The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?

The precise origins of the concept of meritocracy are disputed, with some placing the intellectual roots in ancient Greece (in the writings of Plato, especially The Republic), while others see the seeds of the concept in the early works of Asian philosophy (specifically Confucius). While definitions abound in their nuance and implications, the general definition of meritocracy is found in the term’s etymology: strength and rule founded on merit, or what one has earned. A meritocracy, then, is a system supposedly based simply on what one has earned, either by natural talent or hard work. Although the concept is an ancient one, the term was first coined by Alan Fox, a sociologist who published a work entitled Socialist Commentary in 1956.

That the concept of meritocracy would have roots in Ancient Greece and then come to prominence in the modern West is not an accident, as both societies are characterized in part by their adherence to, and elevation of, some kind of republican democratic process. In a society that privileges individual autonomy and self-governance, meritocracy is able to flourish in a way that it otherwise could not in societies defined by more authoritarian tendencies, in which personal autonomy is regulated or discouraged. Sandel’s book discusses both the virtues and flaws of a community dedicated to the concept of meritocracy. He sees benefit in the goods that could be won by such a worldview—such as the insistence of the ancient Greeks that those who are most wise and virtuous should be leaders—while at the same time acknowledging the inequality that arises when a society rewards the naturally talented and fails to care for those who are less gifted, or disadvantaged in other ways beyond their control.