The Stranglehold of Merit

Meritocracy is often seen as a fairer alternative to aristocracy (hereditary succession), but when the principle of evolution is applied too rigidly in society, it can lead to a static and unjust class society.

Meritocracy and evolution are concepts often linked through the metaphor of survival of the fittest. Meritocracy is a social system in which positions and power are allocated based on individual merit (talent, intelligence, effort) rather than descent or birth. Evolution, particularly through natural selection, is the process by which organisms best adapted to their environment have the greatest chance of survival and reproduction.

Both processes aim to select the fittest. In nature, this is about survival, in a meritocracy, it is about positions, status, or academic success. In both natural selection and an ideal meritocratic system, the individual’s characteristics (such as speed, strength, or cognitive ability) determine the outcome. Meritocracy, however, forces individuals to adapt to the demands of the labor market or education, much like organisms adapting to changing circumstances.

A society based solely on merit can lead to a new, arrogant elite and a frustrated underclass. In practice, meritocracy can exacerbate inequality. ‘Winners’ justify their privileges as merit, while ‘losers’ are demoralized because they believe their lowly position is their own fault. The result is a new class society with even sharper divisions than before. It divides society and undermines democracy.

Nevertheless, education can play a crucial role in minimizing class differences. Art, in particular, should aspire to a greater role in breaking down barriers, but the art world is still too often a closed system, with museums that accopany the exhibits with cryptic and incomprehensible texts. Street Art, for example, makes a brave and often successful attempt to break through the unnecessary elitist nature of art and to expose social injustices.