4 ms·

> It's amazing how much this misses the point of the conversation on meritocracy - that critics of meritocracy do not have a problem with merit itself, but rath

> It's amazing how much this misses the point of the conversation on meritocracy - that critics of meritocracy do not have a problem with merit itself, but rather (1) how merit can be measured in more abstract ways, (2) the degree to which meritocracy can exist with current social relations, (3) the degree to which meritocracy really does exist, with respect to claims that it does (in a just-world hypothesis kind of way). A similar problem was pointed out in the comments[2]. And yet... in support of the position Scott is attacking, he cites one recent pop-phil book, and two blog posts. Where are the published journals? Where are the essays? What have domain experts (i.e. philosophers, political theorists, economists, and sociologists) said about meritocracy? Who knows. There's plenty of criticism of "merit itself". What is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" if not a criticism of merit? Have you ever read Eros and Civilization? Herbert Marcuse identifies the "performance principle" as the concept underlying capitalism. Per Marcuse, our reality principle is the performance principle, which can be summarized as "to each according to his ability". Marcuse argues that this was necessary in times of scarcity but now, in 1955, we have solved the problem of scarcity and the performance principle is obsolete. It's hard to identify more relevant leftist writings in the 50s-70s than Eros and Civilization and One Dimensional Man. They're definitely criticizing merit, or at least that merit should be rewarded (which is the definition of meritocracy). It's quite refreshing to read Marcuse today because, unlike today's leftists, he's not afraid to admit that (1) capitalism was necessary to get this far and (2) to attack the idea of rewarding people based on their performance head-on. I think he's completely wrong but at least you can figure out what he's saying.

