We answer the question "What is meritocracy?" A satirical essay entitled "The Rise of the Meritocracy: 1870-2033", published in 1958, marked the birth of a new concept in socio-political thought. Meritocracy is the "rule of the worthy." The book, which was published by Michael Young, an English politician and sociologist, in the form of a manuscript written allegedly in 2033, tells about the transformation at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries of British society.
Summary of the book "The Rise of Meritocracy: 1870-2033" by M. Young
The classical divisions into classes, which determine the place in the social hierarchy of a person by the presence of certain resources (communication, wealth, origin, etc.), have been replaced by a new society, where only intelligence and abilities determine the position of the individual in him. Great Britain was no longer satisfied with the ruling class, which was not formed on the basis of competence.
As a result of the reforms, meritocracy was introduced - a system of government of worthy people. At the same time, human dignity (merit) was defined as a combination of two elements - investment of effort (effort) and intelligence (IQ).
The development of society in the 1990s, according to Young
By the 1990s, the ruling class of meritocrats belonged to all adult people, whose IQ exceeded 125. If previously gifted people could meet at different levels of the hierarchy of society and often became leaders within their social group or class, now the management system consisted of a single intellectual elite. Those who, for whatever reason, were down below, had no excuse for failing to advance along the social ladder, as was the case when other principles and management methods were in place. They, in accordance with the new structure of society, deserved their low position, as the most capable people deserved to be at the top of the social hierarchy. This is what meritocracy is.
Uprising in 2033
Representatives of the lower layers of society in 2033 revolted with the support of representatives of the ruling elite, demanding a wordless society and equality. They wanted to abolish the principle of meritocracy. The quality of life and the rights of people should not be determined by measuring their level of education and intelligence, the rebels argued. Anyone should be able to manage their own lives. But meritocracy is the power that limits such an opportunity. As a result of the uprising, it came to an end in Great Britain.
Michael Young's book goal
Drawing a rather gloomy picture of meritocracy, the result of which was to become a new form of domination of some over others and social inequality, Michael Young set a goal to warn British society against the danger of limited orientations. He was able to show that it, in its quest for progress, which has made intellect the fundamental value, loses at the same time its humanistic principle, humanity.
Positive coloring of meritocracy
Many, however, did not hear Young's warning. The content of the concept of "meritocracy" (the rule of the most educated, capable people with the highest intelligence) has been preserved. However, the term received a positive connotation. Many countries began to strive for meritocracy, from Singapore to the UK. At the same time, it emerged as an ideology, masking the order of things, existing and strengthening as a result of neoliberal politics.
The Board of the Worthy
To identify such a structure of society in which intellectuals rule, Michael Young introduced a new term - the rule of the worthy. Criteria of dignity are determined by the values prevailing in society. After all, as Amartia Sen notes, this is a relative, not an absolute concept. Calling meritocracy the rise to power of the most educated and capable people, Michael Young in this term reflected the values that dominate society. He opposes precisely their dominance, depicting in his work the “rule of the worthy” in a negative way. In fact, meritocracy is a form of post-industrial society, says Daniel Bell, a supporter of it. Knowledge and intelligence, however, have become a core value long before the advent of the information society.
Legacy of the Age of Enlightenment
A mind free from traditions and prejudices, an unlimited search for knowledge, a desire for progress, and rationalism are one of the main, or perhaps the main legacy that the Age of Enlightenment has given us . Philosophers of this era, breaking with traditional values, set a new framework for self-determination and worldview of mankind. It is in the desire for continuous growth through the use of new knowledge that one of the foundations of the popularity of the ideology of meritocracy can be found.
The relationship of meritocracy with the concepts of efficiency and productivity
Development along the path of progress and the supremacy of reason determine the basic human dignity within the framework of the values that dominate society - the ability to contribute to the overall movement forward. The latter will turn out to be greatest only when each business will be carried out by the most capable people, the most suitable for it. The concept of meritocracy is closely related to the concepts of efficiency and productivity. In particular, the desire to ensure the greatest efficiency and productivity of each person’s activity, which takes its roots from the rationalism of the Age of Enlightenment, lays the foundation for the highest speed of progress along the path of progress.
It can be assumed that this is where the origins of the definition of meritocracy as a just structure of society lie. Only those who can achieve the greatest efficiency, productivity, the greatest growth, and should be at the top of the social hierarchy. Only the most capable should manage, since only they can pull others towards progress. This is the legitimacy of meritocracy in modern society.
Thought of Plato and Confucius
Organizational forms of government, in which the power belongs to the intellectuals, were described long before Michael Young coined the term "meritocracy." For example, Plato said that government should be entrusted to philosophers. Confucius also preached in his teaching the need for educated rulers to be in power. Both of them, singing the desire for knowledge and reason, had a significant impact on the thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment, who sought inspiration from ancient philosophers.
However, the acquisition of knowledge and reason did not appear among Confucius and Plato as independent, self-valuable phenomena. They were closely related to the concepts of achieving the common good and virtue. For example, one of the basic principles of the teachings of Confucius is "zhen", which means mercy, philanthropy, humanity.
Confucius, being a supporter of universal education, understood by it the unity of two processes: training and education. The second was assigned the main role. This thinker considered the goal of education to be the spiritual growth of a person, bringing it closer to the ideal of "jiuji" (a noble person who is a carrier of high moral qualities).
Why is meritocracy an unfair device?
Michael Young in his work speaks precisely against the definition of intellectual abilities and reason as the dominant value, which, in the framework of the meritocratic competition of modern society, crowds out everyone else, in particular philanthropy, equality, solidarity, compassion.
Daniel Bell, a theorist in post-industrial society, as well as other proponents of the "board of the worthy," argue that in a meritocratic society, everyone gets the position that he himself deserves. Unlike egalitarianism, which advocates equal results at the end of a race, meritocracy advocates equal opportunities at the beginning. Therefore, it is she who is the fairest structure of society. Michael Young, however, believes that with this approach, the limitation of value orientations is manifested. He says that every person should be respected for the good that is in him. Moreover, it should not be limited to his abilities and intelligence.
In an essay by Michael Young, the manifesto of people who rebelled against meritocracy says that people should be evaluated not only by their education and mental abilities, but also by other qualities: courage and kindness, sensitivity and imagination, generosity and ability to sympathize. In such a society it would be impossible to say that the doorman, who is a wonderful father, has less dignity than a scientist; and a civil servant is better than a truck driver who grows roses well.
Meritocracy is power based on the denial of the significance of all these qualities. In addition, it acts as an ideology in which there is no place for solidarity between people. It is based on competition: to achieve a high social status and quality of life, a person must continuously develop abilities and surpass other people in them. Therefore, the roots of meritocracy are not in the collective, but in the individual principle. In this sense, it appears as an ideology close to capitalism with its competition, the demand for constant growth in order to maintain a leading position.
In the spirit of capitalism, meritocracy is incompatible with the idea of solidarity. Kai Nelsen, a Canadian philosopher, notes that at a fundamental level, such a society is inhumane. It is inhumane when people constantly compete with each other in almost all areas, while being constantly evaluated, sorted, rated as part of a quest for a more productive society and greater efficiency. Thus, meritocracy is a system that destroys the foundations of solidarity and brotherhood, and undermines the feeling of a person belonging to a single community.
However, the limitation of value guidelines is only one of the problems of meritocracy and modern society, although it has not fully realized this ideology, but still professes it. Young, criticizing this management system, also criticizes social inequality caused by hierarchical structure. He argues, echoing Kant's postulate of man as a goal in himself, that there is no fundamental basis for the superiority of some people over others. And meritocracy is power based on superiority.