Meritocracy

Meritocracy—a word that has been bounced around a lot lately. We’ve heard it frequently during U.S. senate confirmation hearings in the past few weeks. But what actually is meritocracy?

Well, my trusty Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as:

“A system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit.”1

Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Selecting people based on merit is probably a good thing, isn’t it?

Then you have the word merit, which, according to the same dictionary, means:

“A praiseworthy quality (virtue); character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem (achievement); a person’s qualities, actions, etc., regarded as indicating what the person deserves to receive.”2

When I read the definition of merit, I see room for the “yes man” types. Their conduct as “yes men” deserves a reward, right?

A little over a week or so ago, I started reading Bittersweet by Susan Cain. Most of you know her as the author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, which I highly recommend. Bittersweet is about how sorrow and longing make us whole, as the full book title implies, and so far, it’s a wonderful and illuminating read. There is a part where Susan highlights Swiss-born writer and philosopher Alain de Botton.

In 2016, he wrote an opinion piece titled Why You Will Marry the Wrong Person, and Susan attended one of his seminars. In the book, she quotes two of Alain’s statements. The first one is:

“One of the gravest errors we make around relationships is to imagine that they aren’t things we can get wiser or better at.”3

The second one is:

“We need to accept that there is no partner who will understand the whole of us, who will share all of our tastes in large and small areas. Ultimately, it is always a percentage of compatibility we will only ever achieve. Let’s go back to Plato and kill, once and for all, as a group, his charming but insane, love-destroying piece of naivety. WE HAVE NO SOUL MATE.”4

At this point, you’re probably wondering: What does meritocracy have to do with Alain de Botton and the idea that there is no soul mate? Well, nothing—but I’ll get there, I promise.

So, I read those statements and, of course, I had to figure out who Alain de Botton is. I looked him up, and he’s a pretty impressive guy. But I also found a TED Talk titled A Kinder, Gentler Philosophy of Success, which he gave in 2009.

Here’s the full talk—it’s about 20 minutes long (actually 19:43), and it’s pretty good.

Around 5 minutes and 32 seconds in, Alain starts discussing meritocracy, and what he says is eye-opening:

“There is another reason why we might be feeling more anxious—about our careers, about our status in the world today—than ever before. And it’s, again, linked to something nice. And that nice thing is called meritocracy.

Everybody, all politicians on the Left and Right, agree that meritocracy is a great thing, and we should all be trying to make our societies really, really meritocratic. In other words—what is a meritocratic society? A meritocratic society is one in which, if you’ve got talent and energy and skill, you will get to the top; nothing should hold you back. It’s a beautiful idea. The problem is, if you really believe in a society where those who merit getting to the top do get to the top, you’ll also, by implication, and in a far more nasty way, believe in a society where those who deserve to be at the bottom also stay at the bottom. In other words, your position in life comes to seem not accidental, but merited and deserved. And that makes failure seem much more crushing.”5

I’m not completely sure I agree with everything he said, but it got me thinking.

Some people in our current government believe that meritocracy is extremely important—even though they occupy their positions not because of any reasonable expertise or competence, but most likely because of their “yes man” aptitude.

The danger, I think—and in this, I totally agree with Alain—is that the same people throwing around the word meritocracy are, in reality, trying to keep those at the bottom down. And that is indeed a tragedy.

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meritocracy ↩︎
  2.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/merit ↩︎
  3. Cain, Susan. Bittersweet. (P. 38). New York: Crown, 2023. ↩︎
  4. Cain, Susan. Bittersweet. (P. 40). New York: Crown, 2023. ↩︎
  5. https://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_a_kinder_gentler_philosophy_of_success/transcript
    ↩︎

51 thoughts on “Meritocracy”

  1. Wow, Edward. Such incredible thinking you’ve brought together here. Thanks for showing up both sides of the coin. Hoping for some inspiration to strike the “yes men” to do some similar analysis and thinking.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, Wynne. We can only hope, but the problem is that once a “Yes Man” gets into power and develops a taste for it, it becomes hard for that person to say, “No, sir, and here’s why…” because they are afraid of losing it.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  2. Tonight, after weeks of being too weak to work, I finally get back to my subscribers’ works. Yours was first up ~ RIGHT after my own posting containing the same word in its title. That’s either a major sign or some serious indigestion…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  3. Talent, energy, and skill are a good way to measure merit. Unfortunately some apply other criteria of “merit.”

