Going mobile
Today I am giving over my blog to Patricia Kaszynska FRSA as part of a conversation we have been having about social mobility. We’re hoping other people will join in too…
‘ Thanks, Matthew, for starting this conversation. We began talking because we both felt that there was something unhealthy about the prominent consensus on social mobility in current political discourse in the UK.
Championing social mobility has become a badge of honour to be worn proudly and ostentatiously by politicians of all parties and ideologies. In one way or another we can expect each Party leader to assert the commitment to equality of opportunity in their forthcoming conference speeches. It is an item in all political manifestos that voters glance over without much surprise or excitement. This begs a question. Given what would actually be involved in pursuing an aggressive policy of promoting greater movement up and down the social class hierarchy, why is it that talking about social mobility does not cause more anxiety in the public sphere?
There are two possible answers. Firstly, no one feels threatened by talk of social mobility because it will never happen – for example, the measures proposed in a recent Coalition strategy, while perfectly commendable, are unlikely to make any more than a marginal impact (something I will explore in subsequent posts). Secondly and less cynically, because the debate is cast in terms of the spurious thought that ‘we can all be winners’.
The problem, I suspect, is that few of us have sat down to reflect on what having a meritocratic, socially mobile society would entail; but the authentic pursuit of a true meritocracy is, I would like to suggest, not nearly as inoffensive as people are accustomed to believe.
While extolling the idea of social mobility, politicians and commentators rarely grapple with the objections to the ideal of meritocracy described by the author of the concept, Michael Young. Far from being a policy goal, he saw a meritocracy as a dystopia in which the self-satisfied elite ruled the underserving masses with the heart-felt conviction that their dominance is justified by the superiority of their kind. Indeed, greater social mobility is entirely compatible with steep hierarchy and oppression.
In a meritocratic world, individuals are seen as the makers of their own success. The meritocratic elite, unlike the old class of noblesse oblige, does not rule in virtue of their blood ties. Meritocratically ‘selected’ rulers don’t owe anything to anybody; with no sense of debt, they feel no obligation to represent the interests of those lower down. The meritocratic Leviathan does not identify with its subjects. The verdict is passed: the lowly members of the underclass have only themselves to blame for not being talented and diligent enough to succeed.
Could the meritocratic ruling elite even be more morally indifferent than the establishment of a more rigid and traditional hierarchy? This takes us to the question of how is ‘merit’ defined? Is merit to be spelled out purely as a set of qualities that allows one to rise to power and stay in power? What if the individuals ‘on top’ define merit in self-referential terms; in their image and likeness? Not only does this raise the problem of intellectual conformity and on top, it pre-empts the possibility of subversion.
Indeed, a meritocratic society could prove to be surprisingly static and rigid. On the one hand, because we tend to think of merit as a fair measure of achievement, we are likely to consider meritocratic hierarchies as more legitimate than those premised on the accident of birth and nepotistic privilege. On the other hand, once in place the meritocratic elite is well placed to preserving itself in power by pre-empting opposition. Meritocracy prevents criticism by co-opting its possible critics and appropriating any one smart enough to overturn the existing status quo. The temptation to rise up the social ranks is irresistible for potential revolutionaries, with the effect that all possible centres of opposition are stripped of leaders before they pose any danger. Those very few who get co-opted and come from the bottom to penetrate the upper echelons leave the debilitating and unworthy context of their birth behind to pursue a solitary life of self-fulfilment away from ‘cumbersome’ community ties. They end up looking back not so much with anger, but with disdain.
For those stuck in the middle of the meritocratic social hierarchy, the world is ridden with anxiety. By definition being in the middle means that one can go either up or down. It might be not as much the desire to move to the front of the social mobility ‘queue’, as the fear of coming down that motivates the constant urge to do better that one’s neighbours. Those in the middle are obsessed with the pecking order and relative advantage. This quasi-Hobbesian framework of a ‘competition’ of all against all erodes trust, reciprocity and empathy; it leads to the atomization of communities and an unhealthy proclivity for Schadenfreude.
