It has always been ingrained and constructed in our
mind that we are only entitled to the right to acquire an ultimate outcome, including
an outstanding job position in The Big Five or a special seat in Ivy League, when
we have the excellent merit that exhibits our proficiency to qualify our presence
to proceed forward. It is very reasonable for a myriad of institutions nowadays,
such as universities, corporations, and governmental bodies, to reward someone
based on merit because it has been considered as a fair and objective metric as
it represents one’s hardwork, efforts, and determination. No matter how or where an individual is born, hardwork has always been perceived to reflect a person's true capability as it highlights their strong will.
A meritocratic system contrasts with aristocracy,
for which people advance on the basis of the status and titles of family and other
affiliations. While aristocracy has been constantly demonized for obstructing
state development, meritocratic system, on the other hand, expects our society
to push their competitiveness to fuel further advancement. Only then, we could
have a list of selected individuals who can actually be productive and
contribute to success in multiple sectors. However, there is no certainty that those
who revolve around nepotism are able to possess the same quality as those who
work hard, and their incompetence might obnoxiously hamper the overall system in
the long run.
However, meritocracy, in reality, is not a
perfect concept. A huge part of our society, mainly the underprivileged, are still ensnared in failures
although they had invested the same proportion amount of time and energy as those
who made their path to triumph. The concept of meritocracy has been criticized
as an individualistic view that does not account for external barriers. Khen
Lampert argued that a kinship exists between merit-based system and social
Darwinism, wherein only those given opportunities from birth are able to
survive natural selection. By awarding only those who are privileged to afford
a better education, either through intellectual or financial merit, a disparity
is structurally rendered between the poor and the rich.
Michael Young, in his first book published in 1958,
satirised Tripartite System in United Kingdom’s educational framework for disenfranchising
underclass of the less merited. It is perceived unfair that the impoverished
and ethnic minorities can not keep up with the system because they are not granted with as much capital and network as the elite groups. Although the privileged might be
committed to be hardworking to develop their merit, there is, undeniably, a luck factor or different starting point that opens up an easier access for them to enjoy better
facilities in the pursuit of developing their skills. Unfortunately, most
minority groups possess little to no access to such platforms, and they are
unable to choose their initial economic or social background as it comes in the
form of lottery.
Although meritocratic system has prompted further
competition in the free market, it is frequently unfair and solely favours the
privileged groups. An economist, Edward Wolff, claimed that it is easier for
the rich to capitalize their resources to develop their talent, expand their
business, and garner a significant return of investment in financial assets
while the middle to lower class is blocked from climbing the social ladder. Without
any capitals, only exceptionally skilful individuals can afford to compete within
the system. Meanwhile, the underprivileged will continuously end up being
confined in evil cycle of constraints, and the wealthy can always justify their
power relations on the basis of meritocracy.
Meritocracy could be an ideal tenet for our society,
but it has to be exercised in an egalitarian state where equal opportunities are
catered. In light of that, affirmative action is required to achieve a meritocratic
balance among every layer of society, especially the less privileged. When the
less privileged is provided with accessibility to get inside the institutions,
such as scholarships and diversity quotas in parliament, they will be able to
elevate their merit in order to compete with the upper class. It is inevitable that
the underprivileged will have a better chance to flourish and showcase their potential when they are provided with more access as a fair compensation for all of the past
injustices that disenfranchise their sole existence.
Despite its criticism for patronising the
marginalised groups, affirmative action is a definite push to empower the less
privileged as it cripples down any structural barriers erected against them. Affirmative
action could be the most effective avenue for minorities to pursue equal
representation and higher chance at success because a direct entrance to the
system will encourage them to work harder to disprove majority’s bias and
inspire their community to strive for a hope of better living. Alternative approaches,
in contrary, might prolong the grievances of the less privileged as it might possibly
take decades to reform the corrupted institutions. Affirmative action could be the
only shot to reach a fair meritocracy.
Meritocracy is a good yet flawed concept. It has to
take inequality into account for the majoritarian tyranny within the overall
landscape. A fair competition could only be attained when the underprivileged is
provided with the avenues to access better education and employment for
improving their merit. In that regards, affirmative action is of utmost
importance to reinforce the bargaining position of the minorities in a pursuit
of better skill development. In the midst of perpetual oppressions against the less
privileged, it would be mistaken to dismiss that affirmative action could be
the best and speedier approach to yield more satisfying outcomes that absolutely
restore a meritocratic balance.
Comments
Post a Comment