Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All societies have aristocracies. Broadly speaking, in the United States we strive for an aristocracy of merit. It has become a part of our national character. But how is that working out? Is it just? Are other considerations being neglected?
I would submit that meritocracy has had the following negative effects:
1. It has created a culture of resentment. Those who are successful in the American sense - that is to say, those who are financially successful - are held to have "merit", and the rest do not. Those deemed without "merit" resent society's low evaluation of their worth.
2. It has undermined respect for honest work and the people who work for modest paychecks. "Do you want to turn wrench the rest of your life, boy, or do you want to be somebody?"
3. It has placed people in positions of influence - highly qualified on paper - without regard to their character, their integrity, their place in the community, or their ability to contribute in other ways.
4. It has created a mindless, shallow, one-dimensional mold for education focused too much on worldly "success".
There is much, much more to be said in the case against meritocracy, and along those lines I recommend this fine essay by Jeremy Beers:
"Another serious disadvantage to rule by the 'best and brightest' is that, unlike the older, pre-meritocratic elite, with its codes of chivalry and concern for honor and family, the new elite, thinking that it owes its power to intelligence alone, has 'little sense of ancestral gratitude or of an obligation to live up to responsibilities inherited from the past.' It 'thinks of itself as a self-made elite owing its privileges exclusively to its own efforts.'
In sum, social mobility, far from being the sinequanon of democracy, actually 'helps to solidify [elites'] influence by supporting the illusion that it rests solely on merit.'”
What do you want to replace it with? Birth aristocracy (in the practicing sense, not the British ceremonial sense)? A caste system like India? History has been less than kind to societies that held on to those archaic social structures for too long. Or are you a communist? That doesn't have the best track record either.......
As people have said, we aren't a perfect meritocracy. However, what specific direction would you move instead, how, and would you actually create a net improvement?
Last edited by ALackOfCreativity; 09-11-2012 at 07:58 PM..
Hey, if I can apply myself less and produce less, and keep getting the rewards I've enjoyed by producing more and adding to the bottom line over the years, then sign me up.
Rewards based upon merit and personal accomplishment requires way too much effort.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
