SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
n1
on Saturday June 18 2016, @06:20AM
from the in-my-day-we-called-it-social-darwinism dept.
from the in-my-day-we-called-it-social-darwinism dept.
When Michael Young, a British sociologist, coined the term meritocracy in 1958, it was in a dystopian satire. At the time, the world he imagined, in which intelligence fully determined who thrived and who languished, was understood to be predatory, pathological, far-fetched.
Today, however, we’ve almost finished installing such a system, and we have embraced the idea of a meritocracy with few reservations, even treating it as virtuous. That can’t be right. Smart people should feel entitled to make the most of their gift. But they should not reshape society so as to instate giftedness as a universal yardstick of human worth.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
When the Term Meritocracy was Coined in 1958, it was in a Dystopian Satire
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 59 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm wearing PAMPERS!!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday June 19 2016, @11:21PM
Good question.
I believe (according to my mother's tales of yore) switzerland used to (still?) have a system whereby the positions such as finance minister were selected from those considered leaders in their field rather than just whatever politician won the popularity contest. I only remember this vaguely so take it with a grain of salt. I do know they have a VERY direct democracy (in other words approximating a TRUE democracy, not the current shame most countries have) with voting on important bills happening several times a years.
Ideas off the top of my head for such systems which may or may not work but still answer the question:
- Independent body with safeguards tasked to review candidates for portfolio positions based on experience and expertise. If one is not cynical and defeatist one could imagine any number of scenarios, restrictions and safeguards to avoid corruption. Many countries use such systems for high level public servants already. Popularist politicians still exist and can debate, vote etc.
- Candidates selected by the public but strictly based on their work and public service record with a shortlist of candidates selected as above. No vapid campaigning allowed, only substantial debates and interviews.
That is all that is on the top of my head in these minutes. The possible implementations of the above could be endless and there are many hybrids.
I am sure there could be much discussion on how viable such systems could be, what their flaws are and the parrots will repeat their old mantras about the current system being better than all the others etc etc.
Nevertheless it answers your question.