As for those at the bottom, the dominant world-view fosters contempt and self-loathing. We accept the meritocratic claim with respect to failure; that the unsuccessful have only themselves to blame. There are psychological studies which demonstrate that activating meritocratic beliefs increases the extent to which individuals justify status inequalities, even when those inequalities are disadvantageous to the self; ‘priming meritocracy leads members of a low status group to justify both personal and group disadvantage by decreasing perceptions of discrimination and increasing the extent to which they stereotype themselves’. Self-doubting and robbed of future leaders, those at the bottom are likely to stay put. Thus the tragic irony of meritocracy (both in principle and in practice); its ideology legitimises precisely the hierarchical inequity it claims to subvert.
Comments
11 Comments on Going mobile
-
Jason Antoniewicz on
Mon, 3rd Sep 2012 11:12 am
-
Nigel Rayment on
Mon, 3rd Sep 2012 3:24 pm
-
Carl Allen on
Mon, 3rd Sep 2012 7:04 pm
-
Robert Burns on
Tue, 4th Sep 2012 6:16 am
-
Carl Allen on
Thu, 6th Sep 2012 6:01 am
-
Robert Burns on
Thu, 6th Sep 2012 9:06 am
-
Carl Allen on
Thu, 6th Sep 2012 1:26 pm
-
Robert Burns on
Thu, 6th Sep 2012 5:00 pm
-
Nigel Rayment on
Thu, 6th Sep 2012 5:07 pm
-
Robert Burns on
Fri, 7th Sep 2012 4:06 am
-
Owen Jarvis on
Wed, 6th Mar 2013 12:28 pm
I’m not going to say that a meritocracy of whatever sort is the ideal (I don’t yet know enough about it), but what I’m wondering is if the research you point to went deep enough. It’s one thing to encourage meritocratic beliefs, but what sort of meritocracy, with what values, and what other persistent and damaging values of the subjects might have led to their attitudes, values which may have been overlooked. I.e. I’d guess these studies may need to cast their nets wider and deeper. Although it may sound far-fetched, maybe a long-term view of meritocracy with a better grasp of the ‘good’ life would lead to different results and a different, more humanistic approach to people.
Quite. It’s for just this reason that I have always felt queasy about initiatives like education’s gifted and talented. Propelling a small number upwards leads to a more intractable gulf between top and bottom. We should be pressing for greater equality and equity. We need social justice rather than social mobility. The latter is at best a red herring and, as you suggest, at worst a cynical ploy.
Individual social mobility can be achieved without contributing anything at all to the public benefit and that is not to be feared.
But often individual social mobility is achieved by taking away public benefit and that is to be feared.
Both can be done on merit. So perhaps any discussion on merit alone is wrong.
Matthew and Patricia (welcome Patricia!),
what is described in your post is what we currently have and all modern (consumer) societies are in various stages of a condition that can be described as ‘Progessive Dystopia’.
In this case I don’t agree at all with the first two points set out by Carl Allen.
My objections are as follows:
“Individual social mobility can be achieved without contributing anything at all to the public benefit and that is not to be feared.”
and
“But often individual social mobility is achieved by taking away public benefit and that is to be feared.”
The distinction being made is false and is an extension of the bogus idea of ‘something for nothing’.
Every individual (or social structure) is a cost to the common resource base (the commons) and as such is a cost to every other individual (or social structure).
So to receive from the commons without making a proportionate return to the commons is to live in a parasitic relationship with society.
Too many examples of what counts as ‘social mobility’ (and to which people are induced to aspire) exist in precisely this relationship to the commons.
Onward….
There is a presumption set out in the main post that in a true meritocracy the underclass would be stripped of all potential leaders.
A presumption here is that there is the possibility of a stable alignment of politics, idealogy and science that would produce a viable, objective definition of ‘merit’ and that a 100% reliable system could be built to implement it.
There is also an embedded assumption that all potential leaders would want to be ‘selected’ and ‘promoted’ to the ‘elite’. And what would that society do with the Refusniks?
The current ruling ‘elite’ can’t even collect all of the money owed under child support legislation or run a school examinations system.
So FAT CHANCE of constructing a ‘real’ meritocracy.
Human variability, subjectivity and perversity (on both sides of the meritocratic divide) would soon bring such a system to catastrophic failure.
The lesson of history is that while as individuals we face the danger of living through meritocracy experiments humanity is safe from it in the long run.
To close I put the following forward for discussion.
Could it be that the middle class is just too big for the use that can be made of it and this society and economy can no longer afford to sustain this redundant capacity?
