The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?

A meritocratic system completely discourages a sense of community and belonging: “The more we view ourselves as self-made and self-sufficient, the less likely we are to care for the fate of those less fortunate than ourselves” (59). What is more, success is seen to be completely of the self, while the failure of others is very clearly their own fault. Meritocracy is “corrosive of commonality” (59). In the past few decades, especially in the realm of higher education, students have increasingly become convinced that their success is due to their own efforts alone—this is not a surprise considering the gauntlet of hoops and obstacles that must be jumped through in order to gain admission to even a halfway decent college.

Remuneration in the marketplace too gives this impression, as the idea that one’s wage is a matter purely of what is earned is an unchallenged assumption. What goes largely ignored is the question of what binds a community together. “Through much of the twentieth century,” for instance, “arguments over the welfare state were arguments about solidarity, about what we owe one another as citizens” (64). Questions of responsibility used to be at the forefront of political discourse, but they have faded lately. In discussions of welfare and state-sponsored assistance, the argument used to be—and still largely is—that assistance should be doled out according to need, prioritized in such a manner as to give the most help to those whose circumstances are outside their control.

Here, we have the twin concepts of the “rhetoric of responsibility and the rhetoric of rising” (65) that were the prime modes of conceiving of participation in the American Dream. Both these concepts contributed to the concretization of meritocracy: “both gestured toward the ideal of self-reliance and self-making […] If opportunities were equal, people would rise based on their efforts and talents, and their success would be the measure of their merit” (65, emphasis added). These concepts have been prevalent in American society for quite some time, and have been the favorite talking points of many US presidents. Barack Obama, for instance, used the rhetoric of rising and complementary language more than any other president in American history on account of its ability to inspire citizens from all backgrounds. Employing the language of rising was a direct attempt at emphasizing policies of non-discrimination.

When this language is employed, it directly contributes to the spread of meritocracy: “not only will people rise as far as their talents and hard work will take them; their success will be their own doing, and they will deserve the rewards that come their way” (68, emphasis added). In the lead up to the election of Donald Trump, however, this kind of language saw a steep decline in use as the populist backlash against elites and their use of this language began to spread. Trump, for his part, refused to use this rhetoric, employing language focused on a sharp division between winners and losers. The rhetoric of rising came to be seen as a liberal talking point: “Trump supporters resented liberals’ rhetoric of rising, not because they rejected meritocracy, but because they believed it described the prevailing social order” (73). In this sense, the entire concept was viewed with suspicion because it represented the social order that seemed to be directly contributing to their failure to succeed.

There are three main reasons that the language and reality of meritocracy have become toxic. First, widespread inequality makes this message seem fatalistic, especially for those at a disadvantage in the current social and political climate. Second, the insistence that a college degree is the dividing factor between success and failure demeans and diminishes The Dignity of Work which falls outside the need for specific academic credentials. Third, the ordinary citizen is disempowered by the technocratic order that insists on only the most highly educated and qualified being given power.

The fact of the matter is that “American faith in the ability to rise through effort and grit no longer fits the facts on the ground” (75). The reality is that economic mobility in America has never been more difficult, and many other countries allow for this kind of mobility in much wider areas with far greater ease. Unfortunately, most current politicians still act like this is not the case, and have insisted on confusing the facts with a dream or a hope: “If meritocracy is an aspiration, those who fall short can always blame the system; but if meritocracy is a fact, those who fall short are invited to blame themselves” (80). The pride and hubris this invites are one of the many reasons that the current climate has become so acrid and polarizing.