Editing Meritocracy (section)

==Conceptions==
===Early conceptions===
The "most common definition of meritocracy conceptualizes merit in terms of tested competency and ability, and most likely, as measured by [[IQ]] or standardized achievement tests".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Levinson|first1=David|last2=Cookson|first2=Peter W.|last3=Sadovnik|first3=Alan R.|title=Education and Sociology: An Encyclopedia|year=2002|publisher=Taylor & Francis|page=436|quote=Most common definition of meritocracy conceptualizes merit in terms tested competency and power, and most likely as measured by IQ or standardized achievement tests.}}</ref> In government and other administrative systems, "meritocracy" refers to a system under which advancement within the system turns on "merits", like performance, intelligence, [[credential]]s, and education. These are often determined through evaluations or examinations.{{sfnp|Young|1958}}{{Page needed|date=May 2019}}

In a more general sense, meritocracy can refer to any form of evaluation based on achievement. Like "[[Utilitarianism|utilitarian]]" and "[[Pragmatism|pragmatic]]", the word "meritocratic" has also developed a broader connotation, and is sometimes used to refer to any government run by "a ruling or influential class of educated or able people".<ref>{{cite web|url= http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/meritocracy|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110910174019/http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/meritocracy|url-status= dead|archive-date= 10 September 2011|title=Definition of Meritocracy|work=Oxford Dictionary|publisher=Oxford University Press|access-date=12 September 2011}}</ref>

This is in contrast to the original, condemnatory use of the term in 1958 by [[Michael Dunlop Young]] in his work ''[[The Rise of the Meritocracy]]'', who was satirizing the ostensibly merit-based [[Tripartite System]] of education practiced in the United Kingdom at the time; he claimed that, in the Tripartite System, "merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications".<ref>{{cite book|title=Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought|year=1988|publisher=Fontana Press|page=521}}</ref>

Meritocracy in its wider sense, may be any general act of judgment upon the basis of various demonstrated merits; such acts frequently are described in [[sociology]] and [[psychology]].

In [[rhetoric]], the demonstration of one's merit regarding mastery of a particular subject is an essential task most directly related to the [[Aristotle|Aristotelian]] term ''[[Ethos]]''. The equivalent Aristotelian conception of meritocracy is based upon [[aristocratic]] or [[oligarchic]] structures, rather than in the context of the modern [[State (polity)|state]].<ref>Aristot. Pol. 2.1261b</ref><ref>Aristotle, (351 BC) ''Politics''. Book Three Part IV. (Jowett, B., Trans)</ref>

===More recent conceptions===
To this day, the origin of the term meritocracy is widely attributed to the British sociologist Michael Young, who used it pejoratively in his book ''[[The Rise of the Meritocracy]]''. For Young, merit is defined as intelligence plus effort. As a result, he portrays a fictional meritocratic society as a dystopia, in which social stratification is based solely on intelligence and individual merit, which creates a highly competitive and unequal society.<ref name="Chang" />

Despite this initial negative connotation, the term meritocracy has gained some positive recognition more recently. As such, it is nowadays applied to merit-based systems of status and reward allocation in distinction to aristocratic or class-based systems, in which inherited factors are the primary determinant for the position of an individual in society.<ref name="Scully">{{cite journal |last1=Scully |first1=M.A. |title=Meritocracy |journal=Wiley Encyclopedia of Management |date=2014}}</ref>

Yet, the concept of meritocracy as a social system has also attracted much criticism. In light of the rising social inequality in the 21st century, scholars have labelled meritocracy a political ideology and an illusion.<ref name="Panayotakis">{{cite journal |last1=Panayotakis |first1=C. |title=Capitalism, Meritocracy, and Social Stratification: A Radical Reformulation of the Davis-Moore Thesis |journal=The American Journal of Economics and Sociology |year=2014 |volume=73 |issue=1 |pages=126–151 |doi=10.1111/ajes.12068}}</ref><ref name="Chang" /> As [[Thomas Piketty]] notes in his book ''[[Capital in the Twenty-First Century]]'' "our democratic societies rest on a meritocratic worldview".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Piketty |first1=Thomas |title=Capital in the Twenty-First Century |date=2014 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0674430006 |pages=297}}</ref> Accordingly, restricted mobility and the significance of inherited wealth co-exist with the belief in a meritocratic system. Consequently, "the idea of meritocracy has become a key means of cultural legitimation for contemporary capitalist culture",<ref name="Littler, p. 2">{{cite book |last1=Litter |first1=J. |title=Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and Myths of Mobility |date=2018 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-138-88954-5 |page=2}}</ref> in which wealth and income inequalities are being perpetuated and reproduced.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Piketty |first1=T. |title=Capital in the Twenty-First Century |date=2014 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=9780674430006}}</ref> This is supported by recent research which shows that, the more unequal a society, the higher the tendency of members of that society to attribute success to meritocracy rather than non-meritocratic variables such as inherited wealth.<ref name="Mijs">{{cite journal |last1=Mijs |first1=J.J.B. |title=The paradox of inequality: income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand |journal=Socio-Economic Review |date=2021 |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=7–35 |doi=10.1093/ser/mwy051}}</ref>

This illustrates that the contemporary conception of meritocracy is at least twofold.<ref name="Littler pp. 8-9">{{cite book |last1=Littler |first1=J. |title=Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and Myths of Mobility |year=2018 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-138-88954-5 |pages=8–9}}</ref> On the one hand, it describes a social system based on the notion that individuals are rewarded and advance in society as a result of their talent and effort.<ref name="Scully" /> This conception presupposes [[social mobility]] and equality of opportunity. On the other hand, meritocracy can be understood as an ideological discourse grounded in different belief systems, that manifest themselves in different forms such as social democratic and neoliberal conceptions of meritocracy.<ref name="Littler p. 10">{{cite book |last1=Littler |first1=J. |title=Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and Myths of Mobility |date=2018 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-138-88954-5 |page=10}}</ref>

The most common form of meritocratic screening found today is the college degree. Higher education is an imperfect meritocratic screening system for various reasons, such as lack of uniform standards worldwide,<ref>What's College For?: The Struggle To Define American Higher Education; Zachary Karabell; {{ISBN|978-0-465-09152-2}}</ref><ref>Journal of College Teaching & Learning – May 2008 Volume 5, Number 5 AACSB Accreditation</ref> lack of scope (not all occupations and processes are included), and lack of access (some talented people never have an opportunity to participate because of the expenses, disasters or war, most especially in [[developing country|developing countries]], health issues or disability).<ref>{{cite book|title=Higher education and social justice |author1=Furlong, Andy|author2=Cartmel, Fred|isbn=978-0-335-22362-6|publisher=Open University Press|location =Maidenhead|date=2009-06-01}}</ref>