Meritocracy

Sociology
Portal
Theory and History
Positivism · Antipositivism Functionalism · Conflict theory Middle-range · Mathematical Critical theory · Socialization Structure and agency
Research methods
Quantitative · Qualitative Computational · Ethnographic
Topics and Subfields
cities · class · crime · culture deviance · demography · education economy · environment · family gender · health · industry · internet knowledge · law · medicine politics · mobility · race & ethnicity rationalization · religion · science secularization · social networks social psychology · stratification   Categories and lists  Journals · Publications · Outline List of sociologists · Index
v • d • e

This article is part of the Politics series
Forms of government
List of government types
Anarchy Aristocracy Communist state Confederation Corporatism Corporatocracy Consociationalism Demarchy Democracy Direct Representative Consensus Despotism Dictatorship Autocracy Military/Military junta Right-wing Authoritarianism Totalitarianism Ethnic democracy Ethnocracy Exilarchy Fascism Federation Feudalism Gerontocracy Kleptocracy Kratocracy Kritocracy/Kritarchy Logocracy Magocracy Meritocracy Geniocracy Minarchism/Night Watchman Monarchy Absolute Constitutional/Limited Diarchy/Co-Kingship Noocracy Ochlocracy/Mobocracy Oligarchy Panarchism Parliamentary Plutocracy Presidential Puppet state Republic Crowned Capitalist Constitutional Federal Parliamentary Dependent head of state Federal Socialist state Sociocracy Supranational union Technocracy Cyberocracy Netocracy Thalassocracy Theocracy Islamic state Theodemocracy Timocracy Tribal Chiefdom Tyranny Union
Politics portal
v • d • e

Meritocracy is a system of government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated intelligence and ability (merit).

Meritocracy itself is not a form of government, but rather an ideology. Meritocracy itself is frequently confused as being a type of government, rather than correctly as a methodology or factor used in or for, the appointment of individuals to government. Individuals appointed to a meritocracy are judged based upon certain merits which could range from intelligence to morality to general aptitude to specific knowledge. A criticism of this methodology is that ^[1] "merit" itself is a highly subjective, vague term potentially lacking clarity allowing for potential misuse.

Meritocracy can also refer to a general act of judgment upon the basis of people's various demonstrated merits; such acts are frequently 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 Aristotelian term Ethos. The equivalent Aristotelian conception of meritocracy is based upon aristocratic or oligarchical structures rather than in the context of the modern nation state.^[2][3]

Contents 1 Origin of term 2 Social Darwinism 3 Historical examples 3.1 Han Feizi 3.2 Genghis Khan 3.3 Napoleon 4 Meritocratic states 4.1 Singapore 4.2 Venetian Republic 5 Computing 5.1 Meritocracy Online 5.2 Open Source 6 Criticism 7 See also 8 Notes 9 External links

[edit] Origin of term

The term itself was defined by British politician and sociologist, Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay^{[4][5][6][7][8]}, "The Rise of the Meritocracy", which pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favouring intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all. The essay is written in the first-person by a fictional historical narrator in the year 2032, and interweaves history from the politics of pre and post-war Britain with those of fictional future events in the short (1960 onwards) and long term (2020 onwards).^[9]

The essay itself was based upon the tendency of the then-current governments in their striving towards intelligence to ignore shortcomings and upon the failure of education systems to correctly utilize gifted and talented members within their civilizations.^[10]

Young's fictional narrator describes that on one hand, the "stolid mass" or majority is not the greatest contributor to society, but the "creative minority" or "restless elite". ^[11] Yet on the other hand, describes that there are casualties of progress whose influence is underestimated and that from such stolid adherence to natural science and intelligence, arises arrogance and complacency.^[11] The casualties of this progress described by the phrase "Every selection of one is a rejection of many". ^[11]

[edit] Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism is a social theory which 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 institutions - the existing social institutions being implicitly declared as normative. Social Darwinism was at its most popular from the late 19th century to the end of World War II. Proponents of Social Darwinism argue that the theory justifies social inequality as being meritocratic. Darwin himself only ventured to propound his theories in a biological sense, and it is other thinkers and theorists who have applied Darwin's model to unequal endowments of human ambition.

[edit] Historical examples

[edit] Han Feizi

In addition to Confucius, another ancient Chinese philosopher of the same period (that of the Warring States) advocated a meritocratic system of government and society. This was Han Feizi who was famous as the foremost proponent of the School of Law, otherwise known as the philosophy of Legalism. This had, as its central tenet, the absolute rule of law, but also contained numerous meritocratic elements. Another Legalist, Shang Yang implemented Legalist and meritocratic reforms in the state of Qin by abolishing the aristocracy and promoting individuals based on their skill, intelligence, and initiative.

This led to the armies of the Qin gaining a critical edge over the other nations that adhered to old aristocratic systems of government. Legalism, along with its pro-meritocratic ideals, remained a key part of Chinese philosophy and politics for another two millennia, although after the Qin Dynasty it was heavily diluted. But meritocratic governance within the bureaucracy remains a key stone of Chinese government all the way to the present. This can be most clearly seen in the use of standardized "imperial examinations" to determine entry into the official class, which began in the Sui Dynasty.

[edit] Genghis Khan

Meritocracy was the primary basis for selection of chiefs and generals in the Mongol Empire. Genghis Khan chose whomever was talented and fit for his military chain of command. He even trusted generals and soldiers from opponents' armies if they showed loyalty to their leaders. For example, Genghis Khan's general Jebe had been an enemy soldier who had shot Genghis in battle before he became Great Khan.

