T.M. Krishna’s (Carnatic vocalist and writer-activist) critical observation of N.R. Narayana Murthy’s rather insensitive statement of a 70-hour work week – a statement delivered in a certain style that smacks of arrogance – is a fitting intervention uncovering a narrow socially constructed and certified idea of merit and success “hidden behind such views”. This statement made by Murthy brings to the fore that notion of merit – one that is not as estimable as the word is generally understood. Such an idea has to be deconstructed, its vacuousness exposed, and the consequent concerns it raises are something that every thinking citizen should take note of.
Though this statement sparked a debate and received some criticism in the media, commentators, like Krishna have been very charitable and polite in excoriating Murthy’s embedded “thought process” in that coded insensitive statement of a 70-hour work week. If decoded, Murthy, through this statement, appears to be pontificating on the virtues of merit and espousing a value for meritocracy, a social order built around a particular notion of merit. Such an order of meritocracy is a golden cage in which arrogant elitism is ensconced. Perhaps, for this reason, David Riesman, an American sociologist, notes that the term meritocracy is a “shorthand defining the elite in industrial societies increasingly organised along technocratic lines”.
However, to realise fully the concerns, a little bit of bluntness and straightforwardness is called for in assessing the implications of such a notion of socially defined merit.
Also read: A Belief in Meritocracy Is Not Only False: It’s Bad for You
Meritocracy naturalises inequality
Meritocracy is a word that was brought into currency by Michael Young, British sociologist and activist, in his 1958 book The Rise of Meritocracy, 1870-2033. Young did not use the word in the way we understand it today. It had a pejorative sense in his usage. In his attack on the thoughtlessness of meritocracy, he points out dangerous consequences that follow from it. This book was Young’s classic satirical tale, a spoof that portrays the consequences of a society where a citizen achieves success and gains rewards on the basis of individual merit. Merit, here, is formulated as IQ+ Effort. The book is written from the perspective of a successful meritocrat, Young’s narrator, who reflects and recalls the victory of meritocracy and argues that looking for equality fosters a culture of mediocrity.
A popular notion that is driven down is that a just society is best ruled by people with merit. The best jobs in the highest-paying companies should be given to merited candidates.
Meritocracy, an idea or system constructed along the lines of ‘democracy’ and ‘aristocracy’, is the rule of the merited people and it is justified by proclaiming that it is this system of merit that best organises a just society. Though a just society, inequalities would persist and the justness lies in the best positions being given to those on the basis of merit. Any degree of inequality was justified as long as there was no discrimination and no favours granted to anyone. In other words, the society was justly unequal in meritocracy as against the old system which was unjust because it was unjustly unequal.
To justify such inequality is to “‘naturalise’ inequality”, to borrow, Thomas Piketty’s expression from Capital and Ideology. Piketty notes that “…elites of many societies, in all climes and periods…have sought to ‘naturalise’ inequality and rightly observes, “[i]nequality is neither economic nor technological; it is ideological and political”. The ideology that is at play in the present context is one of meritocracy and the meritocratic elites propagate this ideology to “naturalise” inequality.
Rigged system of merit
Krishna makes an important point that “Murthy is not a person of ideas that emanate from conscious, deliberate engagement with the larger society”. Such a disposition of not engaging with the larger society is an inevitable consequence of an amalgam of technocracy and meritocracy (He is right when he says “Murthy’s life has been in technology space”). That’s what it appears to be. Murthy is a product of such an amalgam. Such a product would be devoid of any other concerns of the society. Deliberations on issues of social justice, inequality, climate change arising out of capitalist greed, and how public resources have been given to capitalists at throwaway prices by the state because of the unholy nexus between the capitalists and politicians for mutual benefit, and other issues plaguing the society require a good exposure to the Humanities and the Social Sciences – one that cannot be expected from a product of technocratic-meritocratic education.
Having benefitted from such a nexus, the beneficiaries declaim from public platforms and the media the importance of merit and hard work as the only factors linked to success. Such declamations completely bury the rigged social and political system. The irony of merit is that this very rigging is considered as part of merit which the smart ones from business schools manage so smoothly. This rigging is considered a practicality that is useful for the business class and, therefore, developed as a sophisticated tool of art that is exalted as a value. This value has no social good. In fact, it is socially injurious. The person who acquires and cultivates such a value is rewarded for what is considered to be his merit. This merit rating has been perfected in scope and certainty and is equated with or supposed to manifest the above formulation of merit as mental ability + effort.
