tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post365171430759831659..comments2024-03-28T00:11:33.489-04:00Comments on bensozia: Christopher Lasch on the Woes of MeritocracyJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-4352559800066705972015-10-04T16:45:39.778-04:002015-10-04T16:45:39.778-04:00Another major failing of the "Right To Rise&q...Another major failing of the "Right To Rise" is that the people who champion focus solely on the fact that it is <i>possible</i> to go from rags to riches, with a complete disregard for the matters of how <i>likely</i> that is, and <i>what goes into</i> achieving such a climb.<br /><br />The first issue is probability. Even if you are the most hardworking, most meritocratically "deserving" person possible, achieving meteoric "success" is still going to be overwhelmingly dependant on being very, very lucky.<br /><br />Part of the problem is basic math. Huge amounts of people want to achieve "success", but our society simply can't support more than a tiny fraction of those numbers as elites. And while the argument goes that these limited "slots" breed competition which weeds out the least deserving, the simple fact is that out of, say, dozens of equally deserving individuals, perhaps one will find success. The others don't fail because of any particular lack of merit - they fail because of a lack of luck in drawing lots.<br /><br />The second issue is a flawed measuring of "merit". Our society and economy elevates people to elite position based far less on their personal qualities and far more on their ability to generate money for those who elevate them.<br /><br />For example, no one would ever argue that Justin Beiber is the model of an upstanding individual with great personal merit - he was just a kid with a decent singing voice and appearance whom some clever businessmen realized they could condition and groom to be incredible profitable for them. His only real merit was that he was marketable. But in our society, that's all you need to become rich and famous. So long as your can help make a fortune for someone who is already in a position of power, you can receive your own lesser fortune in return for lining their pockets.<br /><br />Simply put, our "meritocracy" values the wrong merits. No one has ever got ahead in our society by being kind, humble, generous, wise, patient, understanding, magnanimous, clever, diplomatic, and also utterly unmarketable.<br /><br />But plenty of awful people, with absolutely monstrous personalities, philosophies, and personal failings, have been elevated to stations of extreme wealth, power, and prestige simply because they were able to game the system - often through ruthlessly exploiting others.<br /><br />I do find i agree with your point about meritocracy being in some ways worse than aristocracy, in the specific context of the elite being held to higher standards of behavior. There is no expectation of civic duty, of a responsbility to promote the wellbeing of those less fortunate than themselves. Heck, the rich and powerful in our country are not even held responsible for their own actions, being able to throw money at essentially any problem at all, even legal and criminal abuses, until the problem just goes away.<br /><br />Some might argue this is just one of the tribulations of living in a capitalistic society - that money is king, and everything musy eventually revolve around it. And yet I can't help but think of the Venetians, who were a people entirely devoted to mercantilism, trade, and wealth, but they still managed to place strict limitations and demanding responsibilities on their leaders and elite members of society.<br /><br />The office of the Doge of Venice was a position of incredible grandeur, comfort, and importance, and yet it came with grave duties and tight restrictions on the powers of the holder. The Venetian navy was the lifeblood of the republic, and being an Admiral was one of the highest honors possible to hold - and yet perhaps because of the importannce of naval success at every turn, negligence and failure were deemed grounds for immediate execution of an admiral. Venetian law was sometimes draconian and unforgiving, but it was at least fairly applied to everyone, regardless of wealth or station.<br /><br />G. Verlorennoreply@blogger.com