And could it also be that all of the current talk about ‘social justice’, ‘social mobility’, etc. is just code for a return to Keynesian demand management but with a middle class emphasis?
@ Burns … choice of words re public benefit referred to the public good i.e. not the benefit system.
Hello Carl,
I was talking in much broader terms than the Benefits System.
In my post I suggest that the reason why ‘upward’ social mobilty has slowed, or stopped, is because the Middle Class is just too big to be supported in its current form by the majority population (i.e., the Working Class).
Because of this I believe that a significant proportion of the Middle Class are economically, socially and politically redundant.
Think about it.
How much of what they actually do is essential or generates significant economic, social or political benefit to anyone but themselves?
They have no better claim to their place in the scheme of things than the failing nationalised industries of the 1960′s and ’70′s.
Ah Robert, “True” middle class means that one of the two salaries of both working parents is surplus.
Thus the modern middle class was always much smaller than commonly believed i.e. when the two parents income is financially needed to provide a middle class lifestyle, then they have a working class life but are in a state of social mobility.
I would go along with your surplus income criteria as a defining characteristic – up to a point.
In my observation the ‘old school’ middle class went through a massive contraction in the early 1990′s.
What’s replaced them are pretentious chavs.
This discussion looks at risk of becoming unedifying.
Thank you Nigel,
but when solving a problem certain things need to be settled:
(a) decide what problem is really on the table to be solved;
(c) decide whether intervention is necessary or appropriate
As I see it (and I may be wrong) the Middle Class is already over-populated and over-subscribed.
Further, at the fundamental level the purpose of the Middle Class is to provide a functional layer between Rulers and The Ruled.
The Middle Class should not be larger than is necessary to maintain peaceful order and to support the wellbeing and general betterment of society in general.
A minority of what we now call the ‘MIddle Class’ fit this description and the majority are simply members of a lifestyle club (effectively an Apartheit layer).
At best these people see the majority as cattle to be milked and use the aspiration industry to this end.
At the worst they see the Working Class as an expendable evil in society to be held down by oppressive economics, laws and paramilitary force.
They do not deserve sympathetic consideration and no one should be putting resources into promoting their continuation or expansion any more than the dysfunctionally unionised state controlled/owned industries of the 1960′s and ’70′s.
And just to close…..
For anyone out there who gasped at my use of the term ‘Aprtheit layer’ I do not apologise and issue a challenge.
Please explain why:
(a) after about 40 years of anti-discrimmination legislation,;
(b) billions of pounds spent on ‘equal opportunity’ programmes;
(c) decades of colleges and universities spewing out hundreds of thousands ethnic minority graduates
that so few (or none in certain cases) have made it into the ranks of:
(a) Westminster MPs;
(b) senior Civil Servants;
(c) senior military personnel;
Is there a single ethnic minority person holding the equivalent of the rank of Colonel, or above in any of the armed services?
After over 200 years of Empire and Commonwealth is there a single ethnic minority member of the General Staff?
(d) Chief, or Assistant Chief, Constables;
The police service is notorious for not being able to attract, or retain, ethnic minority recruits.
(e) the Judiciary;
Why are ethnic minorities so under-represented in the ranks of Barristers, Judges and Magistrates?
(f) Senior post-holders in the media;
Is there an ethnic minority Andrew Neal, David Aaronovich or Rupert Murdoch out there?
These people sell themselves as the ‘guardians of our freedoms and values’.
So why don’t these ‘freedoms and values’ appear to be much (or at all) at work in their own ranks?
Handing over………
Really like this piece and much needed. I’m currently part of the Clore Social Leadership Programme and really enjoying the chance to explore and discuss what this means with inspiring people in the field. I have to say that meritocracy as an idea is not being challenged and debated to the extent I would hope. As mentioned in another post, it also feels much of the debate around institutions that in my mind symbolise a class ceiling on upward mobility – monarchy, honours system, house of lords, role of private education closed networks, are rarely focus of discussion either which points out for me that there is a lack of radical thinking in open discussion at the moment, particularly amongst aspiring leaders. Where does the debate go from here Patricia? How does it get opened out, whilst navigating the deeply held sense of merit in our achievements that most of us have, in tension with any advantages we may have experienced along the way designed to create an unfair playing field (choice of universities, networks etc)
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.