[edit] Napoleon

Napoleonic (Revolutionary) France is considered to have been meritocratic. After the revolution of 1792 hardly a member of the former elite remained. When Napoleon rose to power, there was no ancient base from which to draw his staff, and he had to choose the people he thought best for the job, including officers from his army, revolutionaries who had been in the peoples' assembly, and even some former aristocrats such as prime minister Talleyrand. This policy was summed up in Bonaparte's often-quoted phrase "La carrière ouverte aux talents", careers open to the talented, or as more freely translated by Thomas Carlyle, "the tools to him that can handle them". A clear example is the order of the Légion d'honneur, the first order of merit, admitting men of any class. They were judged not by ancestry or wealth but by military, scientific or artistic prowess.

[edit] Meritocratic states

[edit] Singapore

Among modern nation-states, the Republic of Singapore claims to be meritocratic,^{[citation needed]} placing a great emphasis on identifying and grooming bright young citizens for positions of leadership (e.g., Lee Kuan Yew).^{[citation needed]} The Singaporean interpretation places overwhelming emphasis on academic credentials as objective measures of merit.^{[citation needed]} Meritocracy is one of the two pillars supporting all Singapore education policies since 1959, the other being social and religious harmony.

Meritocracy is a central political concept in Singapore, due in part to the circumstances surrounding the city-state's rise to independence.^{[original research?]} Singapore was expelled from neighboring Malaysia in 1965 as a result of the unwillingness of the majority of its population, mostly ethnic Chinese, to accept a "special position" for the self-proclaimed Bumiputra (Malay for "inheritors of the earth"), the Malays.^{[citation needed]} The federal Malaysian government had argued for a system which would give special privileges to the Malays as part of their "birthright" as an "indigenous" people. Political leaders in Singapore vehemently protested against this system, arguing instead for the equality of all citizens of Malaysia, with places in universities, government contracts, political appointments, etc., going to the most deserving candidates, rather than to those chosen on the basis of connections or ethnic background. The ensuing animosity between State and Federal governments eventually proved irreconcilable; Singapore was expelled and became an independent city-state. To this day, Singapore continues to hold up meritocracy as one of its official guiding principles for domestic public policy formulation.^[12]

There is criticism backed by evidence that this system has some serious disadvantages: for one, Singaporean society is being increasingly stratified; and, for another, an elite class is being created from just a narrow segment of the population.^[13] Commentators have also criticized the city-state for not applying the meritocracy principle uniformly; they cite, for example, the disproportionate influence and presence of the family of the founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew in both political and business circles.^[14] Although most Singaporeans still agree that the city-state's tremendous economic success has been due in part to its strong emphasis on developing and promoting talented leaders,^[15] there are more and more signs that an increasing number of Singaporeans believe Singapore is instead becoming an elitist society.^[16] Defendants claim the ancient Chinese proverb that 'Wealth does not pass three generations', suggesting that elitists will eventually be, and often are, replaced by those lower down the hierarchy. Indeed, many top political leaders in Singapore (and also China) come from peasant backgrounds, while modern peasants boast about their great ancestry, though the current Prime Minister is the son of a former Prime Minister.

[edit] Venetian Republic

This section requires expansion.

Lasting 1,112 years, the Republic of Venice at times used a system based on meritocracy to decide the membership of its ruling council. Each year, citizens were assessed based on the number of merit points earned through their successes — in academia, with works or art, in business ventures, and so on — and the top names were appointed to the council. The council's role was legislative, judicial and executive, and it elected a Doge, on the understanding that any councillor who voted to appoint a Doge who later took Venice to war and lost would, along with that Doge, be put to death.^{[citation needed]} In practice, however, a relatively small number of influential families usually provided the bulk of the council nominees year after year.

[edit] Computing

[edit] Meritocracy Online

“	The great thing about the internet is it is a meritocracy and it's free.	”
—Damian Kulash, OK Go, [17]

Although formal meritocracies are uncommon online, informal ones are quite prevalent. They often occur in online games such as MMORPGs where the best players are more likely to become guild leaders or be otherwise influential,^[18] although the ability to invest large amounts of time and/or money is also important. This is also the case for many discussion forums, since the most knowledgeable users often have better chances of becoming moderators.

Further, due to the nature of online interaction, where identity and anonymity are more readily managed than in direct interaction, the effects of social inequity can often be discounted in online communities. Intelligence, effort, education, and personality may be readily conveyed in an online interaction but a person's gender, race, religion, and social standing can be easily obfuscated or left entirely unsaid.

[edit] Open Source

There is a tendency, in the structure of open source projects, for a meritocracy to arise. Technically, the more proficient the developer is in contributing towards the project; developing new features, or maintaining existing code, the more they are required or the more the project necessitates their contribution, and thus the more senior their informal position becomes. Those who contribute more code, and have more of an effect on the direction or status of the project, will tend to have more seniority and influence. The Apache Software Foundation is an example of an (open source) organization which officially claims to be a meritocracy^[19].

[edit] Criticism

Meritocracy has been criticized as a myth which merely serves to justify the status quo; merit can always be defined as whatever results in success. Thus whoever is successful can be portrayed as meriting (deserving) success, rather than success being in fact predicated on rational, predetermined criteria of merit.^[20]

[edit] See also

• Equality of opportunity vs Equality of outcome
• Equality before the law
• Meritocracy in China
• Jedem das Seine

Criticism:

• Functionalism (sociology)
• Differential Education Achievement

[edit] Notes

[edit] External links

Look up meritocracy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• World Wide Words — Michael Quinion writes about the changing use of the term