7 ms·
I'm not sure why this person decided to redefine the essence of meritocracy to mean the biased notion of evaluated merit that keeps the powerful in power. This
by ynniv 14y ago
I'm not sure why this person decided to redefine the essence of meritocracy to mean the biased notion of evaluated merit that keeps the powerful in power. This whole rant falls apart if you assume an honest desire to promote based on merit, which is often what people mean when they claim to be meritocratic. Granted they don't execute it properly, and aren't fully honest when they say that they value it, but lets get one thing straight:
meritocracy is not "a system for centralizing authority in the hands of those who already have it".
This rant is without base.
- kome 14y ago> I'm not sure why this person decided to redefine the essence of meritocracy Because the very word "meritocracy" was invented to describe an Orwellian society dystopia were "merit" was the only metric for value. He just use the original definition.
- ynniv 14y agoIt's a niche definition that was long since co-opted to describe how people should be promoted. It now roughly means selection based on some manner of successful execution, as opposed to personality, or personal relation. The problem with using "the original definition", is that the rant is now against something that was not the original conversation. Which is fine if the author wants to rant about cronyism ("the original definition"), but not about selection based on observable skill or success (what everyone is talking about lately).
- anthonyb 14y agoExcept that the original definition fits the current situation in IT very well.
- Maascamp 14y agoThe question is, who and what defines merit in a meritocracy? The article claims that those already in power do and thus it is they that control who gets to move up the ladder.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]