Meritocracy And Its Enemies

    One of the most fashionable progressive ideas on American college campuses today is that of “institutional” inequity: the idea that racism, sexism, homophobia, and other acts of discrimination are not just the work of individuals being jackasses, but are more a vast structure of inequalities built directly into our institutions. Perpetuated by schools, police departments, and governments of all shapes and sizes, this institutional inequity is inescapable because it is so ingrained in our systems. These systems of oppression remain a fact of life, delivering relentless beatdowns again and again to marginalized people and destroying their chances of getting to a better life. 

    As this bleak view of our nation has gained believers among the campus left and in society generally, it has become the weapon of choice in a war on meritocracy and on free will at large. Institutional inequities are so great and so insuperable, this view’s proponents argue, that members of marginalized groups are destined to occupy society’s underclass and therefore ought not to indulge the fantasy that they—not an alphabet soup of systems of oppression—have the ultimate control over the trajectories of their lives. These people say that meritocracy is a myth, the American dream a cruel impossibility. Well, now. 

    This emerging fixture of modern progressive thought, however, is false and destructive. It denies the evident truth that human agency grants individuals the capacity to succeed and overcome despite manifestly unjust institutions. Characterizing agency as a myth or a fantasy is devastating to the ostensible victims of institutional oppression. Because the boot of “The Man” (supposedly someone like your humble correspondent) will press upon your throat to keep you down no matter what you do, these victims are told, working hard and cultivating personal excellence are futile and imperceptible acts of rebellion in which it is pointless to fight against. 

    And since I've broached the topic of “The Man,” let me give you a frighteningly simple example of what I'm talking about. Let us say the town you live in has 10 openings at the local fire department. Let us also say that you have 10 white people and 10 black people vying for the jobs. Now, all 20 applicants took a written test. They also took whatever field tests are applicable for the position. Now, stay with me here. In today's anti-meritocratic world, at the very least, these positions should be divided evenly between the Black applicants and the White applicants, right? But, wait! Oh, My, God! It seems that all 10 Black applicants scored higher on both the written exam and the field work tests. NOW WHAT DO WE DO! Well, we don't have TO DO anything. Based on merit, the 10 Black applicants get the jobs. And if the situation was reversed and all 10 White applicants scored higher than all of the Black applicants...then the White applicants would get all 10 jobs! That's meritocracy in a nutshell, kids. I understand that my example is on the simplistic side, but there it is. You achieve/advance through merit. Is life that simple all the time? Of course not...but let us continue. 

    In an article for the Atlantic, Melinda Anderson, a proponent of this progressive view, argues that the “myth of meritocracy hurts kids of color.” Believing that hard work, motivation, and grit is a pathway to success, she says, “can lead disadvantaged adolescents to act out and engage in risky behavior,” since these students cannot square the rosy portrait of a meritocratic society with their status as victims of inequitable treatment. To support this claim, Anderson cites a recent study showing that sixth-graders who more strongly endorsed the “American dream” and the notion of America as the land of opportunity “reported [having] lower self-esteem and [engaging in] more risky behaviors” during the subsequent year. 

    But as Anderson readily admits, the study also reported that “self-esteem was high and risky behavior was rare” among these students when they identified more strongly with meritocratic values. As these students came to see themselves as victims of unfair treatment by the fundamental institutions of society, however, only then did their behavior take a turn for the worse. The cause of this change lies not in these students’ prior belief in the American dream and the value of hard work, but in their rejection of meritocratic values in view of what they have come to believe—that is to say, what they have been taught—about their society: namely, that its institutions are irreparably flawed and its inequalities impossible to surmount. In other words, only by denying his or her own powers—his or her self-ownership and capacity for free choice—can a person accept that his or her society has sought and succeeded to render them powerless. 

    Many people, and too many young people, have embraced this view and have resigned themselves to a reality of unrelenting institutional oppression; the philosophy of victimhood. Seeing their agency within such an unjust system as limited or altogether meaningless, many have settled for mediocrity. They seek community with others who feel as marginalized as themselves and bemoan their shared struggle; after all, what else could they do? It’s almost as if they have thrown up the flag of surrender to the “bigotry of low expectations.” What would be the point of striving for individual success against insuperable forces? When every personal effort is bound to be foiled by a vast institutional conspiracy, why seek or strive at all? 

    Embracing powerlessness is not empowering. Someone like me is inclined to call it cowardly. At the very least, it is soul-shattering. It reduces human agency to nothing, and it makes its victims even more pliant before the systems of oppression they blame for their circumstances. If we truly seek to elevate the marginalized, we must reject this falsehood and affirm the power of human agency. 

    Look, I’m a realist. I am fully aware that there are bigots in this great land of ours. And there is bigotry directed at groups when it comes to jobs, advancement, financial hardship, etc. Life is not fair. In this country and in many others, some have it better than others. The ladder of opportunity is missing many rungs; there is no doubt about that. But inequities are no basis for giving up altogether. Vast sums of money, powerful connections, and white skin are not required to play the game of life. Perhaps it is more difficult without them. But as the countless stories of Americans of EVERY race and income achieving GREAT things and providing a comfortable life for their families attest, one can succeed even when the odds are stacked against you. 

    I would also argue that meritocracy can only survive if it is infused with an ethos that prioritizes virtue, applying talent to ends that ennoble rather than enrich. This insight is certainly not an original idea of your humble correspondent; we can credit the father of modern capitalism, Adam Smith. Smith’s view of rational capitalism, maximizing the wealth of all, was always understood in the context of ethics and morality, something we moderns too often forget. The same reality applied to the Chinese meritocratic system, where success occurred through study and commentary on treatises, the focus of which was virtue and propriety. Like the British civil servants of the 19th century, Chinese bureaucrats were educated in the humanities, and well understood that their power was but a means to an end, enabling the “good life” for the greatest number. 

    So, you see, meritocracy has been a defining testament to the advancement of societies since the early Chinese dynasties. And like many things that began in China, the West took the idea and ran, and ran, and ran...from ancient Greece, to Italy, to France and England; and finally, the United States. 

    Nineteenth-century meritocracy succeeded because the competition between nation-states tested various forms of governance, and the utility of having competent soldiers and bureaucrats was argument enough for Europe’s rulers. But after a century of rule by technocrats, the novelty of argument from efficiency has faded. Too often meritocrats are seen as ruthlessly selfish, focusing on their own interests rather than putting their skills at the service of the body politic. The 21st century requires a rediscovery of meritocracy as an ethos, rather than a beautiful but difficult career ladder and a set of checkboxes. We need to remind ourselves that life is not just hoops through which we must jump to win accolades. Talents are gifts that must not only serve ourselves, but serve society as a whole (when possible), and with the privilege to rule comes responsibility. 

    Unjust and unfair the odds may seem, and actually be, at times. However, surrender is not a good or viable option. To overcome imperfect, even deeply flawed institutions, one must believe in one's own power and talent, and then pursue the life one wants, yielding to no one and stopping at nothing until the greatest dreams are made reality. Nothing less will do.  

write to Peter: magtour@icloud.com