Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Two Problems with Meritocracy
Meritocracy has two major problems. The “merit” part and the “-ocracy” part.
Most people unwittingly use “merit” to conflate two different ideas. While “merit” can be used to denote any admirable quality, “merit” is also typically opposed to “luck” — that is, “merit” is what you “deserve” after luck is factored out of the equation.
That explains why people say, “He got ahead by luck, not merit,” or “I got ahead by merit, not luck.”
To oppose “merit” and “luck” in this way is truly ridiculous when you think about it. Many of our admirable qualities are windfalls we reap by accident of birth or circumstance. Yet opposing “merit” and “luck” in this way also seems to be something humans are innately wired to do.
Given the way most people contrast “merit” with “luck”, it’s not surprising that many people conclude that meritocracy – or rule by merit – must involve factoring “luck” out of the equation. I don’t know about you, but most of my leftist friends aren’t anti-meritocracy. Rather, their pro-meritocratic sentiments prompt them to call for government intervention in order to factor out the role that luck plays in shaping people’s lives, so that people are rewarded only for what they “deserve” and not for unearned “privileges”.
But factoring luck out of the equation is impossible – and also stupid, since another name for luck (or at least good luck) is “opportunity.”
If you really believe in an opportunity society, then you cannot honestly believe that luck can’t or shouldn’t play a role in people’s success. Luck is opportunity. Fortunately, acknowledging the substantial role luck plays in success isn’t the same as claiming that hard work plays a negligible role. Indeed, since hard work is under our control and luck isn’t, it’s only prudent to bank on hard work in hopes that when good luck comes our way, we’ll be ready for it.
Many of our raw talents – a high IQ, a musical ear, a naturally beautiful face, or innate physical prowess – are traits we didn’t choose to have. We cannot claim to have “deserved” them merely because we were lucky enough to be born with them. They are not achievements in themselves. Rather, they’re merely opportunities, different from many other opportunities, perhaps, in that we tend to carry them around with us wherever we go, but still only opportunities. That said, opportunities are wonderful. As conservatives, we should neither begrudge people their opportunities nor mistake opportunity for “deserved” achievement. Rather, we should celebrate opportunity and be glad to see people benefit from it.
Moreover, conservatives shouldn’t be ashamed to admit the role luck has played in their success – because there’s nothing shameful about it. There’s nothing shameful about having opportunities. Indeed, the synergy between hard work and luck is a beautiful thing: seizing the opportunities that happen to come your way and working hard to make the most of them tends to increase the likelihood of future opportunities – future good fortune – which in turn gives you more motivation to work hard. This is awesome! People who insist, “Oh no, I succeeded purely on my merits, luck had nothing to do with it,” unwittingly denigrate the value of opportunity — which is sad.
So much for the problem of “merit”. The other problem with “meritocracy” is “-ocracy”. As genferei astutely pointed out in Sal’s thread, conflating a society that rewards achievement with a society that gives high achievers the right to rule others is bizarre, sloppy thinking and also dangerous. Meritocracies throughout history have typically been heavy on civil-service examinations: excellence on an exam gave some people a right to rule others. Obviously, this isn’t what most conservatives have in mind when they advocate “meritocracy.” Nonetheless, it’s a commonsense and historically valid interpretation of the term. Moreover, “rule by highly-certified civil servants” is what many liberals have in mind when they talk about “meritocracy.” And, to be honest, given the word’s literal and historical sense, I think the liberals have a more defensible definition of it than we do.
Our opportunity society does not have to be a meritocracy to be worthwhile. It does not have to neatly separate the “wheat” of humanity from the human “chaff.” It does not have to rank people according to some univocal scale of success. Rather, an open, opportunity-oriented society simply helps people to specialize in something they happen to be good at, whether or not they’ve “earned” that talent and whether or not that talent is “outstanding” in the larger scheme of things.
We don’t need to defend meritocracy at all. Only opportunity.
Published in General
Agreed. The odd part is that people who blame themselves too harshly may do better for themselves even by falsely ascribing just a bit more to luck than they do. People with low self-efficacy about a task tend to simply give up. It’s the people with high self-efficacy who tend to persist. And the odd thing about people with high self-efficacy is that they’re more likely to blame external factors for failure.
So even if blaming yourself rather than luck is the most truthful thing to do, it’s not necessarily the best way to keep yourself from giving up. Persistence is more important than blaming yourself with perfect justice, anyhow.
