Another problem is the validity of the credentialing. I know of a situation where a public official with a Ph.D. in leadership is quite obviously failing in some basic aspects of leadership.
I went to a military school for high school (Culver) where I had to take leadership classes every semester taught by former military. The one thing that taught me is almost nobody in leadership in America has ever had to learn anything about leadership, which is a skill. We promote people to leaders with no idea what leadership even is and then watch them fail. I've always believed if I founded a company one of the core differences in management would be we would teach people leadership.
Venice had some good ideas on how to promote leaders without predicting it on self-assertion (our system today) or overt privilege (what you're arguing was America's previous system).
Of course they did this within a small governing class, but predicting their government on the formal equality of around 2,000 members of the Grand Council still meant they were solving an important problem. If you search "Venice" in this document, you'll find my discussion of it.
I also wrote up the mechanism of merit selection without open competition in this piece — before I knew that medieval and renaissance Venice had pioneered it.
Any system you set up will get people to optimize for it, including every single counter productive loophole that exists. You need to constantly change the nature of the game to prevent over-optimization.
Meritocracy used to be on the side of change, but lately it's on the side of status quo. I think this always happens.
Interesting piece here, taking a rather unusual tact of cautioning against the modern meritocracy. Not sure I agree but certainly worthy of sharing and discussion.
It's common for people to ask how one can select the "best" leaders for their nation. Whether this is through technocratic selection or democracy. I think, however, this may be the wrong question to ask.
No single individual, no matter how competent, hard-working, or informed, will have enough knowledge such that he or she will be able to optimize policy or decision-making. Instead of asking who should make decisions, perhaps we allow the people to make them directly.
Multibody sortition is a radical idea, but I think worth exploring. If we leverage the "wisdom of the crowd" we can tease the signal from the noise, and aggregate the collective wisdom of the people directly.
Interesting piece! One thought I've often had is of the Roman Tribune--an official representing the people that can stop any action but without the power to act themselves. What I like is the idea that the people might not know the details of policy, but they definitely know when experts are ramming through things that they don't want. The dance between the administrators and the Tribunes creates better policy because the experts get to figure out what to do, but can't just drive the agenda to wherever they want without taking into account the people's beliefs and goals or else their plans will be halted.
The Tribunes were selected by the plebians in Rome and had the power to annul the acts of any official. Even the consuls who ran Rome couldn't counteract the order of the Tribunes. They were there to protect the people against magistrates and the Senate. The Senate had the power to act, and the Tribune the power the stop any action. In result, the Senate had to take the people into account. (Its why so many newspapers named themselves Tribune, as the voice of the people).
Why do we have to have the -ocracy part? Any position with status or power should primarily require the person to be exceptionally able to contribute to the benefit of others, highly responsible to others, and we can value the way in which they show responsibility to others. But while doing this, we could equally value the contribution of everyone, since the contribution of everyone is essential. Instead, we give lip service of respect to the people we completely depend upon for their labor, but deny them meaningful respect, and we put on a pedestal other people who can often behave irresponsibly, and then we give them a massive amount of latitude when they do that by continuing to admire them.
We didn’t ever have a real meritocracy anyway. We are not fairly assigning ‘merit’ and it’s not clear we could do so in some kind of hierarchical way, and people with potential often do not get sufficient opportunities to develop it.
Our value system is deeply confused—we have come to value mainly ‘success’ not contributions or things of lasting worth. We keep admiring people simply for the fact they have success, while neglecting many more valuable traits, and we shape the future generations in a way that won’t encourage them to become fine people but to become people who ‘win’ but often aren’t very good, morally or otherwise.
I believe the Iron Law of Oligarchy to be accurate. It's not a question of whether you'll be ruled by an oligarchy, but how the members of said group are chosen. With aristocracy, it's birth. With theocracy, it's position in the reigning religion. With meritocracy, it's position within the secular religion of academia.
