Meritocracy and the guilty lie

Let me quote an excellent post from an older thread:

I think "meritocracy" is probably a vacuous concept. Either it's trivially true ("merit" is defined as those who ought to be in power) or it varies dependent on the specific values of the powerful within a given society ("merit" is defined as whatever those with power want to define it as). Alternatively, there is some specific, objective skill which "merit" is related to, but I do not see a compelling reason to believe this.

I think meritocracy is nothing but a feel-good term that people use to convince themselves of the predominance of equality of opportunity. There is a legitimate idea that people ought to get the results and positions that they deserve, but the concept of desert is itself fraught with difficulties.

In the end, it's all just about very practical and contingent factors. You get a certain position or a certain result because the opportunity was there and, for reasons to do with luck or ability or both, you're most well placed to take advantage of it. It's true that there's more socio-economic mobility now than, say, a century ago. But that doesn't really prove anything about meritocracy, whether there is such a thing and whether it can be used as a meaningful principle for organising society.

Keeping these things in mind will probably mitigate against great disappointment.

EDIT: Oh, I suppose this is to say that the article is on to something.
 
Great OP, IMO! Luck is huge & while people have a greater capacity to change than most give themselves credit for most people struggle immensely with issues of self-discipline. I know I do. Not only that but those born rich & connected don't need the level of self-discipline as someone coming from poverty (or those with social/emotional/mental issues).

Work hard, do your best but that doesn't necessarily give you license to judge others as you don't really know what someone has to go thru 'till you've walked a mile in their shoes.
 
Back
Top Bottom