claudiawerner 7y ago
>What is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" if not a criticism of merit? It is not a criticism of merit, it is a criticism of the structuring of society on the basis of merit - i.e. meritocracy. Marx isn't the only one to notice thing; philosophers as diverse as Rawls and Habermas have recognized it too. Nevertheless, the conversation was always focused around the reward due to innate capabilities that differ from person to person. Even then, there are opposing points, which can't be reduced to slogans picked out here and there[0]. > Per Marcuse, our reality principle is the performance principle, which can be summarized as "to each according to his ability". This is not the case. The performance principle specifically concerns the pursuit of profit and growth, despite having enough (non-surplus) labour and machinery in modern society to sustain life without repression (restriction of the libido). It does not make any comment on a possible allocation of resources according to the principle that he who labours more deserves more. The whole point was that "to each according to his ability" is not how society functions - according to Marcuse, just as Marx, this fact is clearly not manifested in the existence of a class system in which some own MoP and others do not. The only way this could be conflated as a criticism of merit would be the view that the system he is criticizing rewards merit (and this component of it would not exist under a future system). The criticism of a wage system rewarding as if "merit" is being counted neatly fits into my (1) point. >unlike today's leftists, he's not afraid to admit that (1) capitalism was necessary to get this far I'm curious as to who (speaking in terms of "leftist" philosophers) actually denies this, "leftist" or not. Simply saying that capitalism has had and can have disastrous effects does not at all entail the denial of its necessity in history, or what it has produced. >(2) to attack the idea of rewarding people based on their performance head-on If this is true (which, owing to the "communist labour-voucher debate" it may not be), it's curious that Scott didn't address any of this critique. I could have read more, and Scott could have read more. Anyway, here's a secondary source on Marcuse's support for meritocracy, at least in education[1]. Even if what you said were entirely true, nowhere would it imply a criticism of the generic "merit" of the qualified surgeon versus a street sweeper when you need an operation, which is the strawman Scott was attacking. No amount of Marx or Marcuse will get that concept validated by Scott's criticism. [0] "Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth." (CotGP) [1] "However, it seems equally obvious that Marcuse’s notion of intellectual-elite education would also serve to adjust and confine the limits of free choice, thought, and experience. Exhibiting an uncommon disrespect for human diversity, Marcuse justifies his elitism on the ground that his university system would select “from the school and college population as a whole, a selection solely according to merit, that is to say, according to the inclination and ability for theoretical thought.” In a word, Marcuse wholly accepts the basic assumptions and premises of meritocracy. He also has a quick, if not readily attainable, answer for the query, “What knowledge is of most worth?” Beyond Aristotle and heading toward a revival of Plato, Marcuse reveres a contemplative wisdom which would border the power of the divine" (https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/booksabout/70s/DeVitis1974MarcuseOnEducation.pdf https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/booksabout/70s/DeVitis1974Ma...)
- leftyted 7y ago
  > It is not a criticism of merit, it is a criticism of the structuring of society on the basis of merit - i.e. meritocracy. Fair enough, but you said that meritocracies are criticized from a perspective of "(1) how merit can be measured in more abstract ways, (2) the degree to which meritocracy can exist with current social relations, (3) the degree to which meritocracy really does exist". None of those covers "criticism of the structuring of society on the basis of merit". > This is not the case. The performance principle specifically concerns the pursuit of profit and growth, despite having enough (non-surplus) labour and machinery in modern society to sustain life without repression (restriction of the libido). The performance principle precedes "surplus repression" so it can't depend on it. According to Marcuse, it is only due to the performance principle that we've reached a point where surplus repression exists. > It does not make any comment on a possible allocation of resources according to the principle that he who labours more deserves more. Yes it does. Marcuse distinguishes between two phases of the performance principle: "domination" (too much surplus repression) and "rational exercise of authority" (acceptable amount of surplus repression). According to Marcuse, the latter is associated with "societal division of labor derived from knowledge and confined to the administration of functions and arrangements necessary for the advancement of the whole." I.e. social status is decided by productivity. In the past, in the presence of great scarcity, this arrangement was acceptable or even necessary. But, today, due to the elimination of scarcity, it is no longer acceptable. Marcuse asks: in a world without scarcity, why would you reward people based on their productivity? To me, that seems like a fairly direct criticism of meritocracy (though perhaps not merit itself, as you pointed out). > The whole point was that "to each according to his ability" is not how society functions - according to Marcuse, just as Marx, this fact is clearly not manifested in the existence of a class system in which some own MoP and others do not. The only way this could be conflated as a criticism of merit would be the view that the system he is criticizing rewards merit (and this component of it would not exist under a future system). The criticism of a wage system rewarding as if "merit" is being counted neatly fits into my (1) point. I don't think this is true for Marcuse (I've only read Eros and Civilization and One-Dimensional Man). There's hardly anything in Eros and Civilization about class or the means of production and One-Dimensional Man is more about brainwashing. Marcuse replaces Marx's view of history with Freud's view of history (though with his own spin) and more mainstream Marxists have criticized him for that. > I'm curious as to who (speaking in terms of "leftist" philosophers) actually denies this, "leftist" or not. Simply saying that capitalism has had and can have disastrous effects does not at all entail the denial of its necessity in history, or what it has produced. I didn't say "leftist philosophers," I said "leftists". Leftists tend to speak about capitalism as if it was an ideology. Whatever is wrong with capitalism, it's not an ideology. No one planned it. > If this is true (which, owing to the "communist labour-voucher debate" it may not be), it's curious that Scott didn't address any of this critique. I could have read more, and Scott could have read more. I think Scott does an admirable job reading books and synthesizing them with his own perspective.