Personally, I'm a fan of sortition. Choosing legislators at random might not always get the best and brightest, but at least only a small percentage would be malignant personalities rather the overwhelming majority we see today.
Interesting post! As usual :), I would note that between the pre-1830s aristocratic tendencies and the post-WWII or Neoliberal Era's centralized meritocracy. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, the USA operated with a decentralized political system that featured genuinely democratic processes within mass member parties that formed the basis of democratic governance structures that operated within an economically and politically decentralized system. These parties allowed local communities to deliberate and make decisions, generating grassroots engagement and creating a diversity of paths to leadership.
decision making was diffused across a much broader and more diverse swath of the population, with numerous dynamic and variable routes to leadership positions. Local conventions, caucuses, and other participatory mechanisms provided opportunities for ordinary citizens to influence governance, creating a ruling class that reflected regional and socioeconomic diversity. The decentralized structure also made for more accountability, as leaders were closely tied to their communities and responsive to their constituents.
This system, while very imperfect, avoided many of the problems of both aristocracy and centralized meritocracy. It demonstrated that a democratic society could grow a significant share of its leaders through community driven processes rather than solely through top down credentialing (in whatever form(s) "credentialing" may take) or elite gatekeeping. In my opinion, revisiting the principles of decentralization and localism offers valuable guidance for thinking about how to handle our current problems
Aristocracy comes from the Greek meaning "rule of the best". Meritocracy means the same thing. They aren't really different.
Noblesse oblige is far from universal among aristocrats. I suspect it is about as common among meritocratic elites as it was among aristocrats.
The problem we have is the way we create our elites today. Our current political-economic system is designed so that there is no limit to the degree of self-actualization an individual can achieve. In the postwar era there was a soft upper limit. Elites were less able to divorce themselves from the bulk of humanity. For example, on the block where I grew up, we had a corporate executive living across the street from a truck driver. On the same block we had social workers, teachers, a cop, professors, engineer, CPA, owner of a paving firm, and a guy who did marine salvage. A real mixed bunch.
Today our system places no limits on how far our meritocratic elite can rise, permitting them to live in places that are unaffordable for anyone not like them, resulting in geographic isolation. Couple that with informational ghettos on the internet and no wonder we are where we are.
I think the way old elites had to live more of their lives among ordinary people than modern ones is a good insight. Although the point about noblesse oblige I think stands. When you read from the nineteenth century to early twentieth, there truly is a difference in the way elites think and act. We really used to inculcate in them a sense that they they were responsible for ordinary people--which was arrogant while at the same time lead to leadership that was more paternal.
The aristocracy of the nineteenth century evolved out of the aristocracy of earlier centuries. Typically the founding member of a particular family did gain their position through merit, so it was like a meritocracy in that way. A fraction of their offspring inherited the position, just as some of the children of today’s meritocratic elites maintain their membership in the elite class. The child who was to inherit the title would receive an elite education, just as the children of today’s elites do. The primary difference is who succeeded their father was selected arbitrarily, today any elite children uninterested into becoming a ruling elite can opt out, which was not available to the heir.
As for noblesse oblige, I think you are confusing this with a different thing. The aristocratic tradition in England, for example, stretches back to William the Conquerer, who largely wiped out the Anglo-Saxon elites and replaced them with Norman elites. By “spreading” his Norman vassals throughout all of Normandy and England he reduced elite density, eliminating the excess elite problem (what Peter Turchin calls elite proliferation) that causes sociopolitical crises. Kings have to worry about their vassals overthrowing then (e.g. Magna Carta). The chief vassals have to worry about vassals under them and the men of their household (warriors who have sworn loyalty to them)
In the beginning the kind had some informal advisors, but there wasn’t really any government. In the latter part of the 12th century, bodies of law began to be assembled and formal governmental positions were established, sort of like a cabinet. These personal were still men of the king’s household. As the government grew in the 13th century (and the taxes it demanded as well) the nobility (throught two civil wars) established that they needed to be consulted about such matters, Thus was born Parliament, which was a body of nobles (what would later be called the House of Lords). In 1275 the wool tax was instituted. Taxes on other trade goods were established and in the mid-14th century the counties finances were put in a sound basis under Edward III with regular taxation of both land and commerce. I’ll point out that Ed’s dad had been deposed and impaled to death when Ed was 14, and his grandson who followed him was deposed and starved to death in a dungeon. It isn’t surprising that Parliament was expanded to include a House of Commons at the time commoners were being asked to pay taxes.
