We are not meritocratic, thank you

Truth is always given relative to a conceptual system and the metaphors that structure it. Truth is therefore not absolute or objective but is based on understanding.

Lakoff and Johnson — Metaphors we live by

Herein lies the crux of a meritocracy: Who decides who is listened to? Who decides which ideas are the best? At my company, Red Hat, the people who are listened to are the ones who have earned the right. They have built a reputation and history of contributing good ideas, going beyond their day jobs, and achieving stellar results.

Jim Whitehurst, CEO of Red Hat (Wired Magazine)

The suffix “-cracy” denotes “rule” or “government.” Meritocracy is therefore “the rule of those with merit.” But if we believe (as Lakoff & Johnson do) that there is no such thing as an absolute truth, then all definition and assessment of merit is relative. Inequality of all sorts ensues. Those who have benefited from a so-called meritocratic system tend to believe that their current standing is fair, leading to stagnation among the different strata.

We need a system that explicitly avoids giving power to those with merit. Good old Athenians chose officials through a lottery for a reason. Yet we still want a system that rewards perceived merit. But is there a difference between rewards and power? No answer so far, just a hunch. Intuition whispers in my ear “equality in power, linear disparity in income.” Stay tuned.