About the “-ocracy” part of it: This is why libertarian thinking is so important. Minimize the -ocracy, let the rest take care of itself.
And to add on, because “Edit” doesn’t like me today: Libertarian thinking (to work toward minimizing the -ocracy) is not so easy. Our raw impulses are toward attempting to miximize our own personal freedom, yes, but those raw impulses don’t give a fig about anyone else’s freedom. Making that philosophical stretch must be learned.
Huh…
You’re saying Gatorade needs to get out of the bottled water business? Cede the market to Aquafina and Dasani?
I love the point of the post: as anonymous’s review suggests, the progressive implementation of meritocracy we live with is building another — and just as arbitrary — New Class. The veneer of scientism makes membership in the New Class appear truly earned; but the criteria for membership simply protect the New Class.
Your comment about persistence vs. perfectionism points to the challenges of surviving and thriving among the New Class. The persistence gene is being selected out of some populations, because every struggle these groups have is attributed to some outside agency. A poor black boy is being fed the line that he’s being held down by the man, while the son of two black lawyers is sent to summer SAT prep class to bring up his scores. That poor kid could almost certainly get the same quality prep — if he’d made it this far, there are scholarships galore for this kind of enrichment — but most of the voices he hears are telling him “it’s a trick”, “you’re there just for show”, etc.
The only places that still demand and reward persistence from such youth are sports, family, and perhaps churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship. From which of those institutions can that poor black kid expect “demand and reward”?
Perfectionism, however, is the curse of those who aspire to the New Class. Ironically, those same institutions do a terrible job of preparing many aspirants to the elite. They perpetuate the fiction that everyone is above average, should go to an Ivy, and that they’re lesser if they don’t. Even some churches tell them worldly success is a expected reward for their faith, which prompts haunting questions about their quality of faith if they don’t have the success they expect.
So many kids are molded into something they can’t be — worldly, multilingual research scientist social worker prodigies — at least not in this fallen world.
But factoring luck out of the equation is impossible – and also stupid, since another name for luck (or at least good luck) is “opportunity.”
Indeed. Luck is not necessarily a bad thing to be frowned upon or used to negatively judge someones success. While a select few might be truly lucky, the vast majority of us either simply take advantage of or squander an opportunity.
This is something I try to teach the kids in the college group I work with in my church. A lot of them think ascribe the success and failure of themselves and others to luck, not opportunity. Instead of getting out and trying to create their own luck (opportunity) they sit back hoping to catch a lucky streak and pray for providence. Meanwhile the world and all the opportunity within it passes them by.
Yes. My family valued perfection over persistence.
I, too, was expected to be the multilingual research scientist social worker prodigy. And I had no clue at the time that the best way to reach that goal would be persistence, not perfection.
Murray in “Coming Apart” suggests the we are increasing segregating ourselves into classes. The book provides the data which support his observations. He believes that for the society as whole and for the different classes including the upper class, this trend is destructive. The class which suffers most appears to be the lower class where both personal responsibility and civic responsibility have fallen, examples are single parenting and more men whoto seek to avoid any work. The children of the lower class have more of the pathologies which sabotage success, dropping out of school, drugs, crime, early pregnancy. For the children of the lower class merit or luck have less of a chance to change their lives.
In the interview with Kristol, Murray discusses IQ, class as well as his other books: http://conversationswithbillkristol.org/video/charles-murray/
Jim Beck
Luck is a secular substitute for providence. They are similar but not synonymous.
Luck is chaotic happenstance. A person can’t influence luck, but can increase opportunities for luck. It’s like flipping a quarter once versus flipping a quarter a dozen times. You are more likely to eventually get the side you want if you keep trying, but the odds are the same (50/50) each time. The Larry Bird quote is amusing. But obviously practice improves a person’s odds and so diminishes reliance on luck, rather than improves luck.
Providence is a gift from God. Though God bestows opportunities and advantages for a variety of reasons depending on circumstances, one reason is favor. In traditional theology, salvation isn’t earned, but graces can be. So providence, unlike luck, can be influenced by one’s actions.
Washington and Patton both believed that gratitude and reliance on God helped them in battle when strategy and resources alone could not ensure victory.
Luck be a lady tonight…
I’ll agree that luck and providence aren’t synonymous. Now here’s a question:
Do Christians get to believe in chance as well as providence, or just providence? And should Christians ever expect to see a clear difference between providence and chance in everyday life?
