Is meritocracy simply another form of elitism?

Do you think that the best possible government, or that the best company, should be run by the smartest in society? It’s certainly what Plato thought, and he outlined his ideas about governance in?The Republic, arguing that those with the best education are also the most just, and therefore the best fit to run things. Having a deeper and more cultivated knowledge of reality, intelligent people grasp ideas more quickly and are better equipped to identify problems and offer more effective solutions. On the contrary, for Plato, ignorance and a lack of culture lead to barbarism and disorder.

Plato’s social structure was a pyramid. The wise men occupied the top, at the next level were the soldiers, and at the bottom the workers. Furthermore, women had no rights and slaves were an essential part of the economy.?

Ignoring the autocratic nature of society according to Plato, would you agree that our rulers should also be the most intelligent among us? Imagine if pre-election debates included intelligence tests, general knowledge tests, and other exercises that would reveal the intellectual, and even managerial, capabilities of the candidates. Would you use this information to decide who to vote for??

The truth is that, regardless of whether such information is available, experience shows that many of us do not vote based on rational criteria, and are instead motivated by other factors that have nothing to do with the candidates’ intelligence.

Most of us would accept that that intelligence implies better reasoning ability, and therefore results in more expert and potentially successful decisions. And most of the highly regarded politicians down the ages have usually been possessed of attributes that are associated with intelligence such as good communication skills, vision, prudence or gravitas. In this regard, some studies show that most US presidents have above-average IQs, with John Quincy Adams and Thomas Jefferson leading the way. Logically, the race for the presidency tests all the attributes generally associated with wisdom.?

The idea of a government of the wise seems meritocratic, the recognition of people who exercise their abilities, generally intellectual, and achieve results that make them worthy of the top prize. Meritocracy has been the alternative for organizing democratic societies, as well as for distinguishing and rewarding the contribution of citizens, at least since the French Revolution of 1789, replacing aristocratic regimes where the distribution of goods was determined by birth. In his 2021 book?The Aristocracy of Talent, journalist and writer Adrian Wooldridge argues that meritocracy is still the best of the available alternatives, despite being the target of much criticism.

His definition of meritocracy goes beyond the autocratic approach formulated by Plato, and includes the most relevant contributions that liberal philosophy has been incorporating since the Enlightenment.

"A meritocratic society combines four qualities which are each in themselves admirable. First, it prides itself on the extent to which people can get ahead in life on the basis of their natural talents. Second, it tries to secure equality of opportunity by providing education for all. Third, it forbids discrimination on the basis of race and sex and other irrelevant characteristics. Fourth, it awards jobs through open competition rather than patronage and nepotism".

This liberal ideal of meritocracy has recently been questioned from two different sides.?

Firstly, from a radical liberal position, which, in view of the increase in social inequality, and in particular racial discrimination—conceived as structural, embedded in social institutions—maintains that meritocracy perpetuates the privileges of the wealthier classes. One of the best-known figures in this movement is Michael Sandel, whose 2020 best-seller?The Tyranny of Merit?argues that access to the best US universities has been distorted, giving admission priority to candidates related to "legacy", for example, the children of graduates or donors. In addition, he believes that there is an unavoidable relationship between access to resources or having grown up in a prosperous environment and having a better education or one’s talent nurtured. In his opinion, it would be more equitable to select students through a lottery than through the current system.

Writing from a communitarian perspective, Daniel Markovits’?The Meritocracy Trap?also criticizes how access to prestigious universities and the labor market favors the scions of the wealthy. His arguments, and some of his proposals, are similar to those of Sandel. In his opinion, access to the most prestigious universities should be broadened to allow the entry of young people from a wide range of backgrounds, as well as strengthening the labor market for mid-skilled workers.

Curiously, the initiative to promote the labor segments most affected by globalization and the outplacement of mid-skilled jobs is also shared by the other group of the detractors of meritocracy, conservative populists. The arguments put forward by their representatives may be fallacious, but are now part of public discourse. The targets of their attacks are mainly intellectual elites, historical political parties and the advocates of progress, globalization and sustainability. These populists lambast meritocracy as the system that has favored the rise of technocrats, entrepreneurs and consequently globalization, and thus the displacement of jobs to developing countries.

Wooldridge uses his dialectical skills to deploy a wide range of arguments, dismantling both sides’ attacks on meritocracy. Aware that meritocracy needs to be renewed, and above all that it must respond to critiques based on communitarianism, he puts forward proposals that I summarize below, at the risk of simplifying the sophisticated arguments he uses.

Firstly, the need for universal, quality education from pre-school (kindergarten) level. As he explains, the early stages of personality development, from infancy, are crucial for acquiring skills, fostering behavioral habits, inculcating virtues and awakening interest in knowledge. It has been proven that countries that pay special attention to the early stages of education achieve better aggregate results in all the following stages of their citizens' education. Education is the best instrument for equality, and it is more effective if it is implemented early on.

Secondly, the use of IQ-related tests to select the beneficiaries of scholarships and study grants, regardless of their social background, so as to include the largest number of people. In return, the recipients of these benefits would commit themselves to work for the state for a period of their professional career, contributing to the improvement of the public sector. Here we see the connection between Wooldridge and Plato.

However, it is worth noting that ever since the first attempts to analyze and measure intelligence, there has been speculation about what determines a higher IQ, whether it is primarily the result of genetics, environment or education. The "nature vs. nurture" debate is still very much alive, but what is decisive is that all the factors mentioned above contribute, to varying degrees, to the development of intelligence. On the other hand, cognitive psychology has shown that there are different forms of intelligence, that sometimes emotional intelligence is more decisive than analytical intelligence for personal success, and that in any case, even defining intelligence is a controversial exercise.

• Wooldridge also calls for a moral regeneration of leaders in all types of social institutions, from politics to business to academia. His recommendation is enigmatic, because advocates of meritocracy, such as Stephen Pinker, often believe in the idea of moral progress as well. I understand that he is referring to promoting the principles of professional deontology and good citizenship, as well as the ideals of the culture of sustainability, which is especially prevalent among millennials.?
• Similarly, Wooldridge??proposes strengthening vocational training, so as to offer more opportunities to segments of workers who have been left behind in the digital economy. Perhaps this proposal could be complemented by the need for continuous training and learning, which is very much in line with a meritocratic approach and the need for renewed personal effort throughout one's career.

Wooldridge’s conclusion is that the best way to defend meritocracy and combat its critics is to strengthen meritocratic institutions in society. Goethe's maxim seems particularly applicable here: "If you want to feel the satisfaction of your own merit, you must concede merit to the world.”

--------------------

You may visit my INSTAGRAM account here