We cannot build a society that is completely meritocratic, as that would inevitably lead to an aristocracy too close to the edge of tyranny. Nor can meritocracy be eliminated, as I believe the a world of equality will only lead to a stagnation of creativity. It is the striation of ability/education/skill that pushes a culture forward into a more beautiful expression of society.
For clarity sake, when I speak of equality, I am speaking on the basis of opportunities, not rights… I believe we all should have equal rights, in the sense that we are created equal in our humanness and because of this we are to be treated in fairness and with justice. But the notion of meritocracy has, at its foundation, a dichotomy of equality — though we have equal rights, we do not have equal opportunity — for opportunity is born into, bred into, and educated into each individual on this earth.
Meritocracy - a ruling or influential class of educated or skilled people; Government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of ability.
We cannot escape the reality we are born into, once our lungs fill with air and our cries ricochet against the bleached walls of the hospital room — we are labeled. You are the son of a truck driver, the daughter of an aristocrat, or a child of drunkard. We take on the history of our parents, genetic and socio-economic. Adoption is a disrupter in this scenario, as a child of an unwed urban mother, can be placed with a suburban Doctor and raised with a duality — brought up in much brighter surroundings than her biological mother could ever provide, but still carrying the genetic remnants of her parents… A history she cannot escape. It is inevitable, the influence of our guardians, the genetics of our parents, and even the placement of our education. The schools in which you were taught, the teachers who did or did not take time to help you learn, the coaches who encouraged your strengths and demanded you work on your weaknesses.
Though we are born into a label, being an American offers opportunity beyond our birthright. As Americans, we have a been given a gift in our social structure that allows us the opportunity to change, adapt, and overcome our genetic or socio-economic restraints… to a point. But, even with these opportunities, I’m wondering if we have focused too much on the exceptions to the rule, those that shattered the stereotypes and overcame adversity to accomplish something great? We laude those who find success after overcoming a troubled childhood, a meek upbringing, and a below average physicality… as heros and role models. We put them on a pedestal as examples to follow, a hidden curriculum which states you to can overcome anything and be what you want to be. Yet reality isn’t so kind, as the stark truth is they are but exceptions to the rule.
We are products of our own TREE — tradition, reason, experience and emotion — of which we have very little margin to diverge into. However, we live in America, the “Land of Opportunity.” Which means our margin of opportunity has a lot more wiggle room than the impoverished nations and developing countries. The allure of America is based on this reality, as immigrants flock to the United States because of it’s foundation of equality and it’s diversity of opportunity. Where hard work and diligence can open doors of opportunity, which can literally change the course of generations. A true meritocracy, where everyone deserves the success or failure they receive, ie: the best rise to the top and the worst fall to the bottom. To someone who comes from a caste system or an impoverished country this is extremely freeing. It is also the reason many love our political structure, in which all people have a voice in the election of the officials that represent them. We the people, in theory, have control of our governing institutions. And when the people embrace a democratic meritocracy, that is, a government ruled by the elected elite (those with the education, status, and abilities to lead), it has the potential to thrive in prosperity and freedom.
But when the ruling elite gain the upper hand, and take the power away from the people to elect our governing officials… we will have ourselves a recipe for societal suicide, that is, we have neutered the voice of the people, and instead given control to those who have more, and inevitably want more.
In a democratic meritocracy, the voice of the people is the great balancer, as tyranny rules when the marginalized are not given representation. That said, we must be aware of becoming a socialized democracy, in which the government doles out bread, perscriptions and mortgage payments to those that can no longer provide for themselves.
At this juncture meritocracy shows it’s most redeeming quality — the ability for the educated elite to act with justice and fairness to all — a characteristic we too often disregard in election campaigns. Now, it is true, the educated class will have an disproportionate influence on culture and government. But, why is this a bad thing. We allow the best to rise to the top, giving them the ability and permission to push our culture forward. But not without checks and balances… the hope has always been that the democratic majority would have the final say. If a artist, educator, or politician ever overstepped the bounds of their influence, it is up to the majority to settle the score. A attentive democracy must have the ability to sniff out the bullshit and respond accordingly — ie have and act upon their common sense.
When a true meritocratic democracy is in effect, the result should be a quorum of educated, competent, and caring elected officials. A government made up of those holding the good of the people in mind when making tough decisions. Not as we have now, officials who care more about the implications to their stock portfolio than the blue collar workers in their district.
This current system, in which the good of the people is being forfeited for short-term corporate gains is in need of a proper rebellion. But the one thing that concerns me about “Occupy Wallstreet” is it’s peaceable premise. It is a bastardization of a true revolution, which is by definition a forcible overthrow against the status quo. I don’t dislike their stance, ie: “occupiers” demanding a more equitable government. That is good. We should have a more equitable government, by the people for the people, but when I hear some of their rhetoric I wince… Are they demanding entitlement or equity? It seems, from my viewpoint, the main tenet of the tenants in this toy box revolution is their anger towards the Governments disproportionate hand-out policy — their displeasure in not receiving an equitable handout during the generous banking bailout of 2009.
