4 ms·

Meritocracy, when the term was coined, referred to a society that was essentially a reboot of aristocracy. A new group takes charge by their own merit, then th

Meritocracy, when the term was coined, referred to a society that was essentially a reboot of aristocracy. A new group takes charge by their own merit, then they embed their own descendants in the leader caste through a combination of shaping society to their own definition of merit, and designing an education system to confer "merit" on their own offspring at the expense of less "merit-worthy" children (i.e. most children who do not have meritorious ancestors). A meritocratic society also suffers from an additional problem over that of an aristocracy because it embeds the complementary statement - that those who are not well rewarded are in that position because they are not as good/hard-working/clever as their "betters".

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
I get it; meritocracy often breaks down over time. But then it's become something else (perhaps a new aristocracy). But its not a different word for the same thing.
- frobozz 8y ago
  The problem in my last paragraph exists from the beginning. I would not be surprised if one of the reasons that the gap between C-level and worker salaries has widened so much, is due to the adoption of the term "meritocratic". On a smaller scale, the aristocracy problem exists from very early on in the forms of "hiring in ones own image" and placing certain roles in higher regard (with higher reward or more opportunity for career progression) than others (e.g. sales > developers > UX > QA) even if they make equal contributions. It is very difficult to evaluate merit across different professions (e.g is Tom Cruise a better actor than Lionel Messi is a footballer? Does a lawyer contribute more to society than teacher?) However, once you start claiming that you have a meritocracy, you are also claiming that those who receive the most reward have the most merit. i.e. in the example above, that your sales people are more hard-working and clever than your developers, who are in turn more hard-working and clever than your UX people etc.
true_religion 8y ago
Aristocracies also have that statement. Usually the aristocrats are there because of divine decree showing their merit, and the underclass are similarly slotted into that position due to their bloodlines. Unlike meritocracy though, there is no way out of the situation beyond tearing down the system.
- frobozz 8y ago
  It is also possible for commoners to be ennobled if they show sufficient merit. It also doesn't take many generations of second and subsequent children under primogeniture to fall out of the nobility entirely. Neither system necessitates the active oppression and exclusion of out groups. The problem in both systems is that "merit" is defined by the few at the top, and is often either defined or executed in a way that favours individuals in a preferred class.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    What is usually meant is that everyone is to be judged by results. (of course, how they're judged and by whom is important too) What often actually happens is they're judged on executing a standarised test (bureaucracy) or by peers. (oligarchy) Worse, some systems called meritocracy do not try to properly fit people into functions at all, forcing them instead. In those, you get thrust into a function despite not fitting it and then judged low merit, preventing changing the function. This is a typical bureaucratic failure.
    - frobozz 8y ago
      The definition of "results" and the criteria by which they are measured is the critical thing. If you measure everyone in a company by how much money they directly make, then salespeople are the best, and everyone else is just drifting along on their wake. You could measure by functionality added, defects found, bugs fixed, projects completed, requirements gathered, and in each case, you assign merit to one class and not to others. Even if you have a reliable way to measure merit in one job family, how do you align the merit metrics across them?
pgeorgi 8y ago
Most of that doesn't translate well to open source projects, so I'd guess that "meritocracy" in open source means something else than "meritocracy" in a stratified British society of 1958. For example, that the _code_ has to have merit (OSS), not the people (new aristocracy). There's something to be said about _paid_ open source software development though: once money is involved the meritocracy that can work with OSS clashes with the demands of those who pay or are paid - and therefore want the paid-for work landed no matter its technical merit, since that brings along the business or one's own promotion. I'd wager the guess that the politics aren't very different from any other corporate politics, but potentially more visible due to the projects' structure. With that in mind, I blame the disconnect about meritocracy in paid Open Source on the "paid-for" part, not on "Open Source bros fighting to exclude those who are not Like Them". A survey of projects with no monetary interests (no sponsors, no donations to pay devs, not even companies using the code) to see if they have similar issues could test that hypothesis. (disclosure: I'm paid to do open source development)

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

I get it; meritocracy often breaks down over time. But then it's become something else (perhaps a new aristocracy). But its not a different word for the same thing.

frobozz 8y ago
The problem in my last paragraph exists from the beginning. I would not be surprised if one of the reasons that the gap between C-level and worker salaries has widened so much, is due to the adoption of the term "meritocratic". On a smaller scale, the aristocracy problem exists from very early on in the forms of "hiring in ones own image" and placing certain roles in higher regard (with higher reward or more opportunity for career progression) than others (e.g. sales > developers > UX > QA) even if they make equal contributions. It is very difficult to evaluate merit across different professions (e.g is Tom Cruise a better actor than Lionel Messi is a footballer? Does a lawyer contribute more to society than teacher?) However, once you start claiming that you have a meritocracy, you are also claiming that those who receive the most reward have the most merit. i.e. in the example above, that your sales people are more hard-working and clever than your developers, who are in turn more hard-working and clever than your UX people etc.

true_religion 8y ago

Aristocracies also have that statement. Usually the aristocrats are there because of divine decree showing their merit, and the underclass are similarly slotted into that position due to their bloodlines. Unlike meritocracy though, there is no way out of the situation beyond tearing down the system.

frobozz 8y ago
It is also possible for commoners to be ennobled if they show sufficient merit. It also doesn't take many generations of second and subsequent children under primogeniture to fall out of the nobility entirely. Neither system necessitates the active oppression and exclusion of out groups. The problem in both systems is that "merit" is defined by the few at the top, and is often either defined or executed in a way that favours individuals in a preferred class.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  What is usually meant is that everyone is to be judged by results. (of course, how they're judged and by whom is important too) What often actually happens is they're judged on executing a standarised test (bureaucracy) or by peers. (oligarchy) Worse, some systems called meritocracy do not try to properly fit people into functions at all, forcing them instead. In those, you get thrust into a function despite not fitting it and then judged low merit, preventing changing the function. This is a typical bureaucratic failure.
  - frobozz 8y ago
    The definition of "results" and the criteria by which they are measured is the critical thing. If you measure everyone in a company by how much money they directly make, then salespeople are the best, and everyone else is just drifting along on their wake. You could measure by functionality added, defects found, bugs fixed, projects completed, requirements gathered, and in each case, you assign merit to one class and not to others. Even if you have a reliable way to measure merit in one job family, how do you align the merit metrics across them?

pgeorgi 8y ago

Most of that doesn't translate well to open source projects, so I'd guess that "meritocracy" in open source means something else than "meritocracy" in a stratified British society of 1958. For example, that the _code_ has to have merit (OSS), not the people (new aristocracy). There's something to be said about _paid_ open source software development though: once money is involved the meritocracy that can work with OSS clashes with the demands of those who pay or are paid - and therefore want the paid-for work landed no matter its technical merit, since that brings along the business or one's own promotion. I'd wager the guess that the politics aren't very different from any other corporate politics, but potentially more visible due to the projects' structure. With that in mind, I blame the disconnect about meritocracy in paid Open Source on the "paid-for" part, not on "Open Source bros fighting to exclude those who are not Like Them". A survey of projects with no monetary interests (no sponsors, no donations to pay devs, not even companies using the code) to see if they have similar issues could test that hypothesis. (disclosure: I'm paid to do open source development)