By Iliana Fragkiadaki, A Level Student at Lancaster Girls Grammar School
The promise of meritocracy and upward mobility is at the heart of the ‘American dream’. The US endorsed the concept of a social hierarchy where success and power is gained through the amalgamation of talent, achievements and hard work. The proliferation of the phrase ‘you deserve’ after Ronald Reagan took office became a key element of American politics. Press propaganda and political discourses used language that is commonly associated with the rising rhetoric, such as ‘you can make it if you try’, ’incentivise’ and ‘equal opportunities’, reinforcing the ideal of a meritocratic society that has been instilled in the minds of the American people.
In fact, people don’t just think that we should implement a meritocratic system, but rather believe that America already is a meritocracy. In a survey conducted in 2016, the Brookings Institute found that about two-thirds of Americans (69 percent) agree with the statement that “people are rewarded for intelligence and skill.’ However, the question remains: is meritocracy a just social system or is it simply a justification of inequality?
The fact is that, despite the firm belief in upward mobility and merit as a means to succeed in life, the median income has remained stagnant in the last forty years. In his book ‘Capital in the Twenty-First Century’, Piketty states that from 1977 to 2007, three-quarters of the total economic growth in the U.S. went to the richest 10 percent. The coronavirus pandemic exacerbated divisions within the population further, fuelling the CEO-worker wage gap and drastically increasing unemployment rates for people of colour in comparison to white workers. As it turns out, maybe one’s merit and efforts are not the only thing that determines their place in society.
Globalisation widened the scale of economic inequalities in the U.S. Michael Sandel, writing in his book ‘The Tyranny of Merit’, argued that globalisation brought along a new kind of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’, the ones that enjoyed the fruits of global trade and technological progress and the ones that were left with the crumbs. The joint rise of meritocracy and globalisation reinvented the definition of success, for to be successful was to equip yourself to compete and win in a society through the means of equal opportunities and education. This generated the idea that those who land on top deserve their success because of their ‘merit’. Those who were left behind by globalisation were not only blamed by society for their failure to rise above, but also blamed themselves for not working ‘hard enough’ to succeed. If everyone has equal opportunities, then their failure must be a result of their own inferior abilities, stated the meritocratic rhetoric. This deepened the inequality gap, creating feelings of inferiority and shame for the ‘losers’ and hubris for the ‘winners’.
Thus, the promise of meritocracy failed to materialise in the lives of many-the ‘losers’- leading them to become angry and resentful. Governments gave more opportunities to the most disadvantaged groups in society to build a level playing field where anyone, regardless of their race, sex, gender or ethnicity ‘can make it if they try’. The working class saw an erosion of their economic and social status, feeling like they were becoming a minority in their own country. Thus, they turned to authoritarian populists that vowed to represent them.
This anger and resentment for meritocratic elites culminated in a type of populist backlash through the election of Donald Trump. Many argued that this upsurge in nationalism was a xenophobic, almost racist reaction against immigration. Others claimed it was a complaint against rising unemployment that is caused by the progress of technology and international trade. Another explanation saw populist anger as an adverse response against growing racial, ethnic and gender diversity. The working class felt like they, rather than women or minorities, were victims of discrimination and racism, because now the meritocratic society labels them as ‘inferior’, the losers who ‘had the opportunity but didn’t make it’. Essentially, they were indeed victims of a new type of prejudice called credentialism: the impact of education on one’s economic and social status.
In fact, it is no coincidence that Trump won two-thirds of white voters without a college degree, while Hilary Clinton won decisively among voters with advanced degrees. Naturally, in an age where ‘merit’ is translated as one’s educational credentials, the ‘losers’ of meritocratic America who had received less education sought relief in those who promised to reassert national borders and finally give them a voice.
There is no surprise, however, that the Democratic Party’s values and ideology have changed over time. They had once stood for the farmers, the workers, the common people against the privileged. Now, they have become a party of technocratic liberalism that looks more like the ‘upper class’ than the ‘lower class’ of workers and trade unions where they started from. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher believed that the government intervention was the root of the problem and that global, laissez faire markets were the solution. Centre-left politicians that came later sought to mitigate the harsh consequences of capitalism, but they all agreed that market mechanisms were the best instruments to achieve the ‘common good’. For the centre-left liberals, equality of opportunity was the missing key ingredient to establish a true and just meritocracy. The key concept behind this was that: enabling people to compete in an equal playing field based on their efforts and merit would bring market outcomes in accordance with merit. In the end, they believed, the market would give everyone what they deserved. The crucial element that they missed, was the reaction of those who would inevitably find themselves at the bottom of a meritocratic hierarchy.
In his book ‘The Rise of the Meritocracy’ (1958), a British sociologist called Michael Young, correctly made the diagnosis that a true meritocracy was bond to foster hubris for the winners and humiliation amongst the losers. He saw, decades ago, that the problem with meritocracy was a corrosive effect on solidarity and social bonds. In ‘Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind’, Harari claims that man managed to conquer the earth because we found the secret to collaborate with millions of humans together for a single purpose. If this cooperation is dismantled, then the very pillars of human civilisation and democracy will be collapse.
Governments recognise the importance of maintaining harmony and peace amongst the population through addressing their concerns. Even so, politicians believe that the resentment with market-driven globalisation and the inexorably linked meritocratic principles that underlie it is a matter of distributive justice. There must be a greater share of the pie for everyone rather than only a small sector of the population. But this misunderstands the populist complaint. Instead of allowing the dark side of meritocracy and discontent with the government to grow, states must redefine the very meaning of ‘merit’ and seek to empower ordinary citizens through strengthening the social bonds that hold our society together.
Iliana Fragkiadaki
Hi, my name is Iliana Fragkiadaki and I'm an aspiring corporate lawyer, hence I'm interested in Law, Politics, Economic Affairs, Philosophy, and International Relations. In my free time, I enjoy reading books (particularly classics), going to the gym and painting. I am additionally a linguist and enjoy learning different languages (I speak Greek and Spanish but I aim to learn Italian, French, and Japanese as well).
Great article!! 👍