In 1958, British sociologist Michael Young coined the term “meritocracy” in his satirical novel, called “The Rise of the Meritocracy.” Its point was simple: When intelligence and effort are selected by any society as the basis for success or failure, those with such merit begin to comprise their own class. The elite of this class is rigid and resolute, and it stratifies society. As Young would say in 2001, “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.”
This is the basic point that has fueled illiberal thinking on both the Left and the Right. Philosopher Michael Sandel, in his latest book, “The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?” argues that the very notion of a meritocracy carries with it an inescapable and unsustainably selfish moral judgment. According to Sandel, “The ideal itself is flawed. The dark side of meritocracy is that it can be destructive. The dark side of meritocracy can be corrosive to the common good. The market encourages success to feel that their success is theirs, and therefore they are entitled to the wealth that it heaps on them. This creates hubris among those who win. They believe that their success is their own doing and they also believe, implicitly at least, that those who struggle must deserve their fate as well.”
The argument is valid for both Left- and right-wing criticisms of current capitalism. The argument from the right is that capitalism, which rewards intelligence and hardwork, undermines social institutions. David Brooks argues in The New York Times that meritocracy destroys “civic consciousness, a sense that we live life embedded in community and nation, that we owe a debt to community and nation and that the essence of the admirable life is community before self.” On the Left, the argument is that meritocracy justifies existing imbalances of economic and social power.
But, meritocracy’s debate rests on the failure to clearly distinguish between economic and moral merit. Meritocracy does great harm in blurring this distinction. Young actually coined it that way. Instead of linking “merit,” with all of its moral implications, with intelligence and hard work, we ought to instead use the term “skillsocracy.” Any economic system that rewards skills produces positive externalities. The person who is hardworking and innovating — and who trades these products and/or services with another — not only enriches themselves but the entire society. They also raise the standard for products and other services that will be available. Every new innovation is swiftly followed by competition. The spread of innovation on a wider and more diverse market is what makes Western peasants live so much better than the kings of centuries past.
Contrarily, economic systems that value a different set of values have negative externalities. Is it fair to judge economic distribution by race Creed? Religion? Simple ethical preference? Disincentivize risk-taking, guarantee incomes by “moral occupation,” and watch as misallocation of labor destroys economic progress entirely; watch as society breaks down as those who produce less for their fellow man are rewarded more.
This does not mean that those who are most dexterous should “run society.” To create such a system would, in fact, undermine the skillsocracy itself, since it would allow the centralized will of some to undermine the innovative efforts of all. The skillsocracy will not be able to promote economic mobility if skill is the only determinant of it.
However, this does not necessarily mean that skillsocracy is a moral measure. Inborn intelligence, which is not necessarily a moral characteristic per se, can be partly cultivated. However hard work and propensity to be intelligent are both partially natural but cannot be taught. In a moral society we can find other ways to treasure virtue. Friendships are built; honor is earned and respected; those who don’t adhere to these moral standards are excluded.
A skillsocracy should not clash with a virtuous community. It is far from the truth. The so-called “meritocracy” need not devolve into a moral measure of intelligence and hard work; indeed, in a healthy society, it must not. However, it is not a good idea to eliminate the skillsocracy because they are a way to improve moral living. This would not only be unsuccessful, but also wildly counterproductive.
Ben Shapiro, 37, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of “The Ben Shapiro Show,” and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is the author of the New York Times bestsellers “How To Destroy America In Three Easy Steps,” “The Right Side Of History,” and “Bullies.”
About Post Author
