Meritocracy can be defined as a system adapted by a government or any other organization where appointments in filling positions are made depending on the demonstrated ability of the candidate and the talents inherent. According to Meritocracy, appointments should not be based on either the amount of wealth owned, family connections, social class, popularity, or friendship, among other related grounds, but rather on merit. Therefore, according to Meritocracy, the social differences that occur in society, including variations in wealth, occupation of various posts in society, and the social status of persons in society, are purely determined by their respective competitiveness and the exploitation of their talents. Thus positions, social status, and responsibilities in society are earned.
Meritocracy is perceived as an opposing force to affirmative action, which advocates for giving preference to a certain group in society to another in an attempt to correct historical inequalities in society and being making the workforce of organizations reflective of the society in which they reside. Affirmative action tends to empower the historically discriminated set of groups in an attempt to promote equality in society (Curry 1996).
The notion of Meritocracy can be challenged as the cause of structural inequalities in society in the sense that the socially disadvantaged are never given a chance to reorganize in also becoming competitive like the rest of the society members. Otherwise, the competitive member takes up the responsibilities, having the disadvantaged being just spectators in society waiting for all to be done by a few elite. The responsibilities that are taken up by a few elite benefit them either economically or in improving their social status in society because some responsibilities come with economic gains and some level of honor in society. The responsibilities taken over by a few elites in society include job opportunities and governance of institutions which places them at either a higher level of living standard or instills some kind of authority in them (Joseph, Bowles and Durlauf 2000). Therefore Meritocracy can be seen as a cause of inequalities that are currently in society because the uncompetitive members of society were never given responsibilities as they did not have the qualification to meet the roles that come with those responsibilities, thus lagging behind socially and economically because they are not in a position on which they can earn honor or economic gain from these responsibilities other than active participation.
Meritocracy can also be perceived as an accelerator of more inequality cases in society, and this can be argued from the perspective of exposure to work challenges. Work challenges normally give an enabling environment for individuals to perfect their skills and discover new ways of doing things that makes them more specialized than those who have never been on such a job. On the rise of other job opportunities, the persons with such job-related experiences normally stand at a better chance than those who have never been on that job because of the gained experience if Meritocracy was to apply because they are more qualified than those who have never been on the job. This situation is likely to worsen inequality levels in society because those who already have been given more and for those who do not have remain in their state because they are not competent enough to take over as per to the justifications of Meritocracy (Kaus and Danek 1995). The persons who have never been exposed to work challenges are likely to lag behind, while those who had a chance will be moving to higher social status in society both economically and socially as they are expected to earn more from the increased expertise and maintaining greater honor in society depending on the responsibilities allocated to them. Therefore it’s arguable that even the inexperienced individuals need to be given a chance so as to be exposed to work challenges in the process of them building their capacities so as to become as competitive as others. Thus Meritocracy is a way of worsening the structural inequalities that are in society.
Meritocracy can also be seen as a means of sustaining the current trend of inequality in society because the less qualified members are likely not to get opportunities that are to enable them to uplift their living standards on the reason that they are not qualified and if they think they are qualified then there is a group that is better than them. Therefore with the continual application of Meritocracy, there is a likelihood of not correcting the impact of historical discrimination, which lead to the current level of inequality. Historical discrimination may be grounded on either race or gender, in that the past discrimination has drawn lines on equity along with racial difference or sex. This is evident in the United States of America during the slavery times where the African Americans were discriminated to working for the white Americans in the name of slavery which made the African Americans lag behind, and which is reflected in the current inequality levels in the United States of America, where the African Americans are at the low end of the economic command in the United States (Shapiro 2004). This situation will last for many years in the United States of America as long as Meritocracy is to be applied on the reason that the white Americans are likely to influence much because of their economic mighty (Conley 1999). Therefore the application of Meritocracy is not a good thing as it will sustain the historical inequalities as the initially discriminated will never be competitive enough even if they were given freedom.
The application of Meritocracy is limited to the accuracy of setting standards to be used in choosing candidates who are likely to perform some tasks better than others. There is a norm in meritocratic systems that the most competitive candidates are ones to be entrusted to certain responsibilities, but the question of the accuracy of the standards used to evaluate the candidates is sometimes ignored, and in most cases, the standards may be set arbitrary and in this case by a human being with limited knowledge given the theories of human cognition. There are possibilities that the most suitable candidate will be locked out because of the fault standard of evaluating the most suitable candidate. Some standards of evaluation normally involve the sex type, the age of the candidates, the physical features of the candidate, education level, and job experiences, among other standards. For example, there are jobs that use sex as a standard to measure competence, but at the same time, the very job can be done equivalently well and even better by a person belonging to sex that is believed to be weak (McCall 2001). This situation will give an advantage to the sex that is preferred to the other, making the preferred sex’s social status and economic status better than they believed to be weak sex, hence promoting inequality in society on unjustifiable grounds.
Women are the most disadvantaged when it comes to such discrimination as they are believed to be weak characters. Therefore, it can be seen from this reasoning that some standards of evaluating competence are full of reasonableness; that is, they are not justifiable from a logical perspective. Otherwise, they are arbitrary. The issue of using age as a standard to measure competence is unrealistic because, at times, younger people can do better than old people in tasks that are believed to be best suited for the old and vice versa; thus it’s an invalid standard that may be used in Meritocracy (Cahau and Zylbergy 2004 ). Education level also at times does not determine the competence of a candidate on jobs where common knowledge is needed, and job experience does not guarantee that a new entrant in the fields would not perform better than individuals who have been there for years. Therefore the standards used in Meritocracy are never accurate, and for that reason, they are likely to cause unjustifiable levels of inequality in an attempt to choose the best candidates.
