The Rise of the Meritocracy

Last updated
The Rise of the Meritocracy
The Rise of the Meritocracy (1967 cover).jpg
Cover of the Pelican Books edition
Author Michael Young
CountryUnited Kingdom
LanguageEnglish
Genre Dystopia, political fiction
Publication date
1958

The Rise of the Meritocracy is a book by British sociologist and politician Michael Dunlop Young which was first published in 1958. [1] It describes a dystopian society in a future United Kingdom in which intelligence and merit have become the central tenet of society, replacing previous divisions of social class and creating a society stratified between a meritorious power-holding elite and a disenfranchised underclass of the less meritorious. The essay satirised the Tripartite System of education that was being practised at the time. [2] The book was rejected by the Fabian Society and then by 11 publishers before being accepted by Thames and Hudson. [3]

Contents

Meritocracy is the political philosophy in which political influence is assigned largely according to the intellectual talent and achievement of the individual. Michael Young coined the term, [1] formed by combining the Latin root "mereō" and Ancient Greek suffix "cracy", in his essay to describe and ridicule such a society, the selective education system that was the Tripartite System, and the philosophy in general. [2]

The word was adopted into the English language with none of the negative connotations that Young intended it to have and was embraced by supporters of the philosophy. Young expressed his disappointment in the embrace of this word and philosophy by the Labour Party under Tony Blair in The Guardian in an article in 2001, where he states:

It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others. [2]

Journalist and writer Paul Barker points out that "irony is a dangerous freight to carry" and suggests that in the 1960s and '70s it was read "as a simple attack on the rampant meritocrats", whereas he suggests it should be read "as sociological analysis in the form of satire". [4]

Synopsis

Introduction to the Transaction edition

The author had difficulties in finding a publisher for his the book. One wanted a new Brave New World . Another told him they did not publish PhD theses: finally, a friend published it. It deals with "Meritocracy", a term part Latin term and part Greek, its theme being a fictitious change in society. Before, there were castes. Now with the industrial era, there are classes. People are defined by their achievements rather than by the families they are born into. Social inequality can be justified.

A meritocratic education and society can lead to problems. The rich and powerful are encouraged by the general culture and become arrogant. "The eminent know that success is a just reward for their own capacity, their own efforts", whereas the poor are demoralised. The latter "are tested again and again… If they have been labelled 'dunce' repeatedly they cannot any longer pretend; their image of themselves is more nearly a true, unflattering reflection." [5]

Education is not only a way to get productive people. It could enrich them too.

Introduction

In 2034, a revolution with deep historical roots is approaching in the UK. The narrator wants to explain the rise of the meritocracy in a socialist essay.

Part One: Rise of the Elite

Chapter One: Clash of Social Forces

Previously the job one had was that of one's parents; lawyers were the sons of lawyers – unfortunately, since people were not always suited to their jobs. It was an era of nepotism which survived because of tradition and the importance of family. Zealots for progress successfully introduced another education system – one that was free and elitist.

Chapter Two: Threat of Comprehensive Schools

Exceptional brains require exceptional teaching. Although society has changed, it has remained hierarchical. Aristocracy of birth has turned into an aristocracy of talent. When comprehensive schools appeared, a later development, parents were not keen to send their children there. The idea behind them was to construct a social ladder at school. The problem is the following: if one starts to study too late in life it is too hard to acquire knowledge. Comprehensive schools did not work and less importance was given to them.

Chapter Three: Origins of Modern Education

Everyone was against the comprehensive school, including the socialists. Secondary school became free. By 1950, entering grammar school no longer depended on social origins. But if the lower classes entered, they did not stay. To solve this problem, a system of allowances was set up. You were paid if you came to school. Engineering and science were judged superior to Latin. Intelligence tests called "QI" were set up, with different QI tests at different ages. There were attacks against them, but statistics showed that they worked. Some people were frustrated, not because of the idea of segregation but because of the idea of being deprived of a superior education.

Chapter Four: From seniority to merit

Industry is as important as education and there were tests in industries too. Adult merit is as important as childhood merit. Having a person giving orders just because he is older is useless and so seniority ceased to be a distinguishing feature for those at the top of the social ladder. A judge could become a taxi-driver at the end of his life. Change in the mental climate happened because merit became progressively more measurable. Intelligence and effort together make up merit; a lazy genius is useless. The narrator wonders if the stupid persons were upset. Psychologists said that they suffered but were unable to express themselves.

Part 2: Decline of the lower classes

Chapter Five: Status of the Worker

No society is completely stable. There was an age when merit was important and the distance between classes became wider. The upper classes were proud and did not have sympathy for those they governed. Meanwhile the lower classes experienced difficulties and saw themselves as "dunces" who could turn into bad citizens or bad technicians.

The schools of the upper classes tried to teach humility, and a mythos around sport, the "mythos of muscularity", was created in the education of the lower classes. Some of the latter became sports professionals, but the majority became TV-watching sport fans. The lower classes grew to esteem physical achievement, whereas the narrator and the upper classes value mental achievement.

Another solution was to make psychological treatment free to help people fulfil their own potential. The idea spread that the lower classes' children could be successful. Machines replaced unskilled men. Therefore a third of all adults were unemployed and became servants.

