Editing Meritocracy (section)

==Criticism==
===By individuals===
====Michael Young====

Michael Young popularized the word "meritocracy" as a pejorative but it was adopted into the English language without the negative connotations that Young intended it to have.  It was embraced by supporters of the philosophy. Young expressed his disappointment in the embrace of this word and philosophy by the [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]] under [[Tony Blair]] in ''[[The Guardian]]'' in an article in 2001, where he states:
<blockquote>It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Young, Michael, ''"Down with meritocracy"''. The Guardian; 28 June 2001|newspaper=The Guardian |date=29 June 2001 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment|access-date=2024-05-16}}</ref></blockquote>

====The Rise and Rise of the Meritocracy====

[[Geoff Dench]] in ''The Rise and Rise of Meritocracy'' (2006) commented that the rise of the meritocracy {{blockquote|was intended to help turn Labour away from meritocracy, by reminding it of the importance of communitarian values.  Curiously, though, half a century later we have a Labour government declaring the promotion of meritocracy as one its primary objectives.<ref>{{Cite book | title= The Rise and Rise of Meritocracy | last= Dench | first= Geoff |year= 2006 |publisher= Blackwell |location= Oxford}}</ref>}}

====Chris Hayes====
In his 2012 book ''[[Twilight of the Elites|Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy]]'', [[Chris Hayes]] argues that the movement towards meritocracy has produced widespread inequality and corruption, which has led to a record decrease in the trust of American institutions.

====Pope Francis====
[[Pope Francis]] referred to "mistaken notions" developed around the concept of meritocracy, warning that {{blockquote|a healthy approach to the value of hard work, the development of one's native abilities and a praiseworthy spirit of initiative is one thing, but if one does not seek a genuine equality of opportunity, 'meritocracy' can easily become a screen that further consolidates the privileges of a few with great power.<ref>Pope Francis (2023), [https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/20231004-laudate-deum.pdf Laudate Deum], paragraphs 32, accessed 10 June 2024</ref>}}

===Books===
====The Meritocracy Trap====

In his 2019 book ''The Meritocracy Trap'', [[Daniel Markovits]] poses that meritocracy is responsible for the exacerbation of [[social stratification]], to the detriment of much of the general population. He introduces the idea of "snowball inequality", a perpetually widening gap between elite workers and members of the middle class. While the elite obtain exclusive positions thanks to their wealth of demonstrated merit, they occupy jobs and oust middle class workers from the core of economic events. The elites use their high earnings to secure the best education for their own children, so that they may enter the world of work with a competitive advantage over those who did not have the same opportunities. Thus, the cycle continues with each generation.

In this case, the middle class suffers decreased opportunities for individual prosperity and financial success. While it is impossible to quantify the exact effects of this social divide on the middle class, the [[opioid epidemic]], dramatic rises in "[[Disease of despair|deaths of despair]]"<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Case |first1=Anne |title=Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism |last2=Angus |first2=Deaton |publisher=Princeton University Press |year=2020 |isbn=9780691190785}}</ref> (suicides, mental health and alcoholism), and lowering life expectancy in these meritocratic societies are often listed as results of it. It is not only the middle class who suffer the negative effects of meritocracy, however. The societal elite have to pay a significant price for their hectic working life. Many admit suffering from physical and mental health issues, inability to sustain a good quality personal life and a lack of time spent with their families. Children of the social elite are often forced into a highly competitive educational environment from a young age, which continues throughout school, university, and into their work life. Through this argument, the author attacks the idea of a meritocracy as a fair means to evaluate and reward the most skilled and hard-working members of society.

Markovits proposes a different approach to meritocracy, one where socioeconomic life conveniences are freely distributed to the people who are sufficiently successful at the things they are doing rather than creating an environment of ongoing competition. He calls for reform of economic roles, organizations and institutions in order to include a wider population and hence narrow the increasing inequality gap by questioning the social hegemony of high-profile workers, and intervening with redistribution of earnings, working hours and social identity on behalf of middle class workers.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Markovits |first=Daniel |url=https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/548174/the-meritocracy-trap-by-daniel-markovits/ |title=The Meritocracy Trap |date=2019-09-10 |publisher=Penguin Random House |access-date=30 April 2021 |archive-date=30 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210430215329/https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/548174/the-meritocracy-trap-by-daniel-markovits/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Karma |first=Roge |title=The Meritocracy Trap, explained |url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/24/20919030/meritocracy-book-daniel-markovits-inequality-rich |journal=Vox |year=2019 |access-date=30 April 2021 |archive-date=14 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210514063825/https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/10/24/20919030/meritocracy-book-daniel-markovits-inequality-rich |url-status=live }}</ref>

