One of Alain's main arguments was that the "kinder, gentler" philosophy of success should partly be based on the negative implications of meritocracy, i.e. "if you are at the bottom, you deserve to be there and thus you're a looser". But to meritocracy's defense -- isn't it more fair to say that "if you are at the bottom, you can with an effort pull yourself out of there"? And thus "merit" a better position in the social hierarchy?
For me, once anyone at the bottom make the slightest effort to rise, they are instantly rising in social hierarchy. Thus, it's all up to themselves, and it's all based on a choice. Make a decision, and merit follows.
I'm not sure what I want to say with this argument. But somehow, the criticism forwards meritocracy seemed a little shallow in the talk.
One distinction that is useful is looking at things in absolute terms or in terms of rankings. In a ranking system, someone is always going to come out the winner, and someone on the bottom. At the Tour de France, someone wins, a bunch of other guys don't, and someone comes in last, even though they are all extremely talented and fast cyclists. In business, someone might make the most money, but most people doing good work create value for society, and increase total wealth, without it necessarily being at the cost of someone else.
In other words, ranking systems and contests are zero sum games, whereas plenty of other things are not.
status is a zero sum game, while the economy is not. one can't generally create status without lowering the status of those around you, the same is not true for wealth.
There's a great cartoon about how status is zero-sum, but technological improvement is not: Two voices come from a futuristic building, complaining that no matter how much technological process, not everyone is happy, because their happiness is based on being "better" than others, and not on absolute improvement.
"Yeah. And that's where we come in," complains one voice sadly.
"But on the other hand, in what other era could a toaster and a coffee pot even be having this conversation?" reasons the other.
Is that realy so? Can we create system where person A is realy good at X, and person B is really good at Y, and thus both are respected (and respecting each other)?
In other words, can we make satuts into a partially-ordered set?
It is easy to interpret some of what he said as a criticism of meritocracy, but I don't believe there was any. I think what he was trying to say is that meritocracy is great, but we often use the concept to justify cruel attitudes or judgments.
Good arguments. Anything taken to the extreme is bound to have negative implications, including meritocracy.
I would disagree about how much choice we have once you are down and out.
I would like to think otherwise but I'm where I am because of where I was born, my family, friends and circumstances. May be some choices I've made here and there might have made a difference.
On the other hand, I've know so many people who were much smarter than I will ever be, end up in bad social standing because of the things I've mentioned like family.and circumstances.
One of Alain's main arguments was that the "kinder, gentler" philosophy of success should partly be based on the negative implications of meritocracy, i.e. "if you are at the bottom, you deserve to be there and thus you're a looser". But to meritocracy's defense -- isn't it more fair to say that "if you are at the bottom, you can with an effort pull yourself out of there"? And thus "merit" a better position in the social hierarchy?
For me, once anyone at the bottom make the slightest effort to rise, they are instantly rising in social hierarchy. Thus, it's all up to themselves, and it's all based on a choice. Make a decision, and merit follows.
I'm not sure what I want to say with this argument. But somehow, the criticism forwards meritocracy seemed a little shallow in the talk.