Meritocracy

The concept of meritocracy, which will be defined shortly, and its U.S. variant the “American Dream,” is one of the key ideological components of capitalist-democracies today. Most people, including the working classes, who live in capitalist-democracies fully accept that socio-economic inequality is not only intrinsic to capitalism (if all were bosses who will do the work?), but is a desirable condition in itself because inequality, as long as it is not based on one’s inherited social status, is considered a driver of enterprise, achievement, and progress. Socio-economic equality to them is anathema because it is regarded as a condition that rewards idleness and sloth at the expense of what is considered as “merit”—specifically: ambition, integrity, perseverance, and hard work. Following from this logic, taking the U.S. example, they believe that the United States is a class-less society (meaning anyone can rise to the top as long as you are willing to work for it and those who are already at the top are there because they deserve to be there—that is, they worked hard to be there).

However, a serious problem arises when inequality is not an outcome of merit but is artificially engineered in favor of the wealthy and the privileged by their misuse of political and/or socio-economic power and thereby undermining meritocracy. See for example, with reference to the U.S. experience, this article by Lauren A. Rivera in The New York Times^[1] or the article by Bourree Lam in The Atlantic.^[2] The truth, however, is that despite what the masses believe there is no real remedy to this “corruption” of meritocracy by the bourgeoisie and its representatives. The capitalist system, by its very nature, is not a meritocratic system (except in a very limited sense, as will be explained below) because its functioning depends on limiting upward socio-economic mobility—which is what meritocracy is really about—so as to ensure what is called class reproduction. The capitalist system cannot exist without a hierarchic class-based social structure comprising the bourgeoisie at the very top who own and/or control the means of production (and its attendant services, such as finance capital, transportation, insurance, etc.), and the rest below them who do the actual work.

Meritocracy

Generically speaking, meritocracy is a concept that sees the allocation of material rewards in a capitalist-democratic society as resting entirely on merit, which itself is assumed to be based on such qualities of an individual as intelligence, effort, and ambition and not on membership of preordained social groups—whatever their definitional criteria: class, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, age, and so on. In other words, from the meritocratic point of view, one’s class status in society is based solely on social achievement, not social ascription. However, there is a fundamental flaw here; consider: one of the most widely used and accepted measurements of social achievement in modern societies today is educational qualifications or academic achievement. Now, in a meritocratic society academic achievement is presumed to rest on equality of educational opportunity. However, equality of educational opportunity itself is supposedly governed by the principle of meritocracy: namely that academic achievement is a function of one’s individual qualities of intelligence, effort and ambition in school, and not on one’s social background, be it in terms of class, race, sex, ethnicity, and so on. It follows from all this that if there is a slippage in academic achievement then explanation for it must be sought in flaws in the individual’s personal qualities (perhaps there is limited intelligence, perhaps there is insufficient effort, perhaps ambition is lacking, and so on). And if this slippage is consistent among some social groups then these flaws must also be universal within these groups. (A corollary of this view is that since these groups (leaving class aside) are presumed to be biological constructs—that is regardless of what science states—the flaws are biologically determined and hence society is powerless in the face of their immutability.)

In other words, the meritocratic logic rests on the assumption that we do not live in a society that is social structurally riven for historically determined reasons (rather than biological reasons), and where social groups exist in unequal power relations. But is this assumption correct? Is the social structure biologically determined? More to the point, Does academic achievement rest solely on individual qualities? Is it not possible that it may also depend on where one is within the social structure because one’s location in that structure allows one access to specific educational advantages (manifest in such ways as access to resource-rich schools, qualified teachers, safe neighborhoods, etc.) In fact, research in support of this point is so extensive and ubiquitous in the field of education that it even renders reference citations to it redundant. Leaving education aside, the fallacy of the concept of meritocracy is further emphasized when you consider people with mental/physical disabilities, single mothers, the elderly, orphans, and so on; that is, all who may not have the resources to achieve the American Dream—the U.S. version of meritocracy. Exploring this concept will help to highlight this point further.

The American Dream

The term American Dream refers to both an end-goal and the process of reaching it. It is a manifestation of what may be referred to as the “Horatio Alger syndrome.”^[3] Specifically, it refers at once to a particular definition of the “good life” and to the ideological notion that in United States you can achieve your wildest materialist dreams (the “good life”) so long as you agree to play by the rules and you are willing to work hard; that is because the United States is a land of freedom and opportunity for all where nothing can hold you back in your quest for upward socio-economic mobility: neither race nor ethnicity; neither class nor gender; neither religion nor nationality; and so on. One will notice right away that this concept also relies on ahistoricism. The continuing legacy of a history of, among other things, the brutal expropriation of the lands of Native Americans and the labor of African Americans against the backdrop, initially, of the imported English social structure of commoner versus aristocracy is, of course, relegated to the dustbin of historical amnesia; nor is there any recognition of the inherent contradiction arising from the problem of class-determined inequality in a capitalist society.

