As I recall the original Rise of the Meritocracy book--and its been 25 years
or so since I read it--(it did leave an impression)--it wasn't meant to be a
Sociological treatise. Rather it was more in the style of an extended
critical and somewhat ironic essay from what would now be characterized as
an 'Old Labour' perspective.
Michael Young and others (Raymond Williams, Richard Hoggarth, Peter
Willmott) were exploring the values of traditional English working class
culture (solidarity) as the basis for a critique of US style
individualism/liberalism. I think that Tony Eagleton is the current
exemplar of this stream.
As I recall, Michael Young's major work was in Social Anthropology and
specifically exploring from a favorable (and romantic) anthropological
perspective traditional working communities in the urban UK of the 1950's.
Young wasn't arguing for a Meritocracy, rather he was arguing against it
from a Left Labour position.
Mike Gurstein
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Down with meritocracy
> At 03:36 PM 07/05/01 +0100, Keith Hudson wrote:
>
> >In using "meritocracy" in its wider meaning (not the meaning that Michael
> >Young says the system imposes), then we really do need more meritocracy
not
> >less.
>
> Meritocracy is such a perfect word for satire precisely because it can
seem
> to mean both one thing and its opposite(s). The narrow definition would be
> Young's equation of IQ + effort = merit. The "wider meaning" could be the
> Chelsea Manifesto's inclusion of qualities other than intelligence and
> education -- "their kindliness and their courage, their imagination and
> sensitivity, their sympathy and generosity . . ."
>
> Or it could signify the next step after the initial, *inevitable*,
> blasphemous commutation of the formula. First intelligence and effort
> themselves become retroactively defined by "meret" (a much needed word I
> have backformed from meretricious). Eventually other qualities can be
> explicitly recognized and valued as part of the definition -- flexibility,
> cheerfulness, eagerness, ruthlessness, unquestioning conformity, cynicism,
> even unadulterated lust and greed. Isn't that the implication of "go for
it"
> -- the smug notion that the single-minded pursuit of personal gain is
itself
> a virtue? And why stop there when "literally getting away with murder" can
> also be meretocratically redeemed by remuneration (perhaps in stock
options)?
>
> Although one could historically identify impulses in its direction, there
> has never been and never will be a meritocracy in the narrow sense of the
> equation. Like chastity, meritocracy is most genuine when it is discreet.
> Too much talk about meritocracy takes us into the bordello advertising its
> virgins.
>
> On the other hand, pursuing the wider meaning as laid out in the Chelsea
> Manifesto cuts through to the superfluity of evaluating and rewarding
people
> on whatever supposed merit. Will we administer kindliness and sensitivity
> tests in school? To ask the question is to uncover its absurdity.
>
> Saying we need more meritocracy is, in effect, like saying we need more
> hypocrisy. We have enough of that already, thank you. What we need is not
> more meritocracy but more democracy and more equality.
>
> Tom Walker
> Bowen Island, BC
> 604 947 2213
>
>
