be necessary in a complex and dangerous world. But that makes it even more important to have a clearsighted understanding of what a good society would look like. The notion that meritocracy is a virtue is a poor foundation for one's political praxis.
posted by howfar at 4:50 PM on December 22, 2016 [4 favorites]
I think the worse part of meritocracy is when it is paired with capitalism: then, merit is equated with the your ability to generate (or hold onto) wealth. So poor people deserve to be so since if they were capable they would be rich, no? And not only do the rich totally deserve all their money, they in fact should rule the country as they have shown their merit by virtue of having wealth. Its a perniciously circular argument.
posted by destrius at 5:42 PM on December 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by destrius at 5:42 PM on December 22, 2016 [11 favorites]
Merit hah! How does it get measured? I watched some lovely documentary about a program in NYC that used data to identify those most likely to fail in K-12 and intervened. (The trigger was when you started missing school, I guess it's something to organize a program around.) So one of the intervened, (mentor, special attention, better school,) gets swept up by fate and eventually plopped down in some elite boarding school. As long as she doesn't lose her marbles from cultural stress or whatever, she is on her way to Princeton or such, social competency, network, success etc. etc. Meanwhile the kid who didn't miss school is left behind to claw their way up, or not. I am sure if the first joins the meritocracy her comrades will make special oodle juice out of her background and won't really want to recognize the extraordinary luck involved in creating someone endowed with "merit."
posted by Pembquist at 6:31 PM on December 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Pembquist at 6:31 PM on December 22, 2016 [1 favorite]
Good a time as any to recall that Lord Melbourne said that he liked the Order of the Garter because there was "no damn merit about it."
posted by BWA at 6:42 PM on December 22, 2016
posted by BWA at 6:42 PM on December 22, 2016
BTW, "meritocracy" is only a bad thing if it's not sincere, isnt' it? I mean, if you take it at its face value, what could possibly be wrong with a government comprised of those who truly merit it? This distinguishes it significantly from kakistocracy.
No - Young's book makes a wonderful argument against even the most perfect meritocracy. And it's not just about the working class not having leaders - he argues that inequality is wrong no matter how you justify it. Birth or "merit", inequality is the problem, not how the winners are chosen.
Everyone needs to read this book. New law, when I am God-king: you aren't even allowed to use the word meritocracy until you've read - and understood - this book.
posted by jb at 7:46 PM on December 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
No - Young's book makes a wonderful argument against even the most perfect meritocracy. And it's not just about the working class not having leaders - he argues that inequality is wrong no matter how you justify it. Birth or "merit", inequality is the problem, not how the winners are chosen.
Everyone needs to read this book. New law, when I am God-king: you aren't even allowed to use the word meritocracy until you've read - and understood - this book.
posted by jb at 7:46 PM on December 22, 2016 [6 favorites]
You can have the smartest, most dedicated and capable person running things, but if they don't have the experience of being poor or disabled they will always have blind spots. Ability/merit is important in government, but so is representation.
posted by clawsoon at 7:33 AM on December 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 7:33 AM on December 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Merritt is for Cub scout badges when everybody has the same raw skillet at the beginning and learns to be a better person by the time they complete the requirements. Any time after Cub scouts, someone is always forgetting the advantages birthright has offered them and that they have a responsibility to help all of society improve - not just themselves.
posted by Nanukthedog at 6:21 PM on December 23, 2016
posted by Nanukthedog at 6:21 PM on December 23, 2016
I think the worse part of meritocracy is when it is paired with capitalism: then, merit is equated with the your ability to generate (or hold onto) wealth.
And maybe generating wealth starts out with, for example, building something genuinely useful for society, or bringing a fantastic product to market that truly improves the quality of people's lives in some way...but then you have smart people realize you can make money even faster just by manipulating real estate or money, through banks and stock markets, etc. So you end up drifting even further away from any positive aspects of capitalism.
posted by Pryde at 2:27 PM on December 24, 2016
And maybe generating wealth starts out with, for example, building something genuinely useful for society, or bringing a fantastic product to market that truly improves the quality of people's lives in some way...but then you have smart people realize you can make money even faster just by manipulating real estate or money, through banks and stock markets, etc. So you end up drifting even further away from any positive aspects of capitalism.
posted by Pryde at 2:27 PM on December 24, 2016
clawsoon: good point, but the book isn't just about leadership. It's also about inequality. I have a close relative who is developmentally delayed - she is, objectively, less capable of performing many tasks than someone without her disability. But should she be condemned to live in poverty and squalor because she will never be able to do many jobs?