    Are you familiar with Max Weber’s book _The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism_? Weber explores the idea that material success as a sign of God’s approval became a powerful influence on American culture. For this way of thinking, the proof of merit is that one is wealthy and successful. Thus, people like Donald Trump and Elon Musk are revered and respected in the culture, simply for having risen to positions of fame and fortune. There is much to be criticized in this assumption, but followers of the Protestant ethic are not always interested in the criticisms so much as they are in God’s presumed judgement.

    Another measure of merit, especially applicable to the current U.S. administration, is loyalty. Jane Jacobs, in her book _Systems of Survival, considers two systems of merit, the “trader” ethic and the “guardian” ethic. (She draws this insight from Plato.) The guardian ethic values loyalty, deceit, and other skills and talents related to ensuring safety and security. The “yes man” figure has the merit of loyalty — a merit obviously appreciated in Trump’s system of ethics.

    The idea of merit based on sheer capability and energy therefore has to be supplemented by some remarks about ethical values. An ethics of honesty, openness, equality, and fairness is required to ensure that one’s talents, energy, and skills are used for good and not for evil.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I’ve heard about Max Weber, but I’m not completely familiar with his work. When I read your comment about him, it reminded me of the prosperity gospel, which falls under what he is saying. I need to take a look at Weber and Jane Jacobs because their work sounds like something I’d want to read. Your last comment about ethics is spot on, and I definitely agree with the notion that our talents, energy, and skills should be used for good. Thank you reading and commenting.

      Like

      Reply

  4. Hi Edward, thanks for introducing this concept to me. I’ve never heard it before. Like many political and social concept, it’s sounds wonderful in its pure form. Unfortunately human nature ensures that nothing ever works in a pure form because that would conflict with power and wealth ambitions.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Absolutely, and of course, we also need to assist those who want to get there by providing the means and ways to do so. Suppressing the path for those at the bottom who have good qualifications is not beneficial for this country.

      Like

      Reply

  7. A very thought provoking post Edward. Your last paragraph made an excellent point also. I’ll have to watch the Ted Talk when I have more time. Thank you for sharing.
    I also find it interesting that corporations and institutions who preached the DEI tenet are abandoning it so easily. A great lack of integrity.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  8. All these words/terms/initials being weaponized and/or used hypocritically to anoint or denounce what suits them. There’s no doubt that the word meritocracy cannot possibly apply to any of Trump’s cabinet appointees. And I find this notion that’s no such thing as a soul mate sad in the extreme.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Absolutely! There are a couple of appointees who are good—maybe two—but the rest, OMG. To your soul mate point, I agree, and I think his line of thinking is a little extreme, but I need to read his entire rationale. I know we are not perfect, and no human can satisfy 100% of our needs, but there has to be a better way to describe it than using the extreme phrase, “no such thing as a soulmate.”

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  9. Thank you for this thoughtful and thought provoking post, Edward. To me, a system based on merit or one based on DEI both have slippery slopes. It makes me wonder if there’s a middle ground somewhere between the two.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You’re welcome, Terry. I think there is a way, but sometimes the extreme right and left have weird agendas and push these systems too far. It’s all about fairness, looking at each individual in their totality, not just their skin color, political affiliation, social status, or what university they attended. But as long as we continue to accept big donor contributions to our political system and allow powerful people to inject their crazy ideas, we will not get there.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  10. Well thought out points, Edward. It always seems people come up with a catchphrase or a word and use it over and over endlessly and then the word loses its meaning. Unfortunately, just in general – there’s a lot of unfairness in the workforce due to “favoritism” and “nepotism” and I’ve seen that first hand in my field, which is awful. So I think this could be another buzzword that could maybe push a certain agenda. So weary of things like that. Always hard to tell, nowadays. The “yes man” mentality is quite difficult to deal with, needless to say.