My answers are “Yes, Christians can and should believe that chance (not just providence) exists,” and “No, Christians should never expect to witness a clear difference between the two,” and I can explain more later if you like. But I want to know what you think.
This is a great post. I recently made the concession to a leftist that luck is part of success, but merit is also a major factor. I felt uneasy about the concession, but didn’t know how to argue against it. You have done a perfect job of explaining why I was indeed conceding far too much.
Not to stir up an unrelated argument, but I think your point also explains in a way I had never thought of before why evolution is not the disproof of God that atheists think that it is. Evolution is based on the idea that some organisms are “lucky” to have traits that make them more successful in their particular environment and niche. One can call adaptation “luck” if one wishes, but one could also call it “opportunity,” or “providence” with just as much justification.
I also like your point about the “-ocracy” part of meritocracy. The Koch brothers run a major corporation very successfully, and run a major philanthropic operation as well. They are clearly more accomplished than the large majority of people, and they must realize that. Yet, they still don’t believe they have earned the right to run other peoples’ lives (at least, I assume so given the libertarian philosophy they champion).
Barack Obama thinks being a community organizer and U.S. Senator for about twelve minutes prior to becoming President of the United States gives him the right to tell everybody what to do on everything.
To my knowledge, there has never been a formal teaching that declares one way or the other on chance. I’m not sure if it’s compatible or not, to be honest. Of course, I’m tempted to say it is compatible, but that could just be my cultural blinders.
We believe that God is the source of all love and beauty. We believe that His attention and power is not finite like ours, and that He actively cares also for the lesser creatures of Earth. So it is traditional and reasonable, if not mandatory, to believe that God involves Himself in the minutia of life and not just major events. In fact, Saint Therese of Lisieux (the Little Flower) focused her life on such minutia and has since been held as an excellent example of faith by the Church.
Furthermore, it is traditional and right to watch for signs of God’s activity throughout one’s daily life. What atheists perceive as “happy accidents”, Christians perceive as God’s graces. Some only reinforce faith and love, but others guide.
Finally, orthodox Christianity recognizes natural processes as God’s design, while asserting that God is not a “Divine Watchmaker” who abandoned Nature once it got rolling. He is active in Creation, sustaining it like a singer’s tune. Miracles are “supernatural” in that they are rare. But God in His omniscience is not surprised by our needs or prayers, so miracles are truly a part of His design rather than interruptions. The “laws” of Nature are merely the usual way.
I’m thinking out loud here, so excuse my rambling. If chance exists, then there probably isn’t any sure method of distinguishing it from providence. But, at the moment, I can’t even find room for chance in the Christian worldview.
Help, KC?
Okay, on to “-ocracy. Actually it’s only the -cracy, which comes from the Greek kratos, meaning strength or power and not necessarily rule. -Archy, from the Greek árkhō, means rule or ruler. I think a big part of our disagreement is that you’ve been dealing with meritocracy as being a question of who rules and I’ve been using it in the broader sense of who has status and power. Nevertheless, I will accept your usage for the purposes of this discussion.
As I understand your argument your criticism is threefold: 1) -cracy implies rule and you’re uncomfortable with the idea of ruling others; 2) you disagree with the notion that someone is entitled to rule simply because of his ability; and 3) you think a meritocracy is likely to lead to an overbearing civil service and a more intrusive state. I’m sympathetic to the second argument, but, as I shall endeavor to explain, I do not find the first or third arguments to be persuasive.
1) To the extent that you object to the concept of rule it seems that you should have similar problems with demo-cracy as with merito-cracy (not that the two are incompatible; they’re actually complimentary). Unless we are to do away with the state entirely some people will govern others. Once we are resolved to have a state the two questions we must answer are who will select the governors and on what basis will they be selected. As a general rule, I think the first question is best answered by democracy and the second question by meritocracy. The people should choose their rulers and the basis upon which they make their choice should be merit. I honestly don’t see why that is at all controversial. Does anyone really go to the polls thinking, “I really want to vote for the more mediocre candidate?”
2) I completely agree that no one should feel entitled to rule for whatever reason, be it superior intellect or hereditary social class.
3) In support of your claim that meritocracies are likely to lead to a more extensive civil service and an overbearing and intrusive state you suggested we look to historical examples. Though Wikipedia certainly places heavy emphasis on the Confucian Chinese civil service as the prime example of meritocratic government and suggests that meritocratic states have historically been both ubiquitous and intrusive, I would suggest that the historical record is much more equivocal.
