In this article Pete Robertson of Edinburgh Napier University discusses the issue of merit. Should we be trying to create a meritocratic society or are there big problems with this idea?

Meritocracy seems a very attractive way to run a society.  Those who achieve the most, through hard work and talent, get the best rewards. It sounds both rational and fair, the best kind of social justice. 

Career guidance seems a very natural fit for this world view.  If we succeed in promoting equality of opportunity, we can help people apply their talents and navigate pathways to success, where through hard work, they can achieve the rewards that they deserve. 

The tyranny of merit

In his book ‘The Tyranny of Merit’ and the associated TED Talk , American philosopher Michael Sandel has questioned meritocracy. Whilst acknowledging its appeal, he argues it is an ideology which has a dark side. Meritocracy represents a justification for social arrangements that have led to rising inequality in the 21^st Century.

The winners in society may work very hard to get there, but attribute their success entirely to their own efforts, neglecting the enormous importance of the family, economic and educational advantages they may have built on. They come to believe they deserve their rewards and look down on the losers in society, who inevitably develop resentment. For Sandel, meritocracy has been one of the drivers of political division.

He argues that meritocracy has the potential to be corrosive to civic society. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, meritocracy provides a justification for individualism – a society based on this ideology sends a message to people that it is morally good to prioritise your own interests.  Secondly, meritocracy provides a justification for inequality. This is most apparent in the idea of the ‘Great American Dream’, a belief that anyone can be successful if they try hard enough – thus encouraging the population to accept very high levels of economic inequality.  This is not a uniquely American experience; to a greater or lesser extent meritocracy is a value system at work throughout the Western world. 

In reality of course, democratic societies may espouse meritocratic principles, but fall far short of its ideals. There are enormous barriers to social mobility. Sandel argues that even if a hypothetical society were to successfully implement a truly meritocratic system, then there would still be inequality, social tensions, and a neglect of the common good. 

Issues for careers professionals

Sandel has a message that is uncomfortable for career development practitioners. The idea that we might be part of the problem, perpetuating structural inequalities in society, is nothing new; sociologists made this challenge in the 1970s. In response we became more aware of class, and we began to work on promoting social mobility. As a profession we are deeply involved in providing guidance to enable people from disadvantaged groups to gain higher qualifications, for example through widening participation to higher education.

But this is not unproblematic. Sandel suggests that credentialism is the last remaining socially acceptable prejudice. Qualifications provide meritocratic evidence to justify social inequalities. This means the career development profession could usefully reflect on the extent to which it reinforces status hierarchies in society through its approach to educational guidance, especially where that guidance encourages people to climb the academic status hierarchy.

It is possible to come to a balanced viewpoint.  Indeed, Sandel’s own viewpoint is moderate, he does not argue that there is no place in society for meritocracy, only that we should beware its ideological dangers. There continues to be a place for career development practitioners to work on projects to support social mobility. For as long as we have academic hierarchies, it is necessary; but it is not sufficient. 

We need to rethink how we promote non-graduate roles. We must recognise and value the social and economic importance of occupations that do not require a university degree. Many of these roles are essential to the functioning of society. This was thrown into sharp focus by the pandemic when ‘key workers’ did the critical work that enabled us to keep going. We show respect to these occupations by giving them as much access to our promotional power as the universities and the professions. And collectively we have a voice that can add to the calls for decent work and decent pay for the labour that underpins the fabric of our civic society.