Meritocracy is based on the concept of rewarding talents and hard work, although it’s indirectly represented on its definition as allocation of responsibilities as per to merit. Meritocracy can be justifiable from the deontological perspective, but it’s unacceptable per the utilitarian school of thought that advocates for doing to your neighbor what you expect him or her to do for you. According to utilitarianism, an action is perceived to be right if it promoted the general good and happiness in society, and its wrong if it is harmful to society. Despite Meritocracy’s effort to award hard work and talents, it seems to be quite unfair in situations where the current incompetence is due to historical discriminations. The persons who are perceived being incompetent could have been better like the ones currently perceived to be better if it was not of the historical discrimination along the lines of race, for example. The Historical discrimination may have disadvantaged them from accessing some facilities for capacity building, like in the case of United States segregation of Schools, where the whites’ schools were better equipped than the Blacks’ schools (Hayward 1986). The current state of the disadvantaged was predetermined by certain historical discrimination, which is not their wish but a situation that denied them a chance of developing themselves. The persons who believe to be competent are competent not because of their with but because of historical circumstances that favored their development; otherwise, the opposite could have happened and them being on the disadvantaged state, therefore.
Meritocracy should be limited to some degree because one should be treating the other as he could have wished to be treated when in such a situation, promoting the common good in society and enhancing happiness in totality by correcting the predetermined inequalities. Therefore, Meritocracy is not just if the happiness and welfare of the rest of the community was the major issue. Thus it is a kind of individualism that is supported by the deontologists (Tangwa 1996 ).
It should be understood that in the society that we are staying in, every person is trying to survive, and it does not matter by what means the desire is to see a new day. Thus persons will engage in all sorts of activities to earn them a living. They are adapting Meritocracy as a system; it’s likely to provoke the social order in society in the sense that the persons who are perceived to be incompetent to be entrusted to responsibilities in society, which will, in turn, support their living are likely to turn wild on them trying to survive and the group that will be affected are the persons who have been privileges to hold some responsibilities because of their abilities. Individuals with fewer qualifications are the persons who engage much in criminal activities in an attempt to meet their daily needs (Bean 2003). Therefore, if low crime rates are to be expected in a society, then Meritocracy is not the best because the unqualified persons are certain to engage in criminal activities, which will place the whole society at risk and, more especially, the haves(Bedeu 1997). The only way to stop such criminal activities is by absorbing the unqualified also into responsibilities and train them when on the job so as to restrain them from engaging in unfair means of surviving.
There are some special cases where the application of Meritocracy should be limited, like in the case of veterans in the United States. The United States Veterans fought for the country in foreign wars because they were patriotic to their country, and it was for the common good. The active participation in foreign wars restored the peace that everybody is enjoying currently, and it was an act for the common good. After the war, most of these veterans had got disabilities, and on top of that, they had wasted their precious time participating in military activities at the expense of developing their capacities. Now that wars are over, they have come back home, and they are expected to lead their lives like any other citizens. The question that arises is that they should be given jobs even though they do not have the qualifications because they had wasted their time in the military for the common good. Meritocracy system is certain to trash these veterans, thus it’s never the best at all cases as some cases need special judgment, although it may be justifiable under the deontological perspective, which seem to be rather inhuman. The veterans need to be given jobs as a reward for their patriotism and also for their generosity that costed them a lot, thus do them as they did for you.
Conclusion. Meritocracy is a system that attempts to award responsibilities according to merit. It can be seen as a means of trying to increase efficiencies in the organization by absorbing only qualified candidates. It’s limited to the reason that the work force in organizations are never a reflective of society any more as it will promote inequality in society, as normally responsibilities are accompanied by both increased social status and economic gains too, thus having the less competent becoming disadvantaged. Meritocracy is only best suited for technical jobs where complicated technicalities are involved because unqualified persons are likely either to put themselves in danger like in the case of handling machines or unpleasant results will be expected. Meritocracy can be perceived as the cause of inequality, the accelerator of inequality and the sustaining factor of inequality in society. meritocracy can be justifiable from the deontological perspective, but it is not good as per to the utilitarians as it does promote the common good in society because it benefits only some elites in society.
Bibliography
Bean P., 2003, Crime, Taylor and Francis Publishing Company, pp 33
Bedeu H., 1997, The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies, Oxford University Press, United States, pp 108.
Chau P. and Zylbergy A., 2004, Labor Economics, MIT Press, pp 217.
Conley D., 1999, Being Black, Living in Red: Race ,Wealth and Social Policy in America, University of California Press, pp 55.
Curry E. , 1996, The Affirmative Action, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, pp 16.
Hayward C. , 1986, Segregation in US Public Schools: Desegregation and Segregation, University of Wisconsin – Madison, pp 7.
Joseph K., Bowles S. and Durlauf S. ,2000, Meritocracy and Economic Inequality, Princeton University Press, pp 2.
Kaus M. and Danek K. , 1995, The End of Inequality, Basic Books Publishing company, Chapter Five, pp 58.
McCall L. ,2001, Complex Inequality: Gender, Class and Race in new Economy, Rout ledge Publishing Company, pp 5.
McNamee J. and Miller K. , 2004, The Meritocracy Myth. Web.
Shapiro M. ,2004, The Hidden costs of being an African American: How wealth perpetuates inequality, Oxford University Press, pp 102.
Tangwa B., 1996, Democracy and Meritocracy: Philosophy Essays and Talks, Galda and Wilch , pp 38.
Utilitarians Website; Introduction to utilitarianism, Web.
United States Office of Personnel Management, 2007, Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program. Web.