The Aristocrat’s New Clothes  – A Modern Day Crisis of Worth

From Aristocracy to Meritocracy

Today it is difficult not notice how is much disagreement there is about nearly every social and political issue. These partisan differences, in fact, seem to run so deep that they are thought be fundamental to our psychologies. The psychologist Johnathan Haidt suggests that we may have heritable preferences among six moral foundations: care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity and liberty. Those who are liberal-leaning seem to prioritize care and fairness, conservative minds prize loyalty, authority and sanctity. Meanwhile, the libertarian-leaning, seem to prefer liberty and fairness. Similarly, the economist Arnold Kling discusses a moral framework by which liberals (i.e., progressives), conservatives and libertarians (i.e., classically liberal) seem to be speaking fundamentally different languages. Despite these disagreements however, there is a value that everyone—at least in democratic institutions—seems to agree upon. It is a value that we are convinced will guide us towards the good, true and beautiful in society.

The term “meritocracy” was coined in 1958 by the British sociologist Michael Young in his essay titled “The Rise of the Meritocracy“. It refers to the belief/value/policy that people should be selected to positions or power and privilege based on their merits (i.e., innate abilities, talents, accomplishments). At face value, there is an elegant fairness, sanctity and freedom to this conviction. Writing at a time when the British class system was breaking down, Young witnessed how the breakdown of a class entitlement system allowed others (lower in status) to advance through hard work and talent. In the new global, democratic and capitalist markets, success was considered to be less of an endowment and more of a procurement. In other words, the merits of one’s efforts and talents—rather than a birthright—would garner rewards. Meritocracy became synonymous with fairness. It posited that those who worked hard, possessed talent, and achieved academically would rise to the top, enjoying the fruits of their labor, while others would find their place in the social strata based on their abilities. Such is the power of this seemingly fair regime that virtually anyone across any political stripe—progressive, conservative, classically liberal—could be counted on, if pressed, to uncritically exalt its advancement.

Prior to this, the governing system could be called an aristocracy. In this system, one is afforded wealth and opportunities (or lack thereof), based solely upon the station at which they are born. Of course, being born with privilege does not absolve one of responsibility. Those born in such lofty positions often were expected to assume a mantle of virtue (which is difficult to ascertain or enforce), which would theoretically enable them to run society in the best possible manner. There was, in other words, an inherent expectation for social regard. In the meritocratic system that Young witnessed, such moral overtures were scorned, having been relegated to a past that seemed manifestly unfair and growth-limiting.

Young argued that in spite of the advancements of the new (meritocratic) system, there was a notable advantage of the obsolete class/caste system: the upper-classes would never regard their station as self-produced and the lower-classes would similarly not attribute their subordinate status to personal failure (how could they?). There is a self-justifying feature inherent in meritocracy—the ‘winners’ believe they have rightfully accrued their spoils while the ‘losers’ are encouraged to accept the inequities as owing to their deficits in talent and/or effort.

Cracks in the Modern Meritocratic Society

In his book, “The Tyranny of Merit,” Michael Sandel describes how the modern meritocratic system, especially in countries like the U.S., links one’s worth to one’s ability to compete in the marketplace. It should be noted that Sandel is not writing from a position of embitterment and alienation; he is a Harvard professor and in the elite sphere that he so sharply critiques. Academic credentials, Sandel writes, have become the passport to a good life, and elite universities have turned into arbiters of opportunity. Despite these opportunities being theoretically open to any citizen or legally-deployed foreigner, Sandel argues there is a cycle of entrapment that makes bondage of both winners and losers. A Yale-educated compatriot, Daniel Markovits, offers additional commentary in this book “The Meritocracy Trap“. Markovits observes that the meritocratic elite, though seemingly privileged, become ensnared in a relentless cycle of competition. They invest heavily in their education, often incurring significant debt, and then work long hours in high-stress jobs to maintain their societal position. Markovits notes that the current system leads to an accumulation of both wealth and work at the top, causing extreme inequality. The rich don’t just have more wealth, but they also monopolize the best opportunities, creating a stagnant and divisive society.

The Crisis of Worth

According to self-determination theory, people across all times and cultures have a need to contribute to their own well-being as well as to that of the society they live in. The contributions that one makes have a certain value to the group, which may be reflected in how one is compensated within that society. But aside from that, one values one’s own contributions to the extent that these contributions fulfill our needs for autonomy (the need to feel in control of our actions and choices), competence (the belief that we are skilled, capable and can handle challenges that arise), and belonging (having a sense of mattering to others and having others matter to oneself). We shall see that the meritocratic system—even a perfect meritocratic system—can insidiously erode these personal sources of worth. And a crisis of worth, one could argue, is a key driver behind of our contemporary social ills (e.g., political fanaticism, gun violence, overdose-related deaths, obesity etc.).

