Exploring Meritocracy

Wildfire

Wildfire

Community Member
MBTI
INFJ
In what ways are we living in a “meritocracy” or “an economy of merit”? Or put another way, to what extent do we live in a system that focuses on our merit or worthiness, and how deep does this go? In what ways does this serve us? In what ways does it fall short? How conscious are we of our participation? And are there areas where society at large seems to participate unconsciously?

Some friends and I were discussing this concept recently, and at one point we ended up considering certain aspects of the resistance to health care reform (here in the United States) as examples of unconscious participation in an economy of merit. We were also considering that for many, the idea of intrinsic value just doesn’t exist, and we were exploring how this relates.

I know that for some the term “meritocracy” is going to have a political slant, but I’m posting this in the Philosophy and Religion section because I really want to explore it from this angle. Religion usually steps forward to make a declaration about our intrinsic value, but at the same time the religious can seem to get really hung up on merit and worthiness. My sense is that the kind of “inner conflict” that exists in this instance exists elsewhere, so it feels worth exploring. But I am open to looking at the concepts from many angles, so have at it if you feel so inclined.
 
We don't live in a meritocracy we live in a kleptocracy lol

I'm afraid the lunatics have taken over the asylum
 
muir said:
We don't live in a meritocracy we live in a kleptocracy lol

I'm afraid the lunatics have taken over the asylum
Click to expand...
Very true, and as your metaphor suggests, there is hope because they are still confined within. :bounce:
 
Wildfire said:
Very true, and as your metaphor suggests, there is hope because they are still confined within. :bounce:
Click to expand...

lol

they are working on space travel!
 
I think systems are built to favor the builders. It's something people have always done to leverage some advantage. They want you to play their game, and on their turf. The moment you acknowledge their rules/game/system, is the moment you acknowledge its/their worth, and thus the power they have over you.
 
[Of course we live in a meritocracy. When I started working at McDonald's in the late nineties, I was making $5.15/hr. Two years later, after demonstrating my willingness to work under extremely hostile conditions, enduring lessons on how to properly sweep the floor, and avoiding eating condiments on the job, lest I would be fired, I received not one, but two ten cent raises! If I would've stayed, I am sure I could've been a manager at $7.00/hour.

"Hey, I started out mopping the floor just like you guys. But now... now I'm washing lettuce. Soon I'll be on fries; then the grill. In a year or two, I'll make assistant manager, and that's when the big bucks start rolling in." ~Maurice] End sarcasm
 
Jimmers said:
[Of course we live in a meritocracy. When I started working at McDonald's in the late nineties, I was making $5.15/hr. Two years later, after demonstrating my willingness to work under extremely hostile conditions, enduring lessons on how to properly sweep the floor, and avoiding eating condiments on the job, lest I would be fired, I received not one, but two ten cent raises! If I would've stayed, I am sure I could've been a manager at $7.00/hour.

"Hey, I started out mopping the floor just like you guys. But now... now I'm washing lettuce. Soon I'll be on fries; then the grill. In a year or two, I'll make assistant manager, and that's when the big bucks start rolling in." ~Maurice] End sarcasm
Click to expand...
Sarcasm duly noted and appreciated... And I say that with no implication of sarcasm on my end. :wink:
 
SpookyMcWeirdo said:
I think systems are built to favor the builders. It's something people have always done to leverage some advantage. They want you to play their game, and on their turf. The moment you acknowledge their rules/game/system, is the moment you acknowledge its/their worth, and thus the power they have over you.
Click to expand...
I think this is very true, and in many ways it's like we're actually under many systems within systems, or powers within powers.
 
Wildfire said:
In what ways are we living in a “meritocracy” or “an economy of merit”? Or put another way, to what extent do we live in a system that focuses on our merit or worthiness, and how deep does this go? In what ways does this serve us? In what ways does it fall short? How conscious are we of our participation? And are there areas where society at large seems to participate unconsciously?

Some friends and I were discussing this concept recently, and at one point we ended up considering certain aspects of the resistance to health care reform (here in the United States) as examples of unconscious participation in an economy of merit. We were also considering that for many, the idea of intrinsic value just doesn’t exist, and we were exploring how this relates.

I know that for some the term “meritocracy” is going to have a political slant, but I’m posting this in the Philosophy and Religion section because I really want to explore it from this angle. Religion usually steps forward to make a declaration about our intrinsic value, but at the same time the religious can seem to get really hung up on merit and worthiness. My sense is that the kind of “inner conflict” that exists in this instance exists elsewhere, so it feels worth exploring. But I am open to looking at the concepts from many angles, so have at it if you feel so inclined.
Click to expand...