====The Tyranny of Merit====
In his book ''The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?'', the American political philosopher [[Michael Sandel]] argues that the meritocratic ideal has become a moral and political problem for contemporary Western societies. He contends that the meritocratic belief that personal success is solely based on individual merit and effort has led to a neglection of the common good, the erosion of solidarity, and the rise of inequality. Sandel's criticism concerns the widespread notion that those who achieve success deserve it because of their intelligence, talent and effort. Instead, he argues that this belief is flawed since it ignores the role of luck and external circumstances, such as social and external factors, which are beyond an individual's control.<ref name="Sandel">{{cite book |last1=Sandel |first1=M. |title=The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? |date=2020 |publisher=Allan Lane |isbn=9780241407608}}</ref>

As a consequence, Sandel attributes the increasing gap between economic "winners and losers", the decline of civic engagement and the rise of populism to the meritocratic ideal. In addition, he argues that the promise of meritocracy creates an elite that is disconnected from society and lacks empathy for those, who are left behind. Elite institutions including the Ivy League and Wall Street have corrupted the virtue, according to Sandel, and the sense of who deserves power.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Michael Sandel: Why the elites don't deserve their status |url=https://unherd.com/thepost/michael-sandel/ |access-date=2022-05-24 |website=UnHerd |language=en-GB |archive-date=19 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220519155829/https://unherd.com/thepost/michael-sandel/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Ultimately, the argument of [[Michael Sandel]] is that "meritocracy today functions less as an alternative to inequality than as its primary justification".<ref name="How Meritocracy fuels Inequality">{{cite journal |last1=Sandel |first1=Michael |title=How Meritocracy fuels Inequality - Part I |journal=American Journal of Law and Equality |date=2021 |issue=1}}</ref> Thus, he makes the case for a reconsideration of our understanding of success and the common good including public debates regarding the extent of the [[welfare state]]. According to Sandel, this entails a deliberation about what constitutes a contribution to the common good and how these ought to be rewarded. Hence, he appeals to move beyond [[distributive justice]] towards contributive justice, that is "creating conditions to enable everyone to contribute to the common good and to receive honor and recognition for having done so".<ref name="How Meritocracy fuels Inequality"/> To this end, he suggest public policies such as more [[progressive tax]]ation to reduce economic inequalities.<ref name="Sandel" />

====Imagined Meritocracy====
Most of the criticism against meritocracy, including Sandel's argument in "The Tyranny of Merit", treats "meritocracy" as a mechanism that allocates rewards in accordance with one's abilities, but violates [[substantive equality]]. Casting doubt on this fundamental assumption, the Japanese sociologist Satoshi Araki examined whether economic outcomes are linked to individuals' skills levels in the United States. He found that the economic return to educational qualifications per se was significantly larger than that to cognitive skills and that intergenerational inequality had been substantially formed via credentials rather than abilities - that is why the unfair situation like "side doors" may exist. Araki therefore argues that contemporary America is a typical credential society, where credentialism prevails over skills-based meritocracy, but people are navigated to misbelieve that their society is meritocratic. Calling this situation "imagined meritocracy", he underscores the importance of examining the credential/meritocratic nature of a society by distinguishing the function of educational credentials as such and that of actual abilities both conceptually and empirically lest we mislead scholarly/policy discussion and public debate based on the imagined discourse of meritocracy.<ref name="Araki">{{cite journal |last1=Araki |first1=S. |title=Beyond 'Imagined Meritocracy': Distinguishing the Relative Power of Education and Skills in Intergenerational Inequality
 |journal=Sociology |date=2023 |volume=57 |issue=4 |pages=975–992 |doi=10.1177/00380385231156093|s2cid=257382308 }}</ref>

===Practicality===
{{See also|Myth of meritocracy|Just-world hypothesis}}
The term "meritocracy" was originally intended as a negative concept.{{refn|name=Fox}} One of the primary concerns with meritocracy is the unclear definition of "merit".<ref>Arrow, Bowles and Durlauf. ''Meritocracy and Economic Inequality''. Princeton, 1999.</ref> What is considered as meritorious can differ with opinions as on which qualities are considered the most worthy, raising the question of which "merit" is the highest—or, in other words, which standard is the "best" standard. As the supposed effectiveness of a meritocracy is based on the supposed competence of its officials, this standard of merit cannot be arbitrary and has to also reflect the competencies required for their roles.