Now, I’m in agreement that our democratic government has been co-opted by corporatized greed, driven by the largest legalized gambling institution in the world — the stock market. And the banking bail-out of 2009 was a travesty and maybe even a tyrannical move by our government. Nevertheless, it can be argued, because of the frenzy over short-term shareholder profit, many corporations have sacrificed long-term gains by shortchanging ethical integrity — whether we are talking about shoddy “throw-away” products built by slave-labor in developing countries or the accounting and finance shenanigans deployed by large financial firms on Wall Street. Make no mistake ethical integrity is attacked in the greed driven world of short-term gains. This is good to speak out against, as the banks should have been allowed to fail, just as those that signed shitty mortgages should have been foreclosed on. The problem is systemic, but asking for equity of financial support is not the proper inoculation.
What the occupiers are fighting against is a symptom of a larger global pandemic… Their intuition is right, in that they realize something is amiss and in need of a proper fix. But what they are missing is the larger picture of a meritocracy that has become imbalanced… We are living in a democracy that looks more like a aristocracy, as the ruling elite are now able to influence the government in ways the founding fathers desperately tried to prevent.
When the culture of a meritocracy is eliminated, history shows that it leads to fewer benefits for everyone, not more.
We do not need the 1% to dispense of their equity, we need the 99% to give the 1% reasons to invest in the people. We need an uprising of entrepreneurs to fix the problems in the market. Entrepreneurs whose goals are to right the market, not capitalize the system. We need less regulation and more meritocracy… let the risk takers fail, let the cream rise to the top, let the market play out, and we will see true American democracy — a playground of people with differing abilities and traditions striving to provide opportunities for their children they themselves never had.
If we do not embrace our meritocratic roots we may become a nation that capsizes like a ship whose top-heavy 1% carries more weight than the 99% below the water line.
___________________________
*Featured photo can be purchased… here.
4 Comments on "the slow death of democratic meritocracy…"
Initially a distinction must be made between a meritocracy and aristocracy… Which it seems here you consider the two almost identical, or one leading to the other? The definition of meritocracy in it’s entirety is “an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth.” Therefore the children of one elite groups would have no right to any type of power without the merit and work to back it up. If two people happen to be in the same family, in a true meritocracy they would’ve both deserved it and gotten their positions of power based on their ability, not some type of aristocratic system that meritocracy is a shroud over.
Secondly, I have been to OWS, I have talked to some of the people there, I’m not an Occupier there, but I do consider myself to stand with them more or less ideologically. Yes there are some fringe members who call for socialism but to blanket their views (“they want ‘their part’ of the ’09 bank bailout”) is just untrue. The bank bailout may be an offshoot of an issue we care about, but to say the movement is based around a bunch of people wanting the government to dole out unearned $ to the poor instead of the rich is just not true. The core of the issue is that which we care about. The fact that the politicians voting for the bank bailouts are on those very same banks board of directors two years after they leave office, earning 7-figure paychecks. The core of the issue is that the “government by the people, for the people” is no longer either. Someone at OWS had a sign that read “I can’t afford a politician so I bought this sign.” That’s the issue behind the heart of OWS. We want the government that actually represents us, the people, back. Not handouts to everybody but the rich, not to be able to sit around doing nothing while we get bailouts during a recession, but for the government to put the people above the corporations again. This isn’t a democratic or republican issue, it’s an issue of national integrity.
As Christians (I kinda get the sense you’re a Christian through other posts) I don’t understand how we can look at the system today and be ok with it, or even live within it without shouting from soapboxes trying to change things (sorry I’m not trying to make it sounds like I’m accusing you of anything here, simply musing, as I’ve obviously already kinda blown up on a tangent ☺). The morality of capitalism as it exists today is practically nonexistent. I’m not advocating socialism, or saying capitalism is evil, but I think what we’ve allowed capitalism to get to is truly an evil thing. Companies are laying off thousands of workers in a year, and then that same year making record profits. What’s ghastly is that that type of behavior is allowed, and any type of discernable regulation against that type of behavior has removed so that businesses can “prosper” within the beautiful realm that is capitalistic America. Is capitalism, as it exists within America today a moral system (based within the Christian paradigm of morality)? I don’t know, just been a question that’s been on my mind lately, I’d definitely be interested to hear what you think.
Great reply.
I definitely did generalize an issue I only have ancillary association with… your comment:
“The core of the issue is that which we care about. The fact that the politicians voting for the bank bailouts are on those very same banks board of directors two years after they leave office, earning 7-figure paychecks. The core of the issue is that the “government by the people, for the people” is no longer either. Someone at OWS had a sign that read “I can’t afford a politician so I bought this sign.” That’s the issue behind the heart of OWS.”
Is one of the clearest messages on “Why Occupy” that I’ve heard… and I can totally get on board with the challenging Corporate America to meet a higher level of integrity is an important and pivotal issue.
The question of capitalism as a moral system is a tough one, as it seems to have be co-opted by the short-term shareholder profit mentality that I briefly mentioned above. With this in mind a capitalistic system that values short-term gain over long-term stability will inevitably favor the rich politician over the poor worker. I will always be for a movement that calls out such shenanigans of our leaders, but the question remains, how do we hold them accountable? The answer has to eventually get back to the people making up the districts and states of these politicians.
Of which OWS, might be helping, that is, bringing awareness to the issue…. though it seems media is not doing a good job reporting the actual tenets of the tenants.
Good thoughts Jordan. Thank you for posting.
Absolutely man! Thanks for the thoughtful post and response.
hey, weren’t you once going to write a book that explored the intersection of economics and faith? i think you should pick that back up…