4 ms·

Not coincidentally, The author of your article is the father of the author of the OP. I don't think the definition has shifted so much as the intent behind the

Not coincidentally, The author of your article is the father of the author of the OP. I don't think the definition has shifted so much as the intent behind the word (negative to positive).

arethuza 11y ago
The article mentions Bevin: "Bevin left school at 11 to take a job as a farm boy, and was subsequently a kitchen boy, a grocer's errand boy, a van boy, a tram conductor and a drayman before, at the age of 29, he became active locally in Bristol in the Dock Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers' union." And was Foreign Minister in the Atlee government, ardent ant-Soviet, arguably one of the founders of the Atlantic alliance and many other achievements. That route is pretty much closed these days. My own personal favourite is William Robertson - who was Chief of the Imperial General Staff from 1916-1918. He went from a private soldier to that lofty position. Richard Holmes points out that an equivalent rise would be impossible today - even with much smaller forces to command. These people were successful because they were good - not on "merit" as is usually defined.
plonh 11y ago
Has the intent shifted? The 2001 article specifically called out the Blair government for , well, Blair tbought it was good intent, but that is the problem: Young argued that it was being used to negatively impact society.
pron 11y ago
Meritocracy still has purely negative connotations among those who study society, and positive connotations among politicians or corporations who wish to justify their current practices. You won't hear the word "meritocracy" mentioned by sociologists or historians as anything but a joke, or, if they're patient, as a starting point of a dystopia.
- proveanegative 11y ago
  Of course, it has to be noted that academics lean left, and sociologists overwhelmingly so. See, e.g., http://www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs/cardiff_klein.pdf http://www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs/cardiff_klein.pdf.
  - pron 11y ago
    Right, and did you know that most climatologists are overwhelmingly climate-change believers?! That's just so unfair. Where are all the climate-change-denier climatologists, creationist biologists and libertarian sociologists, I wonder?
    - Grue3 11y ago
      At least climatologists actually observe the climate. If the sociologists observed the massive failure of communism in the 20th century they wouldn't be leaning left, that's for sure.
      - pron 11y ago
        Let's see, so you're equating left-leaning social views with 20th-century communism, and assuming people dedicating their lives to the rigorous study of society don't do their job. Indeed, that is the kind of reasoning that directs both the author of the article as well as others who want to convince themselves they can find solutions to society's problems (or deny their existence) while being completely unwilling to actually study society first. Denialism at its finest. If the "reason folks" were as averse to math as they are to human beings we would have been reading similar unending tirades about why quantum mechanics is just illogical. It is the particular genre written by people who honestly believe their narrow view of the world combined with their self-ascribed intelligence is enough to reason about something they are not only completely ignorant about but actually lack any curiosity of. They will fight for their right to "reason" yet not learn (usually by ridiculing those who do bother to learn the subject first)! Also, I find it a bit ironic that you call for taking lessons from 20th-century mass-movements considering that the article echoes others similar to it -- written by scientists -- around the same time of the Bolshevik revolution, and served to justify other movements with no better record than that of communism.

Not coincidentally, The author of your article is the father of the author of the OP. I don't think the definition has shifted so much as the intent behind the word (negative to positive).

arethuza 11y ago

The article mentions Bevin: "Bevin left school at 11 to take a job as a farm boy, and was subsequently a kitchen boy, a grocer's errand boy, a van boy, a tram conductor and a drayman before, at the age of 29, he became active locally in Bristol in the Dock Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers' union." And was Foreign Minister in the Atlee government, ardent ant-Soviet, arguably one of the founders of the Atlantic alliance and many other achievements. That route is pretty much closed these days. My own personal favourite is William Robertson - who was Chief of the Imperial General Staff from 1916-1918. He went from a private soldier to that lofty position. Richard Holmes points out that an equivalent rise would be impossible today - even with much smaller forces to command. These people were successful because they were good - not on "merit" as is usually defined.

plonh 11y ago

Has the intent shifted? The 2001 article specifically called out the Blair government for , well, Blair tbought it was good intent, but that is the problem: Young argued that it was being used to negatively impact society.

pron 11y ago

Meritocracy still has purely negative connotations among those who study society, and positive connotations among politicians or corporations who wish to justify their current practices. You won't hear the word "meritocracy" mentioned by sociologists or historians as anything but a joke, or, if they're patient, as a starting point of a dystopia.

proveanegative 11y ago
Of course, it has to be noted that academics lean left, and sociologists overwhelmingly so. See, e.g., http://www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs/cardiff_klein.pdf http://www.criticalreview.com/2004/pdfs/cardiff_klein.pdf.
- pron 11y ago
  Right, and did you know that most climatologists are overwhelmingly climate-change believers?! That's just so unfair. Where are all the climate-change-denier climatologists, creationist biologists and libertarian sociologists, I wonder?
  - Grue3 11y ago
    At least climatologists actually observe the climate. If the sociologists observed the massive failure of communism in the 20th century they wouldn't be leaning left, that's for sure.
    - pron 11y ago
      Let's see, so you're equating left-leaning social views with 20th-century communism, and assuming people dedicating their lives to the rigorous study of society don't do their job. Indeed, that is the kind of reasoning that directs both the author of the article as well as others who want to convince themselves they can find solutions to society's problems (or deny their existence) while being completely unwilling to actually study society first. Denialism at its finest. If the "reason folks" were as averse to math as they are to human beings we would have been reading similar unending tirades about why quantum mechanics is just illogical. It is the particular genre written by people who honestly believe their narrow view of the world combined with their self-ascribed intelligence is enough to reason about something they are not only completely ignorant about but actually lack any curiosity of. They will fight for their right to "reason" yet not learn (usually by ridiculing those who do bother to learn the subject first)! Also, I find it a bit ironic that you call for taking lessons from 20th-century mass-movements considering that the article echoes others similar to it -- written by scientists -- around the same time of the Bolshevik revolution, and served to justify other movements with no better record than that of communism.