Attack on the Elites: Why Meritocracy is Under Siege

 With the powerful expansion of liberalism that the world has experienced since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the wave of increasingly virulent criticism of globalized economic, political, and media elites within Western democracies suddenly began to transform into a global tsunami with the advent of Brexit, the election of Trump, and the rise of a populist "demagoguery" fueled by anti-elite resentment in many European countries.

Perplexity of the Elites

The reaction of the elites thus singled out oscillates between perplexity and total incomprehension, infantilizing the angry people deemed incapable of understanding and choosing what is good for them by opting for irresponsible demagogues over their duly graduated and "necessarily" more trustworthy peers.

The Paradox of Meritocracy

Their perplexity is legitimate: how is it that at a time when the complexity of the world suggests calling on the best graduates, we entrust the reins of power to individuals who openly denigrate experts or even engage in Science denial? And how is it that those who have expressed their rage against the elites fight daily for their own children to receive the best possible education in the hope of joining the "caste" of graduates from the best schools?

Meritocracy and Social Mobility

How is it that meritocracy based on academic success, accepted by all as the least unjust form of elite selection, and preferred for this reason in democratic countries to other forms of selectivity in force in certain societies (aristocracy, gerontocracy, plutocracy, etc.)?

Michael Young's Satirical Fiction

A work of fiction by the sociologist and great English intellectual Michael Young, who contributed decisively to the victory of Labour leader Clement Attlee over Conservative Winston Churchill in 1945, provides an enlightening and premonitory answer to these nagging questions.

The Rise of Meritocracy

In his satirical fiction "The Rise of the Meritocracy" (1958), Michael Young had detected an underlying trend at work in Western societies: the tendency of elites to increasingly base their legitimacy on their intelligence and skills. However, this did not make them any less arrogant or domineering, quite the contrary. At the end of his book, the masses, exasperated by the contempt and authoritarianism of the Meritocracy, revolted in the year 2033…

Skepticism Towards Intellectual Meritocracy

His skepticism about the fact that an intellectual meritocracy would lead to true equality of opportunity was based on the intuition that "a more meritocratic society does not necessarily experience greater social mobility" because, he said, "cognitive elites have a nasty tendency to self-reproduce." He had foreseen that meritocracy could create a society of arrogant winners and resentful losers, particularly because the winners would become unbearable by hammering home that they succeeded because they worked harder than others, that they are more competent because they passed exams where others failed; in other words, that their success is solely due to their intrinsic qualities and not at all to favorable socio-economic conditions and insidious mechanisms of social reproduction.

The French Competitive Examination System

In France, the competitive examination system, which has undeniable democratic virtues, is at the same time a source of a formidable flaw: it creates, among its beneficiaries, an indisputable sense of self-justification, in addition to being easily captured by the social elites in place. It has ended up secreting a new politico-administrative aristocracy, all the more at odds with the evolution of society as it is far too homogeneous. It comes from a very small number of elite schools, which is detrimental to intellectual diversity. The United Kingdom, although not practicing the competitive examination system, trains its elites in an even smaller number of institutions, which arouses growing rejection of the "Oxbridge" patent holders.

The Malthusian Nature of the System

This system also has the disadvantage of being very Malthusian. It concerns at best a few hundred people per generation. The narrowness of this pool no longer meets the requirements of a world where legitimacy is never given in advance, and broad-based emulation must be the rule. A world where the multiplicity of possibilities requires a variety of experiences and training.

The Cosmopolitan Nature of Meritocratic Elites

It can also be noted that paradoxically, meritocratic elites are denigrated precisely for the very reasons they pride themselves on: they are cosmopolitan, mobile, and focused on their goals despite popular pressure. Their international mobility, which they see as a validation of their skills, is precisely a source of mistrust because they are seen as mercenaries who would not hesitate to abandon their responsibilities if things went wrong.

Populist Demagogues and Loyalty

Bulgarian political scientist Ivan Krastev has also put forward an interesting hypothesis: populist demagogues like Trump or Marine Le Pen win thanks to their promise of unconditional loyalty to their preferred social groups, unlike the "mercenary" nature of traditional elites. They promise a "nationalization" of the elites whose social ties with the people have been weakened by globalization. A recent study by two Harvard University researchers also goes in this direction: it highlights the fact that the least educated voters tend to vote for the least educated candidates in the hope that they will not betray them.

Conclusion

For my part, I believe that we must distinguish between objective and legitimate criticism and the indiscriminate opprobrium cast on all those who stand out, the unappealable condemnation, and the trials of intent. No matter how talented and hardworking one is, and whatever success results from it, one must never lose the humility dictated by the ethics of responsibility. For "humility is the antidote to pride." (Voltaire)