The tyranny of meritocracy

The show Mo continuously breaks meritocratic narratives

(This post contains possible spoilers for the Nextflix show Mo)

“Meritocracy” is the simple and logical idea that social and economic rewards should follow talent, effort, and merit. Meritocracy seems like common sense. Who could possibly object to the idea that people should get ahead based on their own accomplishments and skills? Rather than their parents' social class or any other advantage they might have. This seems the natural way to give everyone a fair shot at success.

But is it true that we all compete on a level playing field? Is success solely the result of hard work? Is it even possible to achieve an ideal meritocracy? And is it possible to have a meritocracy without extreme competition and individualism?

The idea of fairness is deeply ingrained in us. Some psychological research on children demonstrates that we understand and fight for fairness as early as when we are three. Other studies with monkeys show that it might have been with us for a long time, evolutionarily.

So, it's no surprise that the college admissions scandal or the whole controversy surrounding "Nepo babies" provoked universal outrage across political divides. These outrages express something deeper. In ways that people struggled to articulate, they raised larger questions about who gets ahead, and why.

Economic inequality turns meritocracy into a mechanism by which rich parents can pass their privilege down to their children. This is primarily because of the head start woven into upper-income life itself: engaging dinner conversations, industry connections, a safer environment, better schools, arts and sports, private tutors, foreign travel, etc.

Prestigious universities and extensive contacts turn into prestigious jobs. Both the college admission scandal and the Nepo babies outrage show that entrance into the ranks of the elite is rigged in favor of the wealthy and privileged. While being the most intelligent or hardworking does not mean getting in.

The meritocracy trap

Many argue that meritocracy itself is not the problem. After all, hard work deserves a reward. They claim that the problem is that we don't have a true meritocracy. We cannot live up to a perfectly meritocratic world.

Some books challenge this notion by examining the issues of meritocracy in our lives. The Meritocracy Trap by Daniel Markovits is one of them. Markovits argues that meritocracy creates extreme inequality, stifles social mobility, and makes everyone unhappy, including the apparent winners.

In a world in which work has taken on the central function of giving our lives meaning, we hail productivity and being busy as indicators of success. This is used to justify inequalities in our meritocratic world.

Before the '60s and 70's the elites were seen as “the leisure class”. Because they rarely worked and instead spent their days mastering nonproductive tasks as social signifiers of their wealth. Having more money meant working less.

This has changed. A Harvard Business Review survey found that 62% of high-earning individuals work over 50 hours a week, with one in 10 working over 80 hours a week. It's harder than ever to get into prestigious universities, pass through the studies, find a high-paying job, and keep it.

Elites believe they deserve their positions due to this effort and work mentality. They think there was no assistance or support, they just worked hard. It creates entitled people and less solidarity with those who cannot have the same success for so many societal reasons. It makes it more logical to think that those who need government help are lazy and unworthy. In the end, meritocracy generates individualism and competition.

Everyone loses when meritocracy wins

The cycle that produces meritocratic inequality severely harms the lower classes and the very elite who seem to benefit most from it.

First, the elite obtains highly skilled employment, pushing middle-class labor out of the center of economic production. Then, with their large wages, those wealthy workers monopolize the finest education for their children, ensuring that their progeny are better suited to dominating high-skilled industries. Markovits calls this cycle "snowball inequality": a compounding feedback loop that amplifies economic inequality, severely limits social mobility, and creates a "time divide" between elites who work longer and longer hours due to an increase in demand for their talents and idle lower classes.

Forced inactivity robs the middle and lower classes of societal value. Wage stagnation and rising debt levels keep them out of social prosperity.

Credentialed people believe they are smarter, wiser, and work harder than noncredentialed people, and are therefore more deserving of recognition and respect. At the same time, the meritocratic ideology convinces the middle and lower classes that this situation is their own fault.

Rich and poor parents both encourage their children that if they work hard enough, they can accomplish their dreams. Things may work out for the top crust, but not for the rest. We blame ourselves if we fail to meet objectives, which a competitive economy inevitably guarantees. “The meritocracy trap,” writes Markovits, casts economic exclusion as an individual's failure to measure up.

It is impossible to quantify the consequences of this exclusion. Still, rising meritocratic inequality has coincided with the rise of right-wing politicians who can exploit this exclusion and resentment. And in the US with the opioid crisis, an increase in "deaths of despair," and an unparalleled drop in life expectancy. All concentrated in the lower and middle classes.