Chapter Six: Fall of the Labour movement

Religion had to change. Christianity kept the idea of equality of opportunity, but constructed a world of ambition. As for the political field, the selection of clever people was substituted for elections. No-one responded to the appeal of "labour". "Worker" became a discredited word and was replaced by "technician" instead. Cleverness became the quality required for a union leader. The socialists agreed with the new system and instead populists acted for the technicians.

Chapter Seven: Rich and Poor

In meritocracy the differences between the high salaries of the upper classes and the low salaries of the lower classes are justified. The salaries within each class are exactly the same and only change once every year. The populists say that it is unfair and clamour for more justice.

Chapter Eight: Crisis

Girls from the elite have started to fight on behalf of the technicians, who do not mind. An idea develops that all jobs are equal. The populists argue for schools to promote more diversity. Women want equality. Until now their cleverness has only been used to educate their children. They are judged for their warmth of heart and not for their worldly success. Men choose their wives according to their QIs. Women do not, instead choosing by physical appearance.

Elite status is becoming hereditary. Now, there is no longer any hope because a person's ability is known even before he or she is born. There is a traffic in babies to get those who are clever. The conservatives want this hereditary status to continue. A latent crisis is growing and a revolution is coming; the people are rising up, but they are more against the conservatives than for the populists.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Confucianism</span> Chinese ethical and philosophical system

Confucianism, also known as Ruism or Ru classicism, is a system of thought and behavior originating in ancient China, and is variously described as a tradition, philosophy, religion, way of governing, or way of life. Confucianism developed from what was later called the Hundred Schools of Thought from the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Confucius (551–479 BCE). Confucius considered himself a transmitter of cultural values inherited from the Xia (c. 2070–1600 BCE), Shang (c. 1600–1046 BCE) and Western Zhou dynasties (c. 1046–771 BCE). Confucianism was suppressed during the Legalist and autocratic Qin dynasty (221–206 BCE), but survived. During the Han dynasty, Confucian approaches edged out the "proto-Taoist" Huang–Lao as the official ideology, while the emperors mixed both with the realist techniques of Legalism.

Meritocracy is the notion of a political system in which economic goods or political power are vested in individual people based on ability and talent, rather than wealth or social class. Advancement in such a system is based on performance, as measured through examination or demonstrated achievement. Although the concept of meritocracy has existed for centuries, the first known use of the term was by sociologist Alan Fox in the journal Socialist Commentary in 1956. It was then popularized by sociologist Michael Dunlop Young, who used the term in his dystopian political and satirical book The Rise of the Meritocracy in 1958. Today, the term is often utilised to refer to social systems, in which personal advancement and success are primarily attributed to an individual's capabilities and merits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social class in the United States</span> Grouping Americans by some measure of social status

Social class in the United States refers to the idea of grouping Americans by some measure of social status, typically by economic status. However, it could also refer to social status and/or location. The idea that American society can be divided into social classes is disputed, and there are many competing class systems.

Equal opportunity is a state of fairness in which individuals are treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers, prejudices, or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified. For example, the intent of equal employment opportunity is that the important jobs in an organization should go to the people who are most qualified – persons most likely to perform ably in a given task – and not go to persons for reasons deemed arbitrary or irrelevant, such as circumstances of birth, upbringing, having well-connected relatives or friends, religion, sex, ethnicity, race, caste, or involuntary personal attributes such as disability, age, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

The term social order can be used in two senses: In the first sense, it refers to a particular system of social structures and institutions. Examples are the ancient, the feudal, and the capitalist social order. In the second sense, social order is contrasted to social chaos or disorder and refers to a stable state of society in which the existing social structure is accepted and maintained by its members. The problem of order or Hobbesian problem, which is central to much of sociology, political science and political philosophy, is the question of how and why it is that social orders exist at all.

Michael Dunlop Young, Baron Young of Dartington,, was a British sociologist, social activist and politician who coined the term "meritocracy". He was an urbanist of different dimensions such as academic researcher, polemicist and institution-builder.

Differential Educational Achievement (DEA) is a sociological term often given to a concept that disagrees with some of the functionalist views on education.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sociology of education</span> Study of how public institutions and individual experiences affect education and its outcomes

The sociology of education is the study of how public institutions and individual experiences affect education and its outcomes. It is mostly concerned with the public schooling systems of modern industrial societies, including the expansion of higher, further, adult, and continuing education.

The social structure of the United Kingdom has historically been highly influenced by the concept of social class, which continues to affect British society today. British society, like its European neighbours and most societies in world history, was traditionally divided hierarchically within a system that involved the hereditary transmission of occupation, social status and political influence. Since the advent of industrialisation, this system has been in a constant state of revision, and new factors other than birth are now a greater part of creating identity in Britain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social inequality</span> Uneven distribution of resources in a society

Social inequality occurs when resources in a given society are distributed unevenly, typically through norms of allocation, that engender specific patterns along lines of socially defined categories of persons. It poses and creates a gender gap between individuals that limits the accessibility that women have within society. The differentiation preference of access to social goods in the society is brought about by power, religion, kinship, prestige, race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, and class. Social inequality usually implies the lack of equality of outcome, but may alternatively be conceptualized in terms of the lack of equality in access to opportunity. This accompanies the way that inequality is presented throughout social economies and the rights that are skilled within this basis. The social rights include labor market, the source of income, health care, and freedom of speech, education, political representation, and participation.

