Meritocracy...
Oh, how this damned concept has enclasped me for years and years and years! Merriam Webster dictionary tells us that meritocracy is “ a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit”. There are many questions I have looking at this definition. What are these positions of success? What is success, who defines it? How is success connected to power? How are the abilities demonstrated? Who defines merit? And ultimately, who chooses and moves the said merit-adorned people into such positions? Most of my life, I have operated under the assumption that if I “did well”, than I'll “succeed”. In many ways, I have “succeeded”. I have excelled at school, college, workplace. I have been praised and rewarded. The nagging questions, however, have always been at the back of my mind. What is success? Why, even though others tell me I succeeded, I feel like an absolute failure? Why do I set up goals? Why do I feel empty once I reach these goals? Why am I neurotically driven to invent new goals, always higher, faster, louder, more? Why cannot I truly appreciate what everyone else is telling me to appreciate?.. Much of this might have been and is but an unnecessary overindulgent introspection afforded by privilege. But at the core of many of my questions lies a deeply heartfelt desire for truth, resistance to accept the oversimplified view of the vast complex world of human perception. Meritocracy is based on a false equation of luck and privilege to individual achievement. Simply saying, “Well, whoever is best at the job should get it” is so far removed from reality of luck egalitarianism that it comes across as dismissive. There is nothing harmful in acknowledging individual differences. We, people, are so imperceivably diverse that putting tiny neat packages around our identities is futile. However, we share enough of universality to build a culture of consent. What is the difference between the culture of merit and the culture of consent? Merit, by its nature, is far too abstract to be meaningfully examined and applied at a large scale. Yes, there might be academic consensus about what the necessary human traits are to be sought after in a particular field, but I would think that consensus is much more compatible with consent: both are based on fundamental agreement, not complacency. Merit is based on value judgement. What is seen as meritable by me, can arguably be of no value to another. If we begin to discuss our value judgements, we inevitably become entangled in theory, and sooner than later may have to respectfully agree to disagree. Which ultimately is a culture of consent. We cannot announce that such and such has gained whatever it is they have accumulated is given to them due to their high value. The question of who decides upon the value is too incessant. Being the judge of merit is the most ruthless, thankless and, paradoxically, valueless job ever. If one is to decide what is of universal value, than one is set to ruffle someone's feathers. Some may argue that we do employ meritocracy in many of our decisions. Don't we want the best doctors to operate the injured, the best teachers to educate our children? We might want that, we might wish upon stars for this to happen; but what do we do to achieve that? Let a bunch of self-proclaimed specialists rule out who is worthy and who is not? I am not even going to touch upon the inevitable disparity between the underprivileged and marginalized and the so-called powers that be. I am going to pretend that somehow, all of us are judged by merit alone, and we are faced, let's say, with a commission of people who supposedly are where they are due to immense value they have added to our collective human development. And let's also pretend that the said commission is as free from bias and as objective as humanely possible. Now, let's imagine that you and I have achieved, due to talent and hard work, the same levels of prominence in a particular field, and now are vying for this “position of success, power, and influence” that we faced at the beginning of this discussion. So, the aforementioned commission will have to choose one of us based on merit alone. There are so many variables to consider. The process must be excruciatingly tedious. And let's say there is not much identifable, measurable difference between the two of us. What is to be done? Should we be set to fight one another to death? Obviously, I am oversimplifying here. But what is meritocracy if not another justification for ruthless competitiveness of the capitalist world? What is it, if not a primitive attempt to excuse the cut-throat ideology of the pseudo darwinist “survival of the fittest” doctrine? Meritocracy has been proven to be a myth, even in liberal philosophical discourse it has disreputed itself due to its unfailing desire for sameness and meaningless equalisation. However, it is still alive and present in much of our subconscious decision making process. And this is where I have found the culture of consent to be of more help. The questions I ask nowadays are not built around the aforementioned universal values, which I must admit, I am still drawn to. I try to ask myself simply if my decisions are beneficial, and examine closely whether this benefit imposes risk to another. The principle of consent, therefore is of great aid, because if I am not sure, I can simply ask another, to see whether the supposed benefit of my own will in any way or form infringe upon the freedoms of others. And for most of day to day operations, this is enough. And for the bigger issues, for more grandiose plans, I believe there never is a universally right answer. But I assert that basing our decision making process on the presupposed value judgements is far too limiting, and moreover, is far too tangled up in religious morality to be of true merit (haha). Freeing oneself from the preconceived “right” endeavours of achieving defined by who knows who “merit” and value has helped me open myself to a more nuanced understanding of the human world and a more compassionate exchange of ideas with others.