The force that seems to operate for good or ill. Credit: Flickr/fearthekumquat CC BY ND 2.0
There is a sweet reasoning that is subtly at play here in according such merit a value as distinguished from genuine social values like social justice, human dignity, equality, and freedom.
Anyway, the public will not come to know what happens behind the screen but what they are presented with on the stage, and thus made to believe, are the virtues and qualities of meritocracy voiced through television channels and social media platforms (70-hour work week being one of those qualities).
Votaries of meritocracy will claim that a fair system of competition has been created where everyone plays by the rules. To win this game (that is to be successful), they further claim, one needs hard work (for long hours) coupled with inbuilt talent. This is the oft-repeated social script for achievement and success. All it requires is a person of Murthy’s stature to keep this script in circulation.
Also read: It’s Time to Defang ‘Meritocracy’, an Argument That Claims Lives
Merit and tadpole philosophy
Daniel Markovits, Professor at the Yale Law School, and the author of The Meritocracy Trap, states in an article that “[i]n practice, however, meritocracy excludes everyone outside of a narrow elite”. He further notes that whatever the rules, it is only the rich who can win. This is so because the meritocratic system is so designed that odds are stacked against the marginalised and the have-nots. Markovits argues that the children of elites will always have access to the best schools and best universities from where they are likely to be conferred the elitist job. And the cycle continues. All along the mantra of hard work is chanted, either as self-assuring oneself, deceptively, of one’s abilities (read merit) and justifying the rewards, success and achievements that they have gained or as homilies for others to follow this path.
Brian Barry, a moral and political philosopher and a critic of such a system, has pointed out with empirical evidence and analytical arguments, in Why Social Justice Matters, how such a system gives rise to what R.H. Tawney, an economic historian and social critic, calls the tadpole philosophy:
“It is possible that intelligent tadpoles reconcile themselves to the inconvenience of their positions by reflecting that, though most of them will live and die as tadpoles and nothing more, the more fortunate of the species will one day shed their tails, distend their mouths and stomachs, hop nimbly on to dry land, and croak addresses to their former friends on the virtues by means of which tadpoles of character and capacity can rise to frogs.”
Murthy, typically, is like Tawney’s frog trapped in the golden cage of meritocracy – with no “engagement with the larger society”, as Krishna rightly notes – mocking and teasing those who could not achieve, what according to him is, success. The tadpole philosophy is a way of looking down upon people, the have-nots, and saying “You couldn’t make it because you didn’t have the merit”.
This tadpole philosophy is best captured in a scene from a very popular Kannada movie of the early seventies, Bangaarada Manushya (Golden Man). It depicts the insensitiveness towards the have-nots by one of the characters. In that scene, the protagonist of the movie, admonishing his nephew, shows sensitive concern for have-nots not having adequate means for nourishment. His nephew, an officer proud of his merit, very arrogantly passes off the protagonist’s admonition in a totally insensitive way with an “I don’t care attitude”. He reacts by saying that it is their karma and it is their fate. This reaction reveals the tadpole philosophy displayed by the character where the privileged look down upon the underprivileged because they are unmerited.
Merit deconstructed
For whose benefit are the meritorious occupying a position in an institution or an organisation? If the meritorious person is serving an institution or an organisation then what or whose purpose is that institution or organisation serving? What is the merited individual’s contribution to society and to the well-being of his fellow beings? Is a person as a member of the managerial or technocratic class – a membership that one has gained by clearing some examinations – enriching oneself and the shareholders of the corporation one is working for? If by enriching oneself and enhancing one’s social status, one is considered to be successful, then, is not such a success, that is measured only by distinguishing one from others, socially and economically, creating an inequality?
Is this inequality, in a meritocratic system, justified because this is generated by some accepted or socially constructed notion of merit? Such uncomfortable questions deconstruct the fundamental notion of merit, generally understood as an ideal value, to reveal the emptiness in the content of merit. It is empty because it is unable to serve the broader social purposes, mentioned above, like social justice and reducing inequality etc.
S.K. Arun Murthi has taught philosophy in the Humanities and the Social Sciences department, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali, Punjab.
