The phrase “meritocracy” refers to the belief that persons in positions of power, influence, wealth, and prestige should be chosen on the basis of their abilities, not their social standing.
The idea that people who rise to the top in a “equal meritocracy,” one in which discrimination and class biases are eliminated, deserve to be recognised and rewarded is still prompted.
Meritocracy, according to its ardent supporters throughout the political spectrum in the United States, Australia and the UK is both fair and just. However, Meritocracies tend to limit the contributions of those who do not have the skills or talent, and thus, hurt those most vulnerable in society.
Those who adhere to the meritocracy belief system consider inequality to be a good thing because it ensures that everyone has an equal (or at least adequate) chance of success, which is ultimately determined by an individual’s ability.
A meritocracy is a positive thing in the sense that it eliminates corrupt practises such as nepotism, cronyism, and favouritism. In theory, a meritocracy should ensure that everyone has the same access to resources, but in practise, it does not.
In Reality though a meritocracy may be nothing more than a group of white, educated, upper-class males who acquired their abilities in an unfairly divided, class-based, and unequal society due to the existence of strong racial and class privilege structures.
Meritocracy’s highest echelons are, of course, precarious: they are rife with class, race and gender hierarchies; they require constant and anxious displays of intelligence; and they have a prestigious branding so dependent on the singularity of the apex that it can’t help but degrade.
Programs of affirmative action are often criticised by those who believe in meritocracy. According to these critics, there is no need for special treatment for those who have been marginalised or excluded from society.
As long as the meritocracy’s ideological underpinnings persist, social class status will remain one of the most pernicious forms of inequality, with those born into poverty believing they can “pull themselves up” if they work hard or are talented enough. And when the fail to, the believe they only have themselves to blame. Everyone competes as an individual under the current meritocracy ideology, so they are the ones who have failed. This then leaves many people feeling like they’ve been cheated out of their chance to contribute their full potential, which can cause them to feel frustration and anger towards their colleagues or superiors—sometimes even burnout from working hard despite not being given an opportunity for advancement.
In other words, meritocracy has an inequality problem, and equality is the solution.
To achieve a system of meritocracy, in which “merit” is not defined by one’s status or wealth, one must accept the fact that it is impossible. When people believe that if they put forth their best effort, they will get what they deserve, they are perpetuating the myth of meritocracy. A meritocracy does not take into account the fact that many people may have different skills or talents, and thus can’t be promoted because they don’t have what it takes. This means that even though someone may have more qualifications than others, they still won’t be advancing because they don’t have the skill or talent needed to succeed at a higher level.
In conclusion, meritocracies are not effective, and they can actually hurt those who need it most. Even if there are some benefits to the system, they do not outweigh the fact that a meritocracy fails to recognize and support the needs of marginalized groups.
In order to create a more equitable society, we must change how we think about meritocracies and their role in society. Instead of focusing on the qualities that make a person successful in life (which is often based on privilege), we must focus on what makes our society thrive—and that is everyone’s worth as individuals.
Lifereference 