In time Parliament became a real thorn in the side of the monarch, overthrowing them twice (and killing one) in the 17th century, until the King became the junior partner to Parliament in 1688. Over the next 150 years the power of the King devolved to nothing more than figurehead. Parliament was now in charge. With the rise of capitalism a new class of elites arose who demanded and got a place at the table (suffrage rights) in 1831. This followed the scary French Revolution and a real revolutionary situation around 1800, and then another one around 1720. Suffrage expansions continued until universal adult suffrage was established in 1929.
The trend was that as the economy grew more complex and state revenue increased, government required the support of a growing fraction of the nation. The people expected to provide this support also (usually with a lag) gained a say in the governmental project. The old system in which discontent was signaled by armed display or outright armed rebellion or civil war, was replaced with the electoral system in which dispute between elite factions were settled by elections. The concern of elites for those under them has always been of the “ya got to dance with those who brung ya” variety.
The problem we face today is the number of elites has risen to a level where there isn’t enough pie to go around. Either we have a showdown between side with one of them neutering the other (as happened over 1775-81 and 1861-65) or they all get a haircut (as happened over 1929-45). Elections still do what they have always done, act as a proxy for the armed conflicts we would otherwise have. It’s just that the competition between the two elite factions has risen to a level beyond just polarization, but on to political warfare.
Note I do not see nonelites as playing any role in governance of our society. But here’s the thing. As the economy has grown new kinds of elites appear because so many different kinds of know-how are needed to keep our civilization operating (and they need to have agency in order to do their jobs). There are millions of elites of various stature in America today. Often it is a matter of choice. One who decides to advance through the managerial ladder at work can become an economic elite in the sense that they influence some part of how the economy operates. Ditto for people who volunteer to work on political campaigns or work in politics or advocacy groups can become an elite.
Meritocracy as it was coined doesn’t not mean the same thing as aristocracy.
Baron Michael Young wrote his classic book and coined the term as satire. It is the belief that one’s privilege is why they are superior.
A sort of genetic lottery of advantage that allows one to claim, “I’m inherently better” without considering gross distinctions in access to resources and power.
He also worked to do something about the Rise of Meritocracy via his influence and access to power. He didn’t simply complain about the “elites.”
Are we using merit as measured by objective tests such as the SAT as opposed to subjective assessments based on measures such as essays which are easily gamed in our decision making to determine who is being admitted to the top universities, hired or promoted to the best jobs or are we currently discriminating against whites, Asians and men in an attempt to compensate for the past discrimination against others?
If we are currently discriminating based on race and sex and recent Supreme Court cases suggest that we are, then don't those currently being discriminated against have the same legitimate grievances that women and blacks had in the past? Just asking.
The entire idea that anyone should be using credentialing institutions like universities to shape a ruling class is in conflict with both the integrity of the institution as a credentialing mechanism, and of democracy.
What an interesting analysis of how our current leaders came into play and why most of them have no qualms about not serving the voters who put them into office.
Another problem is the validity of the credentialing. I know of a situation where a public official with a Ph.D. in leadership is quite obviously failing in some basic aspects of leadership.
I went to a military school for high school (Culver) where I had to take leadership classes every semester taught by former military. The one thing that taught me is almost nobody in leadership in America has ever had to learn anything about leadership, which is a skill. We promote people to leaders with no idea what leadership even is and then watch them fail. I've always believed if I founded a company one of the core differences in management would be we would teach people leadership.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you that someone with a PhD in leadership fails in ANY aspects of leadership :)
Venice had some good ideas on how to promote leaders without predicting it on self-assertion (our system today) or overt privilege (what you're arguing was America's previous system).
