Would ‘meritocracy’ mean we all had an equal chance?

Inequality is entrenched in education (photo: WikipediaCommons)

The right wing seized on the appointment of Jason Arday as a Cambridge professor as “proof” that society is not a meritocracy, where appointments are gained solely on ability. Equal opportunities policies tick diversity boxes by promoting the undeserving, it said.

Some in India’s Cockroach movement—calling for an end to corruption in India’s education system—demand that society becomes more of a meritocracy, free from the nepotism of the rich.

But the whole idea of meritocracy is a sham.

It promotes the idea that the rich deserve their success and that poverty is a result of personal failings.

The legacies of generational inequality, expressed in confidence and a sense of entitlement, cannot simply be shrugged off with a fair exam or hiring process.

A level playing field would be better than a system rigged to favour rich, white men. But a meritocracy cannot create a fair and equal society.

Even the most perfect meritocratic society would still be deeply unequal, as some talents and abilities are deemed to be more valuable than others.

Personnel might change, but the structures of inequality would remain.

This vision of society was first popularised by sociologist Michael Young in 1958. The meritocracy he described was a disturbing dystopia in which rewards for natural abilities entrenched inequality.

The myth of meritocracy upholds and justifies existing economic, social and political hierarchies.

Economist Daniel Markovits explains that “meritocracy excludes people outside of the elite and then insults them by saying that the reason they’re excluded is that they don’t measure up, rather than that there’s a structural block to their inclusion.”

Can we reform the state?

  Read More

Markovits argues that the myth of the meritocracy is “a mechanism for the dynastic transmission of wealth and privilege across generations.”

In his 2020 book, The Tyranny of Merit, philosopher Michael Sandel argues that increasing inequality is exposing the lie that “you can make it if you want and try”.

This lie is damaging because it means those who have not “made it” either blame themselves or scapegoat someone for stealing their job.

The far right directs this grievance towards migrants or “diversity hires”. The few prominent individuals who do overcome structural conditions and achieve upward class mobility are used as examples to support the argument that meritocracy exists.

The idea that an individual’s life should be shaped by their abilities, rather than their status at birth, was strongly associated with the rise of capitalism.

The feudal order was steeped in veneration for hereditary status and rigid, immutable social divisions. But the rise of capitalism challenged the idea that power belonged exclusively to those born to rule.

The 19th century saw a long, drawn-out battle between the so-called “self‑made men” who grabbed their wealth through slavery, trade and industry, and the old aristocracy based on inherited wealth and status.

Through revolutionary upheaval and pressure, the capitalists got their hands on the levers of power.

In the regulated and volatile world of early capitalism, some rose from poverty to great wealth and power.

But inequality rapidly became entrenched and the rich segregated themselves from everyone else. The wealthy married the wealthy, sent their children to top schools and isolated themselves.

Their wealth appeared to be the result of their brilliance only because the central mechanism of creating wealth—exploitation—was deeply hidden.

Workers received a wage for their labour, and the surplus value they produced was not visible. It appeared that the bosses’ investments and their machines created wealth, not the workers.

That exploitation still drives the system today.

The rich, white men who feel entitled to rule should be challenged. But systematic, generational inequality is an inevitable result of capitalism.

We want a world where people are equally valued, whatever their interests, abilities or aptitudes.