Meritocracy - can (and should) it ever exist?

I like this definition of a meritocracy

Open Education Sociology Dictionary
Definition of Meritocracy. (noun) A system that fosters and rewards personal effort, ability, and talent through competition to determine social standing.

The qualities of personal effort, ability and talent do not guarantee integrity and honesty, which is why a meritocracy ultimately is a construct rather than an achievable societal model.

growstuff

Katie59

Success or merit is the ability convince others to have confidence in you, that may be as a Polititian, Doctor, Nurse, Car Mechanic or any other skill you care to mention
A skill is an activity that others need you to supply it may be leadership or a practical skill and applies at all pay grades.

But that's not what meritocracy is about.

Isn't Katie59 sort of saying that if you have the skills and ability to do a job then in a meritocracy you will have a fair chance to be appointed to that position without being put aside for a less able person who can pull strings or rank?

Isn't that what 'meritocracy' in the 50s was about? Fighting the 'old boys network' and 'entitlement'?

Success or merit has got nothing to do with convincing others to have confidence in you. That is the pervue of the confidence trickster, scammer aand criminal.

Merit means being held in high regard by people because you have demonstrated how good you are at doing something that most people find difficult.

We have just had a new kitchen and utility room fitted. The work was done superbly and we hold the fitter that did it in high regard because of the exceptional quality of his work, and would recommend him to any one.

President Zelensky of Ukraine is another person of high merit because of his conduct of his country since the Russian invasion.

Neither Boris Johnson, nor Kier Starmer are people of high merit. Johnson is unpleasant and incompetent, Starmer is only average. Yet they hold postions in Society that suggests they should both be people of great merit.

How on earth while we have a PM like Boris can anyone even imagine we are living in a meritocracy?
Merit implies that there is some value or some excellence involved. Boris proves there is none.
The primary driver of society today is capitalism, in other words money and profit, and those who make money certainly do not always do so through merit.
This is interesting www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/money-measure-everything-pricing-progress/543345/

Sort of.
The old boy network will have overheads and established practices and is always vulnerable to new younger enterprises who are more efficient and can do the job for less.

There are plenty of example of new businesses started by those who left school with nothing but did have the skills to convince others to follow. Conversely plenty of wealthy individuals have no ability at all and depend on other with skills to do everything, in fact the new businesses depend on them.

I don’t agree with you Monica. Both Johnson and Starmer are high academic achievers. Starmer was also a high flying barrister. There’s a difference between personal qualities of merit and a meritocratic society. They would rise in a meritocratic society based on academic ability. Politics doesn’t fit neatly into a meritocratic system though because the skills required are so multi-faceted that training and experience don’t make individuals with the requisite portfolio leaders, the qualities are much more intangible than that.

yes, but being a high achiever in one field only applies to that field, not more widely, nor does having high academic achieveent prove anything. A lot of people with high educational achievements are effectively les intelligent than my kitchen fitter - and someone did define 'merit' as being clever at convincing people you are to be admired - effectively without evidence.

Politics is difficult because is transient, almost every polititian ends up voted out of office, certainly recent UK prime ministers have not been a great success.

M0nica

yes, but being a high achiever in one field only applies to that field, not more widely, nor does having high academic achieveent prove anything. A lot of people with high educational achievements are effectively les intelligent than my kitchen fitter - and someone did define 'merit' as being clever at convincing people you are to be admired - effectively without evidence.

May not be “clever” or “admired”

Able to convince others they can do a certain task, Johnson convinced enough voters to give him an 80 seat majority, that will probably not be long lasting.

We do not live in a meritocracy but it is a false and political ideal to encourage everyone to believe that they can “succeed” if they are determined and work hard enough. In support of this false premise a few prominent examples are given of the very few, out of millions, who do “make it”. This puts the onus of success or failure on the individual, when in fact it is mainly dependent on factors not within their control.

Wealth is the god we worship and aspire to in our society, but it is a shame that those jobs which are essential and enable society to function smoothly, such as refuse collectors, care workers, retail assistants, delivery drivers, warehouse workers, to name just a few, and without which we could not function, are considered lowly employment with poor remuneration.

It’s out of kilter somehow.

Success means whatever you decide it to be. It can be as simple as being recognised as good at your job, whatever level it is at, and to have financial security.

M0nica

Success means whatever you decide it to be. It can be as simple as being recognised as good at your job, whatever level it is at, and to have financial security.

But 'success' has nothing to do with merit unless you're using 'merit' as an adjective. As in 'unmerited success' or 'merited success'.

The ethos of 'meritocracy' was that it is blind to all influences / considerations apart from the ability to perform a task well. The 'status' of the task is irrelevant. We try to exercise it in our personal lives by trying to chose the 'best' gardener, mechanic, builder, school, doctor etc. when we need their services.

We cannot have a truly meritocratic society unless we have a society that believes in narrowing the inequality gap. This government and its followers simply don't believe in doing that.

DaisyAnnewe cannot have a truly meritocratic society, such a society is impossible to achieve. We can and should have a fairer society than we do now, and we can achieve that.

Not under this government Casdon, unless you, as some do on here, measure merit by the money you make.

Of course I don’t DaisyAnne. The point I was making is that it is impossible to create a meritocracy, because it’s an imperfect model!

Sorry, Casdon. I have just re-read my post; the wretched "you" sounded very personal. That wasn't my intention. It was a plural and general "you". Perhaps I should have said, "one" or "people". I agree with both of your posts.

In some ways meritocracy sounds better and fairer than most other types of structuring society, but surely it depends on how merit is defined.

Michael Young'sbook "The Rise of the Meritocray" is in fact a satire on a dystopian society, because merit had been defined solely on the basis of academic achievement. It does not end well.

Perhaps we could do better?

I was a student at the LSE in ? 1959 when this bookwas published and I remember it as a sort of revolutionary expression of the rising opposition to the landowning ruling class.
This was just postwar - when most social classes were in the same boat - of economic insecurity
Now we have slipped back into the same unbalanced class system. Which is why the LP can't provide an effective opposition.
Short of revolution - and we're too lazy for that.

I have enjoyed reading this thread, and reading some of the links attached. For all societies, how does one decide how to govern? I certainly do not have the answer, but it does help to be better informed.

Right at my level of work, we all get the same wage at our skill level. My family are mostly union workers, who are protected by a collective agreement for wages. That is certainly not meritocracy, but yet I do believe in it.

Opening up the door to meritocracy also opens up the door to bribes, favours and secrecy (of wage agreements), allowing employers to take advantage. But yet we do need those who excel to somehow lead the way. Academic achievement isn't always the best attribute of a leader, whether it is of a small group of people or large.

No answers here, but following along with interest.