There are numerous examples throughout history of limited government selected on the basis of meritocracy. The British Indian Civil Service, which was selected solely on the basis of an examination system substantially more rigorous than any in Confucian China, was both more efficient and less intrusive in its governance of the subcontinent than either it’s aristocratic predecessors or it’s democratic successor. Early America was also highly meritocratic. Alexander Hamilton rose, by virtue of his ability, from the immigrant bastard of a dissolute Scottish bankrupt to become Secretary of the Treasury and effective leader of the Federalist Party, and Alexis de Tocqueville commented about how much more ability mattered than birth in the new republic.
Is the line between intrinsic and extrinsic all that clear, though?
I would find it odd to say that being hit by a truck is a quality intrinsic to a person, yet I have known two people whose lives were permanently altered by such an incident.
You’ve accurately pointed out that when progressives talk about meritocracy it is usually in support of increasing the state’s usurpation of individual liberty, but I don’t know why you feel compelled to accept their view of this matter (you don’t seem to anywhere else). Free markets are the meritocratic ideal, success being determined more by merit than under any other area of human activity (though luck still plays a part).
The fact is that the intrusiveness of a government is much less dependent on the identity of its officials than it is on the ideology of the state. In the case of America, we have the amount of government the general public desire.
I am properly ashamed of myself. This is what I get for having studied living languages instead of dead ones.
(That said, your iPhone was right about “bated breath” – it’s short for “abated breath”. I mean, unless you eat a lot of sardines or squid or something.)
The cause of a person’s handicap is extrinsic, the fact of it is intrinsic to them.
My iPhone switched bated to baited in my initial use of the term. I did have cioppino for dinner last night, though.
Perhaps your iPhone comes with an electronic nose?
Perhaps it is religious upbringing?
To me (and I suspect to a lot of other conservatives), “merit” has always had more to do with moral worth than “excellence”. You may use “merit” as a synonym for excellence, but “deservingness” is also one of its meanings. Others are considerably less comfortable than you are with letting go of the “deservingness” aspects of “merit”.
Once deservingness is separated from excellence as a criterion for judging people, the idea of compensating for the “undeserved” vagaries of fortune becomes so tempting that I think we’re better off simply avoiding trying to justify anyone’s success by “deservingness” words. People succeed because of some kind of excellence (even if it’s a rather “lowly” excellence like being a really good auto mechanic). Whether they “deserve” to be excellent is a matter best left up to God.
Midge- I’m not aware of any system of government which advocates placing power in the hands of people who don’t deserve it. The English Civil War was fought largely over dispute about whether the king deserved to rule, the monarchist position being essentially that Charles I deserved his power because he was appointed by God. You’re right that meritocracy combines the notions of deserving and of excellence. Meritocracy is the idea that the relative position people deserve is a function of their excellence. I’m still trying to understand what it is that you find even the least bit objectionable about that.
Evening Sal,
In the market one can get some measure of the quality of leadership by comparing the company’s goals against their results, larger market share, most innovative products, most positive name recognition. When one wants to measure the effectiveness of leaders and whether they deserve their positions, there are few yardsticks which we agree on, with which we can measure their success. If we say that a class of citizens is more educated, more intelligent, more experienced in international affairs, and more experienced in the nature and tools of government, would they be better leaders? I think more likely their choices would as self-serving as any other group, they might even be better at selling themselves as deserving. Also, it is likely that their choices would primarily enhance their own power, and because they would view themselves as the proper rulers they would reward themselves.
Frankly, I don’t understand how such a position is compatible with belief in free will. Your sentence seems true enough if reduced to the abstract (God is, per Aquinas, being itself, and thus intimately connected with life); but surely, you aren’t advocating determinism or predestination, right?
“Happy accidents,” as you describe them, occur fairly frequently. Imagine the number of factors (both natural and human) needing manipulation to produce one “happy accident,” then multiply that figure by the number of “happy accidents” a person experiences in a lifetime. Multiply that by the earth’s population. Can free will exist in such a world, where accidents aren’t always accidents?
I’ll second your request: help, KC!
Jim- I’m not arguing for a particular definition of merit, though I think intelligence and achievement are the most important factors in defining the term. I’m simply arguing that mediocrity is not a good criterion for assessing merit.