claudiawerner 7y ago

>What is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" if not a criticism of merit? It is not a criticism of merit, it is a criticism of the structuring of society on the basis of merit - i.e. meritocracy. Marx isn't the only one to notice thing; philosophers as diverse as Rawls and Habermas have recognized it too. Nevertheless, the conversation was always focused around the reward due to innate capabilities that differ from person to person. Even then, there are opposing points, which can't be reduced to slogans picked out here and there[0]. > Per Marcuse, our reality principle is the performance principle, which can be summarized as "to each according to his ability". This is not the case. The performance principle specifically concerns the pursuit of profit and growth, despite having enough (non-surplus) labour and machinery in modern society to sustain life without repression (restriction of the libido). It does not make any comment on a possible allocation of resources according to the principle that he who labours more deserves more. The whole point was that "to each according to his ability" is not how society functions - according to Marcuse, just as Marx, this fact is clearly not manifested in the existence of a class system in which some own MoP and others do not. The only way this could be conflated as a criticism of merit would be the view that the system he is criticizing rewards merit (and this component of it would not exist under a future system). The criticism of a wage system rewarding as if "merit" is being counted neatly fits into my (1) point. >unlike today's leftists, he's not afraid to admit that (1) capitalism was necessary to get this far I'm curious as to who (speaking in terms of "leftist" philosophers) actually denies this, "leftist" or not. Simply saying that capitalism has had and can have disastrous effects does not at all entail the denial of its necessity in history, or what it has produced. >(2) to attack the idea of rewarding people based on their performance head-on If this is true (which, owing to the "communist labour-voucher debate" it may not be), it's curious that Scott didn't address any of this critique. I could have read more, and Scott could have read more. Anyway, here's a secondary source on Marcuse's support for meritocracy, at least in education[1]. Even if what you said were entirely true, nowhere would it imply a criticism of the generic "merit" of the qualified surgeon versus a street sweeper when you need an operation, which is the strawman Scott was attacking. No amount of Marx or Marcuse will get that concept validated by Scott's criticism. [0] "Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth." (CotGP) [1] "However, it seems equally obvious that Marcuse’s notion of intellectual-elite education would also serve to adjust and confine the limits of free choice, thought, and experience. Exhibiting an uncommon disrespect for human diversity, Marcuse justifies his elitism on the ground that his university system would select “from the school and college population as a whole, a selection solely according to merit, that is to say, according to the inclination and ability for theoretical thought.” In a word, Marcuse wholly accepts the basic assumptions and premises of meritocracy. He also has a quick, if not readily attainable, answer for the query, “What knowledge is of most worth?” Beyond Aristotle and heading toward a revival of Plato, Marcuse reveres a contemplative wisdom which would border the power of the divine" (https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/booksabout/70s/DeVitis1974MarcuseOnEducation.pdf https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/booksabout/70s/DeVitis1974Ma...)

leftyted 7y ago
> It is not a criticism of merit, it is a criticism of the structuring of society on the basis of merit - i.e. meritocracy. Fair enough, but you said that meritocracies are criticized from a perspective of "(1) how merit can be measured in more abstract ways, (2) the degree to which meritocracy can exist with current social relations, (3) the degree to which meritocracy really does exist". None of those covers "criticism of the structuring of society on the basis of merit". > This is not the case. The performance principle specifically concerns the pursuit of profit and growth, despite having enough (non-surplus) labour and machinery in modern society to sustain life without repression (restriction of the libido). The performance principle precedes "surplus repression" so it can't depend on it. According to Marcuse, it is only due to the performance principle that we've reached a point where surplus repression exists. > It does not make any comment on a possible allocation of resources according to the principle that he who labours more deserves more. Yes it does. Marcuse distinguishes between two phases of the performance principle: "domination" (too much surplus repression) and "rational exercise of authority" (acceptable amount of surplus repression). According to Marcuse, the latter is associated with "societal division of labor derived from knowledge and confined to the administration of functions and arrangements necessary for the advancement of the whole." I.e. social status is decided by productivity. In the past, in the presence of great scarcity, this arrangement was acceptable or even necessary. But, today, due to the elimination of scarcity, it is no longer acceptable. Marcuse asks: in a world without scarcity, why would you reward people based on their productivity? To me, that seems like a fairly direct criticism of meritocracy (though perhaps not merit itself, as you pointed out). > The whole point was that "to each according to his ability" is not how society functions - according to Marcuse, just as Marx, this fact is clearly not manifested in the existence of a class system in which some own MoP and others do not. The only way this could be conflated as a criticism of merit would be the view that the system he is criticizing rewards merit (and this component of it would not exist under a future system). The criticism of a wage system rewarding as if "merit" is being counted neatly fits into my (1) point. I don't think this is true for Marcuse (I've only read Eros and Civilization and One-Dimensional Man). There's hardly anything in Eros and Civilization about class or the means of production and One-Dimensional Man is more about brainwashing. Marcuse replaces Marx's view of history with Freud's view of history (though with his own spin) and more mainstream Marxists have criticized him for that. > I'm curious as to who (speaking in terms of "leftist" philosophers) actually denies this, "leftist" or not. Simply saying that capitalism has had and can have disastrous effects does not at all entail the denial of its necessity in history, or what it has produced. I didn't say "leftist philosophers," I said "leftists". Leftists tend to speak about capitalism as if it was an ideology. Whatever is wrong with capitalism, it's not an ideology. No one planned it. > If this is true (which, owing to the "communist labour-voucher debate" it may not be), it's curious that Scott didn't address any of this critique. I could have read more, and Scott could have read more. I think Scott does an admirable job reading books and synthesizing them with his own perspective.