Of course they did this within a small governing class, but predicting their government on the formal equality of around 2,000 members of the Grand Council still meant they were solving an important problem. If you search "Venice" in this document, you'll find my discussion of it.
https://app.box.com/s/hlwwv64txsww4n3tkuz03c6ybswd5yvw
I also wrote up the mechanism of merit selection without open competition in this piece — before I knew that medieval and renaissance Venice had pioneered it.
https://www.themandarin.com.au/83008-leadership-without-careerism-possible/
Any system you set up will get people to optimize for it, including every single counter productive loophole that exists. You need to constantly change the nature of the game to prevent over-optimization.
Meritocracy used to be on the side of change, but lately it's on the side of status quo. I think this always happens.
Interesting piece here, taking a rather unusual tact of cautioning against the modern meritocracy. Not sure I agree but certainly worthy of sharing and discussion.
It's common for people to ask how one can select the "best" leaders for their nation. Whether this is through technocratic selection or democracy. I think, however, this may be the wrong question to ask.
No single individual, no matter how competent, hard-working, or informed, will have enough knowledge such that he or she will be able to optimize policy or decision-making. Instead of asking who should make decisions, perhaps we allow the people to make them directly.
Multibody sortition is a radical idea, but I think worth exploring. If we leverage the "wisdom of the crowd" we can tease the signal from the noise, and aggregate the collective wisdom of the people directly.
I've been giving a lot of thought to this idea lately, though imperfect, I have sketched out some ideas here: https://www.lianeon.org/p/imagining-our-martian-government
Interesting piece! One thought I've often had is of the Roman Tribune--an official representing the people that can stop any action but without the power to act themselves. What I like is the idea that the people might not know the details of policy, but they definitely know when experts are ramming through things that they don't want. The dance between the administrators and the Tribunes creates better policy because the experts get to figure out what to do, but can't just drive the agenda to wherever they want without taking into account the people's beliefs and goals or else their plans will be halted.
Never heard of this before. Always amazes me how many different approaches to government there are.
The Tribunes were selected by the plebians in Rome and had the power to annul the acts of any official. Even the consuls who ran Rome couldn't counteract the order of the Tribunes. They were there to protect the people against magistrates and the Senate. The Senate had the power to act, and the Tribune the power the stop any action. In result, the Senate had to take the people into account. (Its why so many newspapers named themselves Tribune, as the voice of the people).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribune
Interesting point of view👍
Why do we have to have the -ocracy part? Any position with status or power should primarily require the person to be exceptionally able to contribute to the benefit of others, highly responsible to others, and we can value the way in which they show responsibility to others. But while doing this, we could equally value the contribution of everyone, since the contribution of everyone is essential. Instead, we give lip service of respect to the people we completely depend upon for their labor, but deny them meaningful respect, and we put on a pedestal other people who can often behave irresponsibly, and then we give them a massive amount of latitude when they do that by continuing to admire them.
We didn’t ever have a real meritocracy anyway. We are not fairly assigning ‘merit’ and it’s not clear we could do so in some kind of hierarchical way, and people with potential often do not get sufficient opportunities to develop it.
Our value system is deeply confused—we have come to value mainly ‘success’ not contributions or things of lasting worth. We keep admiring people simply for the fact they have success, while neglecting many more valuable traits, and we shape the future generations in a way that won’t encourage them to become fine people but to become people who ‘win’ but often aren’t very good, morally or otherwise.
I’ve been planning to write about this for some time, I may use your piece as a jumping off point if you don’t mind because I think it’s quite good.
Absolutely, please do!