The fundamental basis of the fallacious reasoning that underlies this concept is the inability by those who believe in it to separate out issues of personal agency and issues that stem from institutional structures. The fact that millions of people in United States work long hours (sometimes holding down two to three jobs) is clear evidence that laziness and lack of ambition is not the reason why they are not millionaires. At the same time, to assume that all the wealthy in this country have acquired their wealth through hard work and playing by the rules is to disengage from reality because it does not bear out this foolish assumption.[4] The capitalist system is structurally designed, through property rights enshrined in law, to ensure that only a tiny minority remains at the top, otherwise the system would collapse because there would be no one to do the grunt work—without which, wealth cannot be created. In fact, it will come as a shock to most of you to learn that the relative positions (the key word here is relative) of most of those at the top and most of the rest below them has remained constant since Roman times, if not before—pointing to the Mount Everest-like insurmountableness of social structures for most people in the Euro/American ecumene in their illusory quest for upward socio-economic mobility. Hence, if you were to trace your ancestry there is an almost one hundred percent chance that you would end up with ancestors who were either slaves from Africa or slaves in the Roman times in Europe. Focusing on Europe, the slaves from Greek and Roman times eventually became serfs in the feudal era and who then, in turn, became the modern working classes in the era of industrial capitalism, millions of whom along the way ended up in the European Diaspora scattered across the planet—an immensely brutal and painful process—from Australia to Brazil, and from Canada to South Africa.

Incidentally, the first usage of this term (American Dream) and its definition is credited to the historian James Truslow Adams, who, writing in 1931 (at the height of Jim Crow, one may ironically recall), stated that the American Dream was

"that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position." (p. 404, The Epic of America [Boston: Little, Brown, 1931])

Notice that unlike the way it has come to be understood today, in this definition of the American Dream, materialism is not the defining quality, but rather egalitarianism (and, therefore, in this sense the American Dream is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all, that is authentic democracy—in contrast to procedural democracy). It is also worth pointing out that today the “American Dream,” for most EuroAmericans also means the opportunity to live in racially segregated neighborhoods.[5]

There is, in fact, a vast “self-help” cottage industry in the United States that aims to teach you how to improve your chances of achieving the American Dream. A well-known guru, for example, of this industry is one Tom Corley. He claims that he spent five years studying the daily habits of 233 self-made millionaires and 128 poor people in United States and as a result he came up with 300 habits that “separate the rich from the poor.” He concludes: “The fact is, the poor are poor because they have too many Poor Habits and too few Rich Habits. Poor parents teach their children the Poor Habits and wealthy parents teach their children the Rich Habits. We don’t have a wealth gap in this country we have a parent gap. We don’t have income inequality, we have parent inequality.”[6] So, what are some of these bourgeois habits he is talking about? Here is a selection from his website (which you will notice are worth pursuing even if you don’t stand a chance of becoming a member of the bourgeoisie):

· Gambling Habits – 6% of self-made millionaires played the lottery vs. 77% of the poor. 16% of self-made millionaires gambled at least once a week on sports vs. 52% of the poor.

· Health Habits -21% of self-made millionaires were overweight by 30 pounds or more vs. 66% of the poor. 76% of these millionaires exercised aerobically 30 minutes or more each day vs. 23% of the poor. 25% of these millionaires ate less than 300 junk food calories each day vs. 5% of the poor. 25% of these millionaires ate at fast food restaurants each week vs. 69% of the poor. 13% of these millionaires got drunk at least once a month vs. 60% of the poor.

· Time Habits – 63% of self-made millionaires spent less than 1 hour per day on recreational Internet use vs. 26% of the poor. 67% of self-made millionaires watched 1 hour or less of T.V. per day vs 23% of the parents of the poor. 67% of these millionaires maintained a daily “to-do” list vs. 6% of the poor. 44% of these millionaires got up 3 hours or more before they actually started their work day vs. 3% of the poor.

· Living Below Your Means Habits – 73% of self-made millionaires were taught the 80/20 rule vs. 5% of the poor (live off 80% save 20%).

· Relationship Management Habits – 6% of self-made millionaires gossip vs. 79% of the poor. 75% of these millionaires were taught to send thank you cards vs. 13% of the poor. 6% of these millionaires say what’s on their mind vs. 69% of the poor. 68% of these millionaires pursue relationships with success-minded people vs. 11% of the poor.

· Learning Habits – 88% of self-made millionaires read for learning every day vs. 2% of the poor. 86% of these millionaires love to read vs. 26% of the poor. 11% of these millionaires read for entertainment vs. 79% of the poor.[7]