Meritocracy was originally a prejorative term for an order which didnt recognise intrinsic worth in individuals, it was introduced by academics who didnt like the idea and it was supposed to have dystopian overtones, like by its own lights Hitler's ethuenasia programmes were meritocratic, his own master race concept was meritocratic too but what was meritorious, ie ethnicity and ideology, may not have been considered meritorious in the sense most people consider or define merit to be.

The question for me is what is merit? I think there is intrinsic value and I think that resistance to things such as health reforms has more to do with ideas about desert than merit, although perhaps desert is believed to correspond to merit.

I think there's intrinsic worth, I also think there's a legitimate entitlement or desert, on the basis of a consistent right to life principle, however I think that while it's made possible by modern technics which are sufficient to supply everyones needs, it is insufficient to supply everyones greed (or stupidity if you consider addictions). Optimal consumption could and should survive the sorts of welfare reforms I support, ie towards asset based welfare and basic incomes, but maximal consumption couldnt and shouldnt.
 
Wildfire said:
In what ways are we living in a “meritocracy” or “an economy of merit”? Or put another way, to what extent do we live in a system that focuses on our merit or worthiness, and how deep does this go? In what ways does this serve us? In what ways does it fall short? How conscious are we of our participation? And are there areas where society at large seems to participate unconsciously?

Some friends and I were discussing this concept recently, and at one point we ended up considering certain aspects of the resistance to health care reform (here in the United States) as examples of unconscious participation in an economy of merit. We were also considering that for many, the idea of intrinsic value just doesn’t exist, and we were exploring how this relates.

I know that for some the term “meritocracy” is going to have a political slant, but I’m posting this in the Philosophy and Religion section because I really want to explore it from this angle. Religion usually steps forward to make a declaration about our intrinsic value, but at the same time the religious can seem to get really hung up on merit and worthiness. My sense is that the kind of “inner conflict” that exists in this instance exists elsewhere, so it feels worth exploring. But I am open to looking at the concepts from many angles, so have at it if you feel so inclined.
Click to expand...

Meritocracy was originally a prejorative term for an order which didnt recognise intrinsic worth in individuals, it was introduced by academics who didnt like the idea and it was supposed to have dystopian overtones, like by its own lights Hitler's ethuenasia programmes were meritocratic, his own master race concept was meritocratic too but what was meritorious, ie ethnicity and ideology, may not have been considered meritorious in the sense most people consider or define merit to be.

The question for me is what is merit? I think there is intrinsic value and I think that resistance to things such as health reforms has more to do with ideas about desert than merit, although perhaps desert is believed to correspond to merit.

I think there's intrinsic worth, I also think there's a legitimate entitlement or desert, on the basis of a consistent right to life principle, however I think that while it's made possible by modern technics which are sufficient to supply everyones needs, it is insufficient to supply everyones greed (or stupidity if you consider addictions). Optimal consumption could and should survive the sorts of welfare reforms I support, ie towards asset based welfare and basic incomes, but maximal consumption couldnt and shouldnt.
 
Lark said:
Meritocracy was originally a prejorative term for an order which didnt recognise intrinsic worth in individuals, it was introduced by academics who didnt like the idea and it was supposed to have dystopian overtones, like by its own lights Hitler's ethuenasia programmes were meritocratic, his own master race concept was meritocratic too but what was meritorious, ie ethnicity and ideology, may not have been considered meritorious in the sense most people consider or define merit to be.

The question for me is what is merit? I think there is intrinsic value and I think that resistance to things such as health reforms has more to do with ideas about desert than merit, although perhaps desert is believed to correspond to merit.

I think there's intrinsic worth, I also think there's a legitimate entitlement or desert, on the basis of a consistent right to life principle, however I think that while it's made possible by modern technics which are sufficient to supply everyones needs, it is insufficient to supply everyones greed (or stupidity if you consider addictions). Optimal consumption could and should survive the sorts of welfare reforms I support, ie towards asset based welfare and basic incomes, but maximal consumption couldnt and shouldnt.
Click to expand...
I really like what you’ve shared, especially the bolded parts.

When I was involved in the discussion that I mentioned in my original post, we allowed the word merit to be synonymous with desert, or any concept or measure of worthiness really. But we gravitated toward the word meritocracy because of its history of conflict with the concepts of intrinsic value.

Any thoughts on the pervasiveness of the principles of meritocracy negatively infecting areas of social growth or evolution?
 
I think merit is really a late concept and often a misnomer how it is used.

No one questions how meritorious someone with a legacy is for instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top