I did! https://open.substack.com/pub/lastbluedog/p/meritocracy-isnt-what-you-think-it?r=namyt&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I believe the Iron Law of Oligarchy to be accurate. It's not a question of whether you'll be ruled by an oligarchy, but how the members of said group are chosen. With aristocracy, it's birth. With theocracy, it's position in the reigning religion. With meritocracy, it's position within the secular religion of academia.
Personally, I'm a fan of sortition. Choosing legislators at random might not always get the best and brightest, but at least only a small percentage would be malignant personalities rather the overwhelming majority we see today.
Interesting post! As usual :), I would note that between the pre-1830s aristocratic tendencies and the post-WWII or Neoliberal Era's centralized meritocracy. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, the USA operated with a decentralized political system that featured genuinely democratic processes within mass member parties that formed the basis of democratic governance structures that operated within an economically and politically decentralized system. These parties allowed local communities to deliberate and make decisions, generating grassroots engagement and creating a diversity of paths to leadership.
decision making was diffused across a much broader and more diverse swath of the population, with numerous dynamic and variable routes to leadership positions. Local conventions, caucuses, and other participatory mechanisms provided opportunities for ordinary citizens to influence governance, creating a ruling class that reflected regional and socioeconomic diversity. The decentralized structure also made for more accountability, as leaders were closely tied to their communities and responsive to their constituents.
This system, while very imperfect, avoided many of the problems of both aristocracy and centralized meritocracy. It demonstrated that a democratic society could grow a significant share of its leaders through community driven processes rather than solely through top down credentialing (in whatever form(s) "credentialing" may take) or elite gatekeeping. In my opinion, revisiting the principles of decentralization and localism offers valuable guidance for thinking about how to handle our current problems
Aristocracy comes from the Greek meaning "rule of the best". Meritocracy means the same thing. They aren't really different.
Noblesse oblige is far from universal among aristocrats. I suspect it is about as common among meritocratic elites as it was among aristocrats.
The problem we have is the way we create our elites today. Our current political-economic system is designed so that there is no limit to the degree of self-actualization an individual can achieve. In the postwar era there was a soft upper limit. Elites were less able to divorce themselves from the bulk of humanity. For example, on the block where I grew up, we had a corporate executive living across the street from a truck driver. On the same block we had social workers, teachers, a cop, professors, engineer, CPA, owner of a paving firm, and a guy who did marine salvage. A real mixed bunch.
Today our system places no limits on how far our meritocratic elite can rise, permitting them to live in places that are unaffordable for anyone not like them, resulting in geographic isolation. Couple that with informational ghettos on the internet and no wonder we are where we are.
I think the way old elites had to live more of their lives among ordinary people than modern ones is a good insight. Although the point about noblesse oblige I think stands. When you read from the nineteenth century to early twentieth, there truly is a difference in the way elites think and act. We really used to inculcate in them a sense that they they were responsible for ordinary people--which was arrogant while at the same time lead to leadership that was more paternal.
The aristocracy of the nineteenth century evolved out of the aristocracy of earlier centuries. Typically the founding member of a particular family did gain their position through merit, so it was like a meritocracy in that way. A fraction of their offspring inherited the position, just as some of the children of today’s meritocratic elites maintain their membership in the elite class. The child who was to inherit the title would receive an elite education, just as the children of today’s elites do. The primary difference is who succeeded their father was selected arbitrarily, today any elite children uninterested into becoming a ruling elite can opt out, which was not available to the heir.