The reliability of the authority and system that assesses each individual's merit is another point of concern. As a meritocratic system relies on a standard of merit to measure and compare people against, the system by which this is done has to be reliable to ensure that their assessed merit accurately reflects their potential capabilities. [[Standardized testing]], which reflects the meritocratic sorting process, has come under criticism for being rigid and unable to accurately assess many valuable qualities and potentials of students. Education theorist [[Bill Ayers]], commenting on the limitations of standardized testing, writes that "standardized tests can't measure initiative, creativity, imagination, conceptual thinking, curiosity, effort, irony, judgment, commitment, nuance, good will, ethical reflection, or a host of other valuable dispositions and attributes. What they can measure and count are isolated skills, specific facts and function, content knowledge, the least interesting and least significant aspects of learning".<ref>To teach: the journey of a teacher, by William Ayers, Teachers College Press, 1993, {{ISBN|0-8077-3985-5}}, {{ISBN|978-0-8077-3985-3}}, pg. 116</ref> Merit determined through the opinionated evaluations of teachers, while being able to assess the valuable qualities that cannot be assessed by standardized testing, are unreliable as the opinions, insights, biases, and standards of the teachers vary greatly. If the system of evaluation is corrupt, non-transparent, opinionated or misguided, decisions regarding who has the highest merit can be highly fallible.

The level of education required in order to become competitive in a meritocracy may also be costly, effectively limiting candidacy for a position of power to those with the means necessary to become educated. Eight of the nine [[Supreme Court of the United States]] Justices, for example, attended  only [[Harvard]] or [[Yale]] and generally only consider clerkship candidates who attended a [[Ivy League|top-five university]], while in the 1950s the two universities only accounted for around one fifth of the justices.<ref>{{cite web|title=Death by Degrees|url=https://nplusonemag.com/issue-14/the-intellectual-situation/death-by-degrees/|website=[[n+1]]|date=25 June 2012|publisher=n+1 Foundation, Inc.|access-date=20 January 2015|archive-date=30 October 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191030163515/https://nplusonemag.com/issue-14/the-intellectual-situation/death-by-degrees/|url-status=live}}</ref> 

An example of this was Chinese student self-declared messiah, [[Hong Xiuquan]], who despite ranking first in a preliminary, nationwide [[imperial examination]], was unable to afford further education. As such, although he did try to study in private, Hong was ultimately noncompetitive in later examinations and unable to become a bureaucrat. This economic aspect of meritocracies has been said to continue nowadays in countries without free educations. Even if free education were provided, the resources that the parents of a student are able to provide outside of the curriculum, such as tutoring, exam preparation, and financial support for living costs during higher education will influence the education the student attains and the student's social position in a meritocratic society. This limits the fairness and justness of any meritocratic system. 

Similarly, feminist critics have noted that many hierarchical organisations actually favour individuals who have received disproportionate support of an informal kind (e.g. mentorship, word-of-mouth opportunities, and so on), such that only those who benefit from such supports are likely to understand these organisations as meritocratic.<ref>{{Citation | title= Critical Approaches to Continental Philosophy: Intellectual Community, Disciplinary Identity, and the Politics of Inclusion | first1= Timothy | last1= Laurie | first2= Hannah | last2= Stark | first3= Briohny | last3= Walker | journal= Parrhesia: A Journal of Critical Philosophy | volume= 30 | pages= 4 | year= 2019 | url= https://www.academia.edu/38122177 | access-date= 17 February 2019 | archive-date= 11 December 2019 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20191211120909/https://www.academia.edu/38122177 | url-status= live }}</ref>

[[Cornell University]] economist [[Robert H. Frank]] rejects meritocracy in his book ''Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy''.<ref>Princeton University Press, 2016</ref> He describes how chance plays a significant role in deciding who gets what that is not objectively based on merit. He does not discount the importance of talent and hard work, but, using psychological studies, mathematical formulae, and examples, demonstrates that among groups of people performing at a high level, chance (luck) plays an enormous role in an individual's success.

====Undesirable outcomes====
Another concern regards the principle of incompetence, or the "[[Peter principle]]". As people rise in a meritocratic society through the social hierarchy through their demonstrated merit, they eventually reach, and become stuck, at a level too difficult for them to perform effectively; they are promoted to incompetence. This reduces the effectiveness of a meritocratic system, the supposed main practical benefit of which is the competence of those who run the society.

In his book ''Meritocratic Education and Social Worthlessness'' (Palgrave, 2012), the philosopher [[Khen Lampert]] argued that educational meritocracy is nothing but a [[post-modern]] version of [[Social Darwinism]]. Its proponents argue that the theory justifies social inequality as being meritocratic. This [[social theory]] holds that Darwin's theory of evolution by [[natural selection]] is a model, not only for the development of biological traits in a population, but also as an application for human [[social institution]]s—the existing social institutions being implicitly declared as [[normative]]. Social Darwinism shares its roots with early [[progressivism]], and was most popular from the late nineteenth century to the end of [[World War II]]. Darwin only ventured to propound his theories in a biological sense, and it is other thinkers and theorists who have applied Darwin's model normatively to unequal endowments of human ambitions.