    Appreciate your deeper insight into this 🙏 ☕️ ☕️

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Laura, and you are absolutely right about catchphrases. I think sometimes people get paid to use them. 😂 The “yes man” mentality is a big problem and, as you said, difficult to deal with. It can get you into big trouble if you don’t challenge people’s ideas.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    1. You’re very welcome, my friend, and thank you for reading. It’s interesting how this post landed in my lap. A simple search for someone’s name led me to this subject, which is so relevant right now. Sometimes, we just need to go with the flow and let it guide us.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  12. Fantastic post Edward 👏👏👏👌 I know the great work of Alain de Botton and what he says about meritocracy is spot on.

    Right now the US is governed by a kakistocracy. Meaning governed by the worst, the least qualified and the most unscrupulous people. Luckily, the resistance is growing everywhere.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Chris, and you are absolutely right. The sad part is that they capitalized on people’s pain, making false promises to secure the votes needed to gain power, only to enact changes that benefit themselves rather than the people. But as you said, people are starting to push back and resist.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  13. I loved this post, Edward! It also made me think a lot! And indeed, the concept of meritocracy is somehow discriminatory. It segregates in advance, condemning for a lifetime those at the “bottom.” The concept of meritocracy in itself is a beautiful idea. But maybe too utopic and just theoretical, given that you don’t see it work practically. As you said, “They occupy their positions not because of any reasonable expertise or competence, but most likely because of their ‘yes man’ aptitude.” A wonderful reflection on the ways of contemporary society! A society that surely needs to reframe many aspects to value more equanimity. Thank you for bringing it to the light! I appreciated reading it. Lots of light and blessings to you, my friend; have a peaceful and meaningful day*

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Susana, for your thoughtful comments. I was distracted and I failed to see the full concept of meritocracy. I had been looking at only one side of the equation and had completely overlooked the other. The fact is that while many are at the top, an equal or even greater number of people remain stuck at the bottom due to circumstances, either natural or man-made, with little to no possibility of improvement. This TED Talk brought me back to that reality, and maybe I can find ways to effect change in my community so we can give people in need a chance.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    1. I worry too, especially after watching the TED Talk and his explanation. I’ll definitely be watching the military side and the promotion of generals to see the impact all these rules have on the advancement of women and minorities.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    1. Interesting point. I, for one, don’t like those religious labels. Calvinists and Arminians have been debating doctrines for a long time, and it doesn’t make sense to me. What’s really interesting is all the talk among these theologians, yet nothing actionable is done to help people in need.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. Absolutely! Most theological labels don’t make sense, and I equate them to the time when Latin was the official language of the Catholic Church. It was really a way to keep people ignorant of the religion they were practicing. Then Christian leaders wonder why there is so much enmity among of different branches. Just frustrating sometimes.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  16. Susan Cain is a fantastic writer; although I haven’t read “Bittersweet”, I thoroughly enjoyed “Quiet…”. Alain de Botton’s TED Talk is eye-opening. Thank you for sharing it. “Meritocracy is an impossible dream.” As you suggest at the end of your post, those forcing meritocracy on us, are trying to keep certain groups at the bottom under the belief that they belong there. Unfortunately, many people lack access or face prolonged challenges in acquiring the merits necessary to rise within a merit-based society.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you, Rose, and what an excellent point about the lack of access. I can think of many, but three that pose significant challenges for many people are healthy food, public transportation, and broadband internet. Worst of all, the government is aware of these issues yet still fails to provide solutions.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    1. Thank you, Mary. I was completely focused on the positive side of meritocracy, but this philosopher showed me the other side, which caught me by surprise because I wasn’t looking at it from that perspective. There are definitely two sides to everything.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  20. Just wanted to mention, that I have noticed a trend in failed marriages- they usually end up hating exactly what drew them to their partner in the first place. Don’t take my word for it, just watch and see if I am not accurate. Excellent thought-provoking article.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

Leave a reply to Jane Fritz Cancel reply