• Loss of Solidarity: Sandel argues that the meritocratic grind creates a divide between the “educated” and the “less educated. If everyone truly gets what they deserve, then there’s little rational impetus for the successful to help those less fortunate (be they lacking in a particular talent, opportunity market, or in a desired temperament such as grit).  This divide erodes the sense of community and solidarity, as societal value gets increasingly tied to market-driven achievements.
• Diminishing Social Mobility: Ironically, while meritocracy was supposed to increase mobility, it might be restricting it. As elite positions become more competitive, access to them becomes more exclusive, often favoring those already in privileged positions.
• Credentialism: Sandel argues that an overemphasis on going to the “right” schools and obtaining the “right” degrees can lead to a kind of credentialism, where one’s worth is determined by their educational background. This can lead to elitism and a narrow definition of what constitutes a valuable contribution to society. In fact, credentialism is not only restrictive to the lower classes but we have seen well-established parents become inclined to take deleterious risks to get their children placed in higher education (leading to higher jobs).
• Economic Disparity: Exacerbated by diminishing social mobility, wealth and resources get concentrated in the hands of a few, as “merit” becomes the gold standard,  leading to economic disparities. The middle class, once the backbone of many societies, finds itself squeezed out.
• Eroding the Dignity of Work: In a perfect meritocracy, certain kinds of work (often those that require advanced degrees) are valued more than others. This can lead to a society where traditionally blue-collar jobs or roles without prestigious credentials are looked down upon, even if they’re essential. Workers in these future sectors may be not be regarded as competent or “skilled”, regardless of how much effort and dedication they would be willing to invest. 
• Explosion of the Welfare State and Implosion of Autonomy: With less value, there follows less compensation and perhaps even an invisibility to blue-collar work such that it might become readily replaced with cheaper, robotic forms of labor. In the dystopian novel series, The Expanse, dignified work is afforded to the privileged few. Everyone else is on some form of Basic Assistance; the government is installed in a permanent parental role over the people, providing them will all of life’s necessities and consequently depriving them of the basic autonomy to do so for themselves. 
• The Mental Health Toll: Markovits underscores the mental strain the meritocratic race places on individuals. The pressure to continually prove oneself can lead to burnout, anxiety, and other mental health issues.
• Humiliation for the Left Behind: Conversely, those who don’t succeed in a meritocratic system can internalize their failures. They might believe they haven’t achieved more because they lack talent or didn’t work hard enough, leading to feelings of shame or worthlessness.
• Undermining Democracy: Sandel argues that when the elites (those who succeed in a meritocratic system) become too detached from the life experiences of the majority, it can lead to a kind of technocratic governance, where decisions are made by the “best and brightest” without taking into account the needs and values of the broader populace. In today’s world, we see billionaire power-brokers increasingly expand their influence into social, cultural and political spaces and they are fashioning the world to their ideals. What place is afforded (and how) to the lower-classes may be determined by people who have very little direct contact with their realities.

Rethinking Meritocracy

Given these challenges, we may seriously consider with Young, Sandel and Markovits, a re-evaluation of meritocracy. Sandel proposes a shift in societal attitudes. He suggests recognizing the dignity in all types of work, not just those that are credential-driven. He emphasizes the need for a more inclusive, civic-minded society where individuals are valued for their roles as citizens, parents, or community members, not just their economic productivity.

Markovits focuses on systemic changes. He recommends reducing the concentration of wealth and opportunity at the top. This could involve reforms in education, making elite education more accessible (i.e., a partial lottery system from a merit-based applicant pool across all classes), or labor reforms that distribute work more equitably.

These economists join an emerging chorus of other critical thinkers in the social sciences and humanities that encourage a culture that values humility, which can serve as an antidote to the arrogance that might arise in a meritocratic society. Recognizing that individual success often stems from a combination of hard work, innate abilities, and external factors such as upbringing, education, and luck, can help keep ego in check.

One way to combat this divide is to redefine societal notions of success. While individual accomplishments should be celebrated, society must also place value on communal and cooperative achievements. Recognizing roles like caregivers, community organizers, and other non-elite professions as essential would help in fostering a more inclusive society.

A potential solution lies in reframing the purpose of education. Instead of focusing purely on academic achievement and standardized tests, schools could prioritize teaching values such as empathy, teamwork, and critical thinking. By doing so, education would not just be a stepping stone to societal success but a means to build a more compassionate and understanding society.

Introducing progressive taxation, strengthening social safety nets, and investing in public services can reduce the economic disparities that arise in a meritocratic system. By ensuring that everyone, regardless of their starting point, has access to basic resources and opportunities, society can move towards a more equitable model.

Is a Meritocracy Inevitable?

Meritocracy, initially a promise of fairness and equality, has come under scrutiny for potentially perpetuating the inequalities it sought to eradicate. Increasingly, the toll demanded upon every citizen—regardless of their class and stature—makes this an unfeasible system. The works of thinkers like Young, Sandel and Markovits provide a roadmap, urging a shift from an achievement-obsessed society to one that values the inherent right of every citizen to perform work that values their needs for autonomy, belonging and competency.

But will this—can this—actually happen? We must seriously grapple with this problem even as we contend with other great, and seemingly inevitable, problems of the 21^st century: climate change, resource shortages, and perhaps even problems for the next century such as waste heat.

Such global, interconnected problems likely requires the input and decision-making of a diverse group of people from across all walks of life: lay citizens, frontline workers, students, idealists, pragmatists, sceptics, businessfolk, activists. Maybe figuring it out is the easy part, the hard part being agreement on the problem, and the dauntingly difficult task being to get everyone seated at the table.

Image credits: All images, unless otherwise specified, were created using DALL-E 3.