The Gilbert model was developed by Dennis Gilbert as a means of a more effective way of classifying people in a given society into social classes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elitism</span> Notion that a select, elite group of individuals deserve more influence than others

Elitism is the belief or notion that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people perceived as having an intrinsic quality, high intellect, wealth, power, notability, special skills, or experience—are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole, and therefore deserve influence or authority greater than that of others. The term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of a limited number of people. Beliefs that are in opposition to elitism include egalitarianism, anti-intellectualism, populism, and the political theory of pluralism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Achievement ideology</span> Concept in sociology

Achievement Ideology is the belief that one reaches a socially perceived definition of success through hard work and education. In this view, factors such as gender, race/ethnicity, economic background, social networks, or neighborhoods/geography are secondary to hard work and education or are altogether irrelevant in the pursuit of success.

Laissez-faire racism is closely related to color blindness and covert racism, and is theorised to encompass an ideology that blames minorities for their poorer economic situations, viewing it as the result of cultural inferiority. The term is used largely by scholars of whiteness studies, who argue that laissez-faire racism has tangible consequences even though few would openly claim to be, or even believe they are, laissez-faire racists.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-intellectualism</span> Hostility to and mistrust of education, philosophy, art, literature, and science

Anti-intellectualism is hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism, commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy and the dismissal of art, literature, and science as impractical, politically motivated, and even contemptible human pursuits. Anti-intellectuals present themselves and are perceived as champions of common folk—populists against political and academic elitism—and tend to see educated people as a status class that dominates political discourse and higher education while being detached from the concerns of ordinary people.

Belize's social structure is marked by enduring differences in the distribution of wealth, power, and prestige. Because of the small size of Belize's population and the intimate scale of social relations, the social distance between the rich and the poor, while significant, is nowhere as vast as in other Caribbean and Central American societies, such as Jamaica and El Salvador. Belize lacks the violent class and racial conflict that has figured so prominently in the social life of its Central American people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social class in Colombia</span>

There have always been marked distinctions of social class in Colombia, although twentieth-century economic development has increased social mobility to some extent. Distinctions are based on wealth, social status, and race. Informal networks (roscas) centered on a person in a position of power are one factor in upper-class dominance. Official demographic categories based mainly on housing characteristics shed some light on the socioeconomic makeup of the population.

Myth of meritocracy is a phrase arguing that meritocracy, or achieving upward social mobility through one's own merits regardless of one's social position, is not widely attainable in capitalist societies because of inherent contradictions. Meritocracy is argued to be a myth because, despite being promoted as an open and accessible method of achieving upward class mobility under neoliberal or free market capitalism, wealth disparity and limited class mobility remain widespread, regardless of individual work ethic. Some scholars argue that the wealth disparity has even increased because the "myth" of meritocracy has been so effectively promoted and defended by the political and private elite through the media, education, corporate culture, and elsewhere. As described by economist Robert Reich, many Americans still believe in meritocracy despite "the nation drifting ever-farther away from it."

The spoon class theory refers to the idea that individuals in a country can be classified into different socioeconomic classes based on the assets and income level of their parents, and as a consequence, one's success in life depends entirely on being born into a wealthy family. The term appeared in 2015 and was first widely used among online communities in South Korea.

The term 30-million-word gap was originally coined by Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley in their book Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children, and subsequently reprinted in the article "The Early Catastrophe: The 30 Million Word Gap by Age 3". In their study of 42 Midwestern families, Hart and Risley physically recorded an hour's worth of language in each home once a month over 2½ years. Families were classified by socioeconomic status (SES) into "high" (professional), "middle/low" and "welfare" SES. They found that the average child in a professional family hears 2,153 words per waking hour, the average child in a working-class family hears 1,251 words per hour, and an average child in a welfare family only 616 words per hour. Extrapolating, they stated that, "in four years, an average child in a professional family would accumulate experience with almost 45 million words, an average child in a working-class family 26 million words, and an average child in a welfare family 13 million words."

References

  1. 1 2 Fox, Margalit (25 January 2002). "Michael Young, 86, Scholar; Coined, Mocked 'Meritocracy'". New York Times. Retrieved 11 July 2018.
  2. 1 2 3 Young, Michael (28 June 2001). "Down with meritocracy". The Guardian . Retrieved 27 April 2017.
  3. Obituary: Lord Young of Dartington, The Guardian 16 January 2002
  4. Barker, Paul (2005) [1995]. "The Ups and Downs of the Meritocracy". In Geoff Dench; et al. (eds.). Young at Eighty. London: Carcanet. p. 158. ISBN   9781857542431 . Retrieved Mar 5, 2016.
  5. Young's original citations taken from: Appiah, Kwame Anthony (19 October 2018). "The myth of meritocracy: who really gets what they deserve?". The Guardian. Retrieved 22 July 2021.