Yet, meritocracy also affects the elite. Work dominates the lives of the meritocratic elite. Excessive work means worse health and less time to bond with family and other social activities, leading to deteriorating relationships all around.

Most harmful, meritocracy makes life a never-ending competition. The meritocratic race begins in infancy (the most competitive preschools admit fewer than 10% of applicants), continues into adolescence (college admissions are more competitive than ever), and then extends into the workplace.

To win this competition, the elites (and everyone else) must rely on their own talents and abilities. We spend our lives accumulating the degrees, skills, attitudes, and habits that make us attractive to elite educational institutions and businesses. By doing so, we become responsible for managing our brand and ourselves as objects. Harming our identities.

[Elites] become constituted by their achievements, so that eliteness goes from being something that a person enjoys to being everything that he is. In a mature meritocracy, schools and jobs dominate elite life so immersively that they leave no self apart from status. - Markovits

In short, we are shuttled into a lifelong endless competition that consumes our lives, leaving no room for self-expression, actualization, or discovery — only self-exploitation, value extraction, and constant anxiety. Meritocracy generates an endless rat race for all involved.

That's why it's impossible to support the idea that a meritocracy can be fair and positive. It assumes that a meritocracy that honestly rewards the most talented and brightest will benefit everyone. That couldn't be further from the truth. It leaves no room for community or solidarity, only competition.

Mo and meritocracy

Many TV shows about immigrants, especially those made in the US, have a strong veneer of meritocracy and The American Dream.

It's common for immigrants to suffer (that's a common thread among all of them), but they usually find that their luck changes as a result of a series of fortunate events and diligent efforts. Since immigrants are now in a place of abundant opportunities, they will eventually be compensated and can find lucrative career prospects because they are intelligent, hardworking, and good-hearted. That's why they immigrated in the first place, right?

When I started watching Mo on Netflix, I thought it might be the same. He is good-hearted, intelligent, tech-savvy, and family-oriented. He was supposed to get a break, and succeed through hard work or luck, right? He deserves it, after all. His our main character. The good guy.

But that's not what happens. It's not just Mo but all the characters around him, such as his brother, girlfriend, and friends. Though they are constantly trying to make more money, they never succeed.

They are regularly innovating and trying to find ways out of their problems. They uncover creative ideas for their business. They are intelligent and hardworking, and they are doing what they can, but the show keeps turning them down. It doesn't give the normal narrative arc of the American dream: a person who comes from nowhere and builds up a business on their own with his or her own intellect and effort. This business will, in turn, help them finally find success, joy, and eternal happiness.

He doesn't get a break, because, in reality, a Palestinian immigrant without papers wouldn't get a break either. As an asylum seeker, he constantly faces prejudices and his traumas interfere with his progress.

When he tries to do something heroic it just turns out to be stupid. When a judge who is ruling on their asylum case by luck tells them he knew his father and that he was an honorable man, we expect the trope of the benevolent judge who sees people for who they are and judges fairly. The show once again let us down. The judge says he cannot proceed because it’s a conflict of interest for him to grant them asylum since he knew his father.

In Mo, we are constantly reminded of reality, breaking our expectation that these characters could easily solve their own problems. How society sees them plays a part in how they can progress in the world.

It clearly portrays an unleveled society where one needs much more than a commitment to work and good ideas to rise, or even to live a normal life.

---

Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? by Michael J. Sandel

Written by a political philosopher and professor at Harvard, the book examines the role of meritocracy in contemporary society. It argues that it has led to a growing sense of inequality and alienation among citizens. He critiques the idea that success is solely based on individual merit, and suggests that this ignores the role of luck and social advantages in determining success. Sandel also explores how meritocracy has contributed to a growing divide between the elite and the working class. He proposes alternative ways of thinking about success and the common good.

The Florida Project (2017)

The movie takes place in a cheap motel in Orlando, Florida, where a young mother named Halley and her daughter live. It follows their day-to-day struggles as they try to make ends meet. The film offers a raw and unfiltered look at poverty and the harsh realities of living on the margins of society. It is a powerful portrayal of childhood innocence in the face of adversity.

Mo

Mo follows Mohammed "Mo” Najjar as he navigates life as an asylum seeker in the United States. The series stars comedian Mo Amer as the titular character. The series is loosely based on Amer's own life as a Palestinian refugee living in Houston, Texas. Although it handles difficult topics, it is still lighthearted, and a second season is coming soon (a rarity these days).