What's wrong with a meritocracy?

 

Like many of my generation, I grew up in what I later believed was a meritocracy. I went to a grammar school, because of my score in the 11+ exam. I did not become part of the establishment. I did not study at Oxford or to Cambridge, but nonetheless I believed I had been successful because of that magic examination result. My father loaded lorries; I made my living from my pen. Am I a success or a victim of the meritocracy? 

Thinking about a meritocracy is something that occurs after watching a thought-provoking programme on TV such as The Good Place. That series at least made its watchers ponder why some people got to heaven (or The Good Place, as they call it nowadays) and others did not. 

Like many others, I used the term “meritocracy” thinking it had positive connotations. Occasionally, in my reading, I would notice a few slightly uncomfortable statements that made me reflect on a life that was not a meritocracy. I read somewhere that UK members of Parliament used not to be paid. This meant, according to one commentator, that they were doing the job for altruistic reasons, not because they simply wanted the money and were prepared to jump through hoops to get such a lucrative post. This argument did make me ponder; was anyone an MP just for the money? The scandal of MP’s expenses suggested that altruism was no longer high on the list of reasons for people becoming parliamentary representatives. 

It was a shock to discover that Michael White, in his book The Rise of the Meritocracy (1958), intended the term as a criticism, or at least as an argument for or against [all quotes are from the 1994 introduction to the book]: 

The book was, in other words, intended to present two sides of the case – the case against as well as the case for a meritocracy. It is not a simple matter and was not intended to be. 

It was even more of a surprise to learn that White was responsible for coining the term. “Meritocracy” was his term for what you had when you rejected “nepotism, bribery, or inheritance” [from White’s 1994 Preface to the book]. According to White, there is a meritocracy because “otherwise the people who exercise power are going to be undermined by self-doubt and people over whom the power is exercised become indignant and subversive because they deny that the others have any right to lord it.” 

What’s wrong with the term? First, it tends to be used by the very people who believe themselves to be members of the new elite. Not surprising if they are positive. But, argues Young:

A good society for provide sinew for revolt as well as for power. But authority cannot be humbled unless ordinary people, however much they have been rejected by the educational system, have the confidence to assert themselves against the mighty.