As for noblesse oblige, I think you are confusing this with a different thing. The aristocratic tradition in England, for example, stretches back to William the Conquerer, who largely wiped out the Anglo-Saxon elites and replaced them with Norman elites. By “spreading” his Norman vassals throughout all of Normandy and England he reduced elite density, eliminating the excess elite problem (what Peter Turchin calls elite proliferation) that causes sociopolitical crises. Kings have to worry about their vassals overthrowing then (e.g. Magna Carta). The chief vassals have to worry about vassals under them and the men of their household (warriors who have sworn loyalty to them)
In the beginning the kind had some informal advisors, but there wasn’t really any government. In the latter part of the 12th century, bodies of law began to be assembled and formal governmental positions were established, sort of like a cabinet. These personal were still men of the king’s household. As the government grew in the 13th century (and the taxes it demanded as well) the nobility (throught two civil wars) established that they needed to be consulted about such matters, Thus was born Parliament, which was a body of nobles (what would later be called the House of Lords). In 1275 the wool tax was instituted. Taxes on other trade goods were established and in the mid-14th century the counties finances were put in a sound basis under Edward III with regular taxation of both land and commerce. I’ll point out that Ed’s dad had been deposed and impaled to death when Ed was 14, and his grandson who followed him was deposed and starved to death in a dungeon. It isn’t surprising that Parliament was expanded to include a House of Commons at the time commoners were being asked to pay taxes.
In time Parliament became a real thorn in the side of the monarch, overthrowing them twice (and killing one) in the 17th century, until the King became the junior partner to Parliament in 1688. Over the next 150 years the power of the King devolved to nothing more than figurehead. Parliament was now in charge. With the rise of capitalism a new class of elites arose who demanded and got a place at the table (suffrage rights) in 1831. This followed the scary French Revolution and a real revolutionary situation around 1800, and then another one around 1720. Suffrage expansions continued until universal adult suffrage was established in 1929.
The trend was that as the economy grew more complex and state revenue increased, government required the support of a growing fraction of the nation. The people expected to provide this support also (usually with a lag) gained a say in the governmental project. The old system in which discontent was signaled by armed display or outright armed rebellion or civil war, was replaced with the electoral system in which dispute between elite factions were settled by elections. The concern of elites for those under them has always been of the “ya got to dance with those who brung ya” variety.
The problem we face today is the number of elites has risen to a level where there isn’t enough pie to go around. Either we have a showdown between side with one of them neutering the other (as happened over 1775-81 and 1861-65) or they all get a haircut (as happened over 1929-45). Elections still do what they have always done, act as a proxy for the armed conflicts we would otherwise have. It’s just that the competition between the two elite factions has risen to a level beyond just polarization, but on to political warfare.
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/where-are-we-going-politically-part#:~:text=Examples%20of%20political,go%20to%20trial.
Note I do not see nonelites as playing any role in governance of our society. But here’s the thing. As the economy has grown new kinds of elites appear because so many different kinds of know-how are needed to keep our civilization operating (and they need to have agency in order to do their jobs). There are millions of elites of various stature in America today. Often it is a matter of choice. One who decides to advance through the managerial ladder at work can become an economic elite in the sense that they influence some part of how the economy operates. Ditto for people who volunteer to work on political campaigns or work in politics or advocacy groups can become an elite.
Meritocracy as it was coined doesn’t not mean the same thing as aristocracy.
Baron Michael Young wrote his classic book and coined the term as satire. It is the belief that one’s privilege is why they are superior.
A sort of genetic lottery of advantage that allows one to claim, “I’m inherently better” without considering gross distinctions in access to resources and power.
He also worked to do something about the Rise of Meritocracy via his influence and access to power. He didn’t simply complain about the “elites.”
The question that everyone needs to be asking is:
Are we using merit as measured by objective tests such as the SAT as opposed to subjective assessments based on measures such as essays which are easily gamed in our decision making to determine who is being admitted to the top universities, hired or promoted to the best jobs or are we currently discriminating against whites, Asians and men in an attempt to compensate for the past discrimination against others?
If we are currently discriminating based on race and sex and recent Supreme Court cases suggest that we are, then don't those currently being discriminated against have the same legitimate grievances that women and blacks had in the past? Just asking.
The entire idea that anyone should be using credentialing institutions like universities to shape a ruling class is in conflict with both the integrity of the institution as a credentialing mechanism, and of democracy.
What an interesting analysis of how our current leaders came into play and why most of them have no qualms about not serving the voters who put them into office.