What Michael Young argues is that people who are less capable (it's scifi, and he posits a perfect 'merit' selection system) do not deserve to have a poorer life. People who aren't bright or who aren't capable or who lack 'merit' still deserve to be able support themselves and their families. He argues against the very concept of a system of winners and losers, regardless of how well (or not) the winners are chosen. He's the anti-Tony Blair.
posted by jb at 6:29 AM on December 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
What Michael Young argues is that people who are less capable (it's scifi, and he posits a perfect 'merit' selection system) do not deserve to have a poorer life. People who aren't bright or who aren't capable or who lack 'merit' still deserve to be able support themselves and their families. He argues against the very concept of a system of winners and losers, regardless of how well (or not) the winners are chosen. He's the anti-Tony Blair.
posted by jb at 6:29 AM on December 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Also, the book isn't about social advantages - part of the selection system he posits erases all social or cultural advantages. People are placed in society by their intelligence (which is measured perfectly, because scifi). Thus he gets away from all arguments that 'well, meritocracy would be great, but ours is flawed' to focus on the badness of the '-ocracy', no matter what your selection criteria are.
It's not a book about how meritocracies don't work - it's a book about how bad they would be if they did work perfectly. (And it's not really about governing - it's about social hierarchy: who gets a nicer house, etc).
Meritocracy is just another justification for inequality, like aristocracy. Aristocracy was just a bit more honest about justifying inequality.
posted by jb at 6:35 AM on December 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's not a book about how meritocracies don't work - it's a book about how bad they would be if they did work perfectly. (And it's not really about governing - it's about social hierarchy: who gets a nicer house, etc).
Meritocracy is just another justification for inequality, like aristocracy. Aristocracy was just a bit more honest about justifying inequality.
posted by jb at 6:35 AM on December 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
people who are less capable... do not deserve to have a poorer life.
Take out the 'not' and you've basically got the description of meritocracy that most people will instinctively reject.
posted by PMdixon at 1:48 PM on December 28, 2016
Take out the 'not' and you've basically got the description of meritocracy that most people will instinctively reject.
posted by PMdixon at 1:48 PM on December 28, 2016
But if you phrase it as "people who are more capable will achieve more and do better, which is just as it should be" (which is just a paraphrase of "people who are more capable deserve a better life") they'll instinctively accept it.
For illustration, here in 2016-almost-2017, it's a problem to get people to recognize that "stupid" is an ableist slur based on the premise that intellectual ability is worth rewarding and lack of intellectual ability renders a person worthy of nothing more than charity.
And if we didn't have "meritocracy" so deeply ingrained that it's at the "ask a fish to talk about water" level, would the idea of universal basic income be so difficult to address? The fundamental argument against it seems to be "but what if [these people who don't DESERVE it] get it?"
posted by Lexica at 7:42 PM on December 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
For illustration, here in 2016-almost-2017, it's a problem to get people to recognize that "stupid" is an ableist slur based on the premise that intellectual ability is worth rewarding and lack of intellectual ability renders a person worthy of nothing more than charity.
And if we didn't have "meritocracy" so deeply ingrained that it's at the "ask a fish to talk about water" level, would the idea of universal basic income be so difficult to address? The fundamental argument against it seems to be "but what if [these people who don't DESERVE it] get it?"
posted by Lexica at 7:42 PM on December 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
But if you phrase it as "people who are more capable will achieve more and do better, which is just as it should be" (which is just a paraphrase of "people who are more capable deserve a better life") they'll instinctively accept it.
I've been thinking about this for a while and can't quite come up with the words I need, so pardon me if this is clunky. I don't think either of those two phrases are a bad thing. And I think the problem lies in the vocabulary, "better" and "poorer" are relative comparisons. But when we say someone has a "poorer" life, that is not the same thing as a "poor" life.
So saying that someone who wants to put out the effort should have a better life and someone who doesn't should have a poorer life, does not mean the lesser person should have a poor life. (I understand there are systemic issues that cause inequality and that effort is not the only thing that matters. I just used effort for simplicity's sake.)
