Meritocracy. Aristocracy. These are words I seldom hear or even read in this year of many words, most of which bear political implication. They are anything but trendy in our common vocabulary.
I propose we change that trend immediately, and I’ll try to explain why in this blogpost.
You can look up Webster’s definitions for yourself in this regard, if preferred, but I will simply define the terms of my brief treatise here as “meritocracy…..a system in which people are empowered based on evidence-based knowledge and performance” vs. “aristocracy…..a system in which people are empowered based on hereditary nobility.” I’ve always preferred to think of it as “getting ahead because of what you know vs. who you know.” Some people are rewarded on merit. Meritocracy. Others are instead rewarded on circumstance of birth. Aristocracy. Laying aside that good luck and hard work do at times coincide, or that some who are born of privilege do labor hard to extend that privilege, these terms can be generally defined as at least mostly earned reward vs. mostly endowed reward.
As for why it matters, that’s what I think more conversation needs to be about these days.
I would start such a conversation with this simple question: is it mostly right or mostly wrong that someone would be rewarded, hired, promoted based one what one knows rather than who one knows? More right to be empowered for what one has worked for, or more right to be empowered for who one is by birthright? Or, taking it a step further (and applying the Martin Luther King, Jr. dream), is it better to be judged by the color of one’s skin or by the content of one’s character?
If you have answers to these very loaded questions, then the larger question of meritocracy vs. aristocracy has become for you a question of right vs. wrong. Which then matters, obviously, to you.
Likely few if any of us would be surprised to note that most everyone believes meritocracy if right. Working hard should be rewarded above being born with the right name, or the right race, or with the right body size and facial appearance or other physical feature. Correct?
But now let’s say things aren’t working out this way. Let’s suppose instead that the aristocracy prevails, and that only the rich get richer. What’s more, let’s say that in that process, the poor get even poorer. That those who work hard are not rewarded? That those who merit a raise……or a promotion, or even a job itself are not rewarded.
What happens then?
When one’s society turns out to be more of an aristocracy and less of a meritocracy, how does one feel? And when feeling that way, what does one then do?
Perhaps you’ll relate to this bit of conventional wisdom from the world of behavioral healthcare having to do with human emotions. When one is wounded of body, mind, or spirit one's pain then triggers a fear response aimed at either fighting or fleeing to control against future wounds of that same nature. Self-preservation. Survival instinct. Call it whatever you wish. And, if hurt leads directly to fear, where does fear then lead? Perhaps you’ll agree the next emotion in line is anger.
Anger is for some people directed inward in the form of guilt or even shame. Some who are hurt and then afraid will go on to become self-destructive, judging themselves as never good enough, always less than. From there avoidance, withdrawal, flight becomes one's more likely action. For others, anger is directed outward in the form of grievance and blame. It’s always the other guy’s fault. To avoid the hurt and fear guilt itself provides, they use anger to punish others instead. Fight and avenge, rather than flight and avoid.
When a society becomes more aristocratic, when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, one rightly can expect that the so-called “working class” who are actively laboring day after day and/or night after night will get their feelings hurt. They will then feel fear. They will then feel anger. It’s a natural sequence of emotion, leading next to some degree of fight or flight behavior.
Throughout history, those who worked harder but for less reward have been prey for a particular type of parasite. That parasite is someone seeking political power, acknowledging their hurt, and promising to act upon their fears and their anger. Often, though not always, that parasite may come not from the working class himself but rather may be an aristocrat only claiming merit where none has actually existed. Either way, what counts is that this political parasite must know the language of hurt, fear, and anger and speak it loudly and boldly. This attracts the prey and the parasite is then lavishly rewarded with his human harvest.
As noted in my previous post re. autocracy vs. democracy, today’s world is largely divided between two rather different power brokers. Both, I would today contend, are largely aristocratic. I would go so far as to label some as democratic aristocrats, meaning they are non-parasitic, while others are autocratic aristocrats. The latter are most definitely parasites.
Since I’m using terminology here that seems strange and new while seeking to stir a new but necessary conversation in today’s world, you may struggle to continue reading and trying to understand my point. I do appreciate your trying to follow along, assuming you have gotten even this far and are brave enough to continue.
Breaking it down in the simplest language I can presently conceive, a big problem in our world is that there is little to no meritocracy in existence. Not in my native United States of America, to be sure. We have only an aristocracy, though in name we prefer to think otherwise to ease our own pain having earlier discerned right from wrong. And here we have two parties essentially competing for power in government. We have the Republican Party of aristocrats, which are currently honing in on the pain of those who are hurting from being prey in such a society. And when I say honing in they are speaking the message of fear and of anger or grievance and blame such that those who are hurting feel somehow attracted. Better yet, they are promised a reward based on their own merits, the ultimate attraction.
In the opposite corner of our political ring, wearing the blue trunks if you will, is the Democratic Party. They are still aristocrats but of a different breed, if you will. They are trying to talk the language of hurt….fear….anger, but something isn’t connecting. It is as though they are still themselves pretending to live in a meritocracy, claiming they are themselves positioned by merit rather than privilege. Because they are not parasites themselves, they deny that their audience is prey. They imagine that continued hard work, in whatever capacity, will produce future rewards.
Whether we’re talking farm work, factory work, government work, school work, or any other type of meritorious service including the latest language of “a political ground game where we out-work our opponent,” what the Democratic Party in America fails to do is speak the language of the wounded prey who are being otherwise attracted to the far more parasitic Republican Party. We’ve reached a stage in our national body politic where the parasites are now better at attracting the prey than the non-parasites are at protecting them. By pretending we live in a meritocracy instead of an aristocracy, the Democratic Party is losing more and more credibility on the part of those who know better. And this, I contend, is especially true among the young males in our society who are finding themselves attracted to the wealthy parasites who can speak their language of pain, fear (anxiety), and anger (grievance).
Are there Democrats who can speak the right language? Sure. Are there Republicans who cannot? Yes, indeed. But the primary power structure in these two main parties differs greatly in this approach to the unspoken question of meritocracy vs. aristocracy. It is about to matter greatly to the world at large as we teeter on the brink of shifting sides as a nation in what George Will rightly, I believe, calls World War III (its having started in 2014 when Putin and the forces of Autocracy defeated Crimea and its forces of Democracy.) Since that time Democracy has been on the defense in this unspoken world war, and while Will does not say so, I am saying that a Trump victory will shift our American alliance from the Democratic side to the Autocratic and have the same effect as if we had entered WW II on the Fascist side with Hitler against the western allies. We will indeed end World War III sooner, not later, in such case. (Perhaps even before having named it as such, George Will being a rare voice of reason in such regard.) And, by so doing, our own Democratic Party will end any pretense of meritocracy in today’s world. With it, there will be no protection even possible from the prey of aristocracy and crony capitalism otherwise known as autocracy.
Okay. Let's pause here.
For the few of you who have read this far, my greatest hope is that I will one-day be regarded as a false prophet. I want my voice of woe to be proven wrong.
コメント