Meritocratic Political Theory: Suggestions and Concerns

#1

Hello Everybody,

I’ve read up on a thread recently where one of the commentators had said that meritocracy is currently lacking its own political theory. I believe this is a correct analysis, and I also would like to help remedy this. I study philosophy with a specialization towards logic, and one of my side interests is political philosophy and applied ethics. I have been contemplating the political philosophy of meritocracy for the better part of the last five years, and the background reading that I have done on political philosophy is, I believe, adequate to help prepare a proper primer on meritocratic political theory.

Now, political theory isn’t prescriptive: it lays down the foundations of political policies, but doesn’t necessarily inform on the political policies themselves unless they are of a direct consequence of the theory. For instance, particular state issues concerning more exact laws aren’t always underneath the purview of political philosophy, but the general approach and attitude towards these laws certainly is. Political philosophy deals with concepts establishing the philosophical foundations of more familiar notions such as justice, freedom, the individual, the society, and the way in which we approach the fulfillment of our needs towards each other.

I am proposing to write a document of around sixty pages — or thirty thousand words — outlining the core concepts of meritocratic political theory, beginning with establishing our notions of the individual and its drives; of society; of the balance between individual and society; of existing imbalances and their remedies; of the core of an applied ethic; of justice as the implementation of said ethic; and of leadership as the realization of said ethic, where leadership is bound to realize the ethic and where the leaders capable of it must rise to the top. I will be borrowing from Rousseau and somewhat from Spinoza, and will take some rather diluted aspects from Laws and Republic as well. However, the work will mostly be original and will clarify the foundations already established by Illuminism. From there, I will use these arguments to look towards solutions in politics, economic theory and also in the environment. That way, we will have a “Tractatus Politico-Philosophicus Meritocraticus” :wink:

One thing that I ask of you guys here is what can you inform me so that I may incorporate it into this work. What arguments for and against meritocracy have you struggled with in day-to-day conversations? What do you think needs to be clarified in meritocratic theory? Have you made any novel observations or conclusions that go over and above what the AC and GS has made available to us? What viewpoints contra meritocracy should get the most argumentative attention? And any other insights as well would be great. I want as many as possible, because that’s the only way I can custom-tailor this to not only our present issues, but to our future audiences.

Thanks,

G.B.

7 Likes
#2

Please please please talk to this woman: https://www.facebook.com/zetsubou.kize

She is the one you want!!!

#3

Rather than these, I suggest we focus on Rawls with his Difference Principle and how we can use that to our advantage. Also Luck Egalitarianism might be a very good starter for us.

#4

The most common concern that I’ve personally seen is “Who defines merit?”. Virtually everyone agrees with “Meritocracy” in the loose sense of the word, after all, who wouldn’t, but they tend to dismiss it because they think it’s exceedingly difficulty to define merit.

However, nobody said there has to be a perfect standard from the start - http://meritocracyparty.org/2013/09/how-do-you-define-merit-in-a-meritocracy/

1 Like
#5

Establishing an equal starting point is one of the surest ways to establish Meritocracy, otherwise you never know what you’re dealing with in that we have no idea who would’ve actually have been the most meritorious under any definition. In some ways having strict definitions could prevent new and beneficial ideas from forming. If there are some ways that basic criteria can be agreed upon, then it probably should be, but I think that this should be a very cautious path.

What about applying the notion that “one must first know the rules in order to break them”? Or is it perhaps possible that all the time and energy spent learning the rules causes one to deviate from a new visionary path? I think that it also depends on the discipline. Art for example may have no absolute standards, although some people would make aesthetic arguments that it’s quality can actually be objectified. Yet, too often the amateur can claim his/her subjectively uneducated opinion as having equal value. Does it? Still, failing a test on art theory doesn’t mean that the person will not reach others with their art.

On the other hand, banking, politics and the environment could have objective criteria that prevent their practices from becoming socially harmful as there are more objective measurements here because they deal directly and primarily with the physical.

As I stated elsewhere, having a salary cap can help ensure that one is motivated authentically, which can help reduce the judgmental criteria in that judging one’s merit by their money will be vastly reduced or completely altered.