And yes, I do believe that people need to be rewarded by some having a better life and some having a poorer life. But first, systemic causes of inequality need to be addressed, and everyone actually needs to be given opportunity, not just given lip service to it. There's nothing wrong with someone people driving Maserati's and others driving Hondas, it's not ok when some are driving Maseratis and others are crawling. I don't think inequality in itself is a bad thing, but when it gets to the level the US is at now, then something is terribly wrong.
posted by LizBoBiz at 6:16 AM on December 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've been thinking about this for a while and can't quite come up with the words I need, so pardon me if this is clunky. I don't think either of those two phrases are a bad thing. And I think the problem lies in the vocabulary, "better" and "poorer" are relative comparisons. But when we say someone has a "poorer" life, that is not the same thing as a "poor" life.
So saying that someone who wants to put out the effort should have a better life and someone who doesn't should have a poorer life, does not mean the lesser person should have a poor life. (I understand there are systemic issues that cause inequality and that effort is not the only thing that matters. I just used effort for simplicity's sake.)
And yes, I do believe that people need to be rewarded by some having a better life and some having a poorer life. But first, systemic causes of inequality need to be addressed, and everyone actually needs to be given opportunity, not just given lip service to it. There's nothing wrong with someone people driving Maserati's and others driving Hondas, it's not ok when some are driving Maseratis and others are crawling. I don't think inequality in itself is a bad thing, but when it gets to the level the US is at now, then something is terribly wrong.
posted by LizBoBiz at 6:16 AM on December 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
But when we say someone has a "poorer" life, that is not the same thing as a "poor" life.
There is a difference - but generally poverty is relative, not absolute, and has been taken to be such (including by Adam Smith, back in the 18th century). Relative poverty may not starve people like absolute poverty, but being excluded from what their society requires "to be decent" does alienate and exclude them.
To go with your car example: relative poverty isn't like driving a Honda, it's not having a car in a world that is only built for cars.
(also: Hondas are excellent cars).
posted by jb at 7:20 PM on December 29, 2016
There is a difference - but generally poverty is relative, not absolute, and has been taken to be such (including by Adam Smith, back in the 18th century). Relative poverty may not starve people like absolute poverty, but being excluded from what their society requires "to be decent" does alienate and exclude them.
To go with your car example: relative poverty isn't like driving a Honda, it's not having a car in a world that is only built for cars.
(also: Hondas are excellent cars).
posted by jb at 7:20 PM on December 29, 2016
people who are less capable... do not deserve to have a poorer life.
Take out the 'not' and you've basically got the description of meritocracy that most people will instinctively reject.
Unfortunately, this isn't true, not for the Tony Blairs of the world. For the whole of my life, this is exactly what has been sold as "meritocracy".
posted by jb at 7:22 PM on December 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
Take out the 'not' and you've basically got the description of meritocracy that most people will instinctively reject.
Unfortunately, this isn't true, not for the Tony Blairs of the world. For the whole of my life, this is exactly what has been sold as "meritocracy".
posted by jb at 7:22 PM on December 29, 2016 [1 favorite]
jb: clawsoon: good point, but the book isn't just about leadership. It's also about inequality. I have a close relative who is developmentally delayed - she is, objectively, less capable of performing many tasks than someone without her disability. But should she be condemned to live in poverty and squalor because she will never be able to do many jobs?
What led me to that comment was my observation that, if a group isn't represented in leadership, it will gradually have whatever equality it might've had whittled away. This seems to be true even if those running the place have the best intentions. If there are experiences you haven't had, there will be needs and perspective and subtleties you don't know about.
My daughter has developmental delay, like your relative. The dominance of the meritocracy makes me worried for her future. How could she be best represented? I dunno. I dunno.
posted by clawsoon at 11:46 AM on January 3, 2017 [1 favorite]
What led me to that comment was my observation that, if a group isn't represented in leadership, it will gradually have whatever equality it might've had whittled away. This seems to be true even if those running the place have the best intentions. If there are experiences you haven't had, there will be needs and perspective and subtleties you don't know about.
My daughter has developmental delay, like your relative. The dominance of the meritocracy makes me worried for her future. How could she be best represented? I dunno. I dunno.
posted by clawsoon at 11:46 AM on January 3, 2017 [1 favorite]
« Older The Story of the Star Wars Spin Off Movie Without... | "I do not want to be in the cars. The cars are my... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by clawsoon at 10:46 AM on December 22, 2016 [3 favorites]