Monday, August 31, 2009

Meritocracy

In a post entitled "It's time to embrace American royalty," Glenn Greenwald comments on the news that George W. Bush's daughter, Jenna Hager Bush, has been hired by NBC's Today show:
We're obviously hungry to live with royal and aristocratic families so we should really just go ahead and formally declare it:

They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it's really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from. There's a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters....

[A]ll of the above-listed people are examples of America's Great Meritocracy, having achieved what they have solely on the basis of their talent, skill and hard work -- The American Way. By contrast, Sonia Sotomayor -- who grew up in a Puerto Rican family in Bronx housing projects; whose father had a third-grade education, did not speak English and died when she was 9; whose mother worked as a telephone operator and a nurse; and who then became valedictorian of her high school, summa cum laude at Princeton, a graduate of Yale Law School, and ultimately a Supreme Court Justice -- is someone who had a whole litany of unfair advantages handed to her and is the poster child for un-American, merit-less advancement. I just want to make sure that's clear.
Adding: An important step towards a more just society would be for our national dialogue to accept the idea that everyone benefits from all sorts of non-merited advantages both large and small and is burdened by all sorts of non-merited disadvantages both large and small (though some, of course, benefit a lot more than others). Any claim to meritocracy is fantasy. And that fact should enable rather than prevent us from getting down to the work of creating a more equal society.

Update: A few more thoughts on the subject that I found over at the Times' Opinionater Blog:

Adam Serwer at the American Prospect explains:
The right doesn’t mind privilege being retained, bywhatever means, within those groups that already have it, because it proves their theories about meritocracy. But when someone like Sonia Sotomayor goes from the South Bronx to Princeton valedictorian to the Supreme Court, it forces the question of how much people of privilege depend on their circumstances — their financial and social advantages — to succeed rather than their ability or intelligence. That’s uncomfortable for some people to think about, and it’s part of why Sonia Sotomayor provokes outrage over “merit,” while glaring examples of preferential treatment for the privileged do not.
Andrew Sullivan also responds to the "craven nepotism" in DC,
Late empires are known for several things: a self-obsessed, self-serving governing class, small over-reaching wars that bankrupt the Treasury, debt that balloons until retreat from global power becomes not a choice but a necessity, and a polity unable to address reasonably any of these questions — or how the increasing corruption of the media enables them all

1 comment:

  1. But what's the philosophical justification for why "meritocracy" is better than the alternative? If being born an heir or the son of a statesman is to win the genetic lottery, then to be born with intelligence, resourcefulness, resilience, and all the other qualities that Sonia Sotomayor has is to win the genetic lottery, too.

    In either case, society is rewarding those who were born "better" than others. And unless we're imagining a utopian communist civilization like Walden Two, or Krakatoa in William Pene du Bois' "21 Balloons," which seems implausible, then the more "just" society gets on the terms you argue for, the more's going to be a rule by the intelligent or capable. Do we justify that because we fancy ourselves members of that ingroup? Would we still believe it to be right if we did not?

    If we feel sorry for people who were born without the money, connections, upbringing, or educational opportunity to succeed in the world, then shouldn't we also feel sorry for people who were born without the intelligence to succeed in the world?

    On the other hand, if the argument is that people like Sotomayor make better leaders because they know what it is like to be poor, and will thus represent the poor better and help reduce economic inequality in the world, then that's a point that I'm more sympathetic to (even if either political wing of the Senate judiciary committee is not). But it's another conversation, and not one about "meritocracy."

    ReplyDelete