The Myth of Meritocracy

BY SOFO ARCHON

Think working hard is all it takes to succeed?

Think again.

In my latest video, I dismantle the myth of meritocracy—and reveal why believing it might be the very thing holding you back.

Transcript

One of the greatest myths that many people believe in is that of meritocracy—that is, that in our system people are rewarded based on their talent and effort. They believe that as long as one is talented enough and, most importantly, hard-working enough, one is bound to become successful, whether financially or politically or both.

Now, this belief in meritocracy is tremendously harmful to society. But before I go on into that, I would first like to explain why it is a myth, or a lie.

At the core of the idea of meritocracy lies the belief that everyone in this system starts from the same point on an even playing field, and that through competition and sharpening one’s skills, some people rise higher than others—some people become successful while others fail. Those who succeed are considered to deserve their success because they earned it through their merit, while those who failed, those who did not do well, deserve the position in the social order that they are in. They deserve failure.

Now, anyone with a little bit of brain can see that this belief is bullshit. Anyone who is not completely and utterly brainwashed can see through it. Because, obviously, nobody is starting from the same point on the same level. Take the example of a child born into a wealthy family and a child born into an impoverished family. One is going to receive adequate, nutritious food that the other might be lacking, which is going to differently affect their cognitive development. One is going to live in a safe environment, while the other likely not—it’s likely going to experience a lot of insecurity, stress, and trauma. One is going to have access to education and healthcare, while the other not, or not as much.

So all those things that are required for one to be healthy and develop one’s intelligence and skills are determined by luck to a large extent—not completely, but to a large extent. But the belief in meritocracy is very comforting, especially to the rich, because first of all it makes them feel good about themselves. It boosts their ego. It makes them feel important, special, talented. It makes them feel that they deserve their wealth and their success. And it also removes any sense of responsibility towards the poor. “This is how things are supposed to be. This is the natural order of things. The poor do not deserve any better. Why do anything about them? Why should I do anything about them?”

And the poor can find a sense of hope in the belief of meritocracy. That is why, for example, in the US so many people believe in the American Dream—because it makes them think that they can escape their painful circumstances. Yes, they might be suffering right now, but if they work a little bit harder or a little bit longer, they can become successful and powerful.

It was John Steinbeck who said that the poor no longer believe that they are exploited and oppressed, but they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. But by believing that we have meritocracy, by accepting that it is only hard work that determines who is successful and who is not, they basically let their own exploitation and oppression perpetuate. They, in a sense, unconsciously support it. And unless we break free from that myth, we are not going to do anything to change the structures and systems in place that inevitably result in inequality.

People are focused only on themselves. They think: “If anyone can become successful, then I am to blame. I have to change. I have to work harder.” But they do not think about why they are impoverished in the first place, and why so many people work so hard and are still poor.

Oftentimes, examples of rich people who were once poor are given to illustrate that meritocracy is real. But those individuals are the exception. For every one such person who has succeeded, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands have failed—inevitably, because the system is a nearly zero-sum game. One’s success depends on the failure of others. This is how it goes.

Now, even if we could make meritocracy a reality—even if we could implement it in our society and make it work—I do not think it would be a good idea. Because meritocracy justifies inequality and hierarchy. In a healthy society, a decent, healthy, happy life would be the birthright of everyone. People would not need to deserve to have enough food, to have shelter, to have access to education and healthcare. Those would be their birthright, just like it is our birthright to breathe.

Our beautiful planet does have enough resources for everyone to live happily and healthily. And we do have the technical and scientific know-how to live in a world of abundance; a world where everyone has enough to satisfy their needs. It is only the competitive system that we are living in that prevents that from happening.

So, one’s well-being should not be a reward based on one’s merit—it should be our birthright. And when we change the system, when people start working together, when they collaborate and share resources fairly, then yes, those who contribute more to the well-being of society—instead of outcompeting others as we try to do in our current society—are going to be rewarded, in a sense, because people are going to respect and appreciate them more. That would be the reward: that they feel the love and appreciation of their community.

In such a society, people will still be working hard, but not to outcompete others, not to rise at the expense of others—but to benefit everyone. They will work hard for the common good.