Does Meritocracy Have Problems?

People who have read any of my previous 4000 or so posts will no doubt confirm that I tend to stick to what I know (education, sciences, natural history, the environment and medicine). I don't regard myself as being in any sense knowledgable about politics! I have, however, recently read reviews (related to books) by Americans Anne Appelbaum and Michael Sandel which broadly deal with, amongst other things, with rise of 'Populism' (which I find a bit scary) in a range of countries. Sandel has also said some things about meritocracy, which have led me to reappraise my view of my own history. I have always viewed myself as the archetyptal 'rags to (relative) riches' story. I came from a relatively lowly socio-economic group (working class, except when unemployment struck) and had some educational disadvantages (I am not the product of any public or grammar school). I eventually held, however, a full Professorship in a UK University, generated a respectable body of published work and ascended to senior positions in several national and international organisations. So, surely I must believe that talent and hard work can transform lives? As Sandel points out, the 'meritocratic' system never starts with people at a consistent baseline. I stressed my early disadvantages but I can now recognise that I had several advantages over other folk. I was from a favoured racial group (much as I dislike the idea of basing anything on 'race'); I am male (which, at that time, was the 'right' gender); I am 2 M tall (so, difficult to overlook) and I am a native English speaker (which, just so, happens to be the language of Science). One might even say, that having a memorable name is of some benefit. I certainly also benefitted by going through an educational system in the 1960s and 1970s, when some movement between socio-economic groups was actually seen. It has been shown time and time again, however, that most people do not recognise that they start with advantages over other folk, and always tend to assume, that any success is down to their talent and application. And this is without recognising the very natural tendency of parents to try to improve the life chances of their offspring (with good schools, extra tuition etc). Although I achieved quite a lot, I, like many people actually hoped to get further (we are never satisfied). Another problem with meritocracy is that there are 'losers' (to varying degrees) who can, according to Appelbuam and Sandel, become convinced that the 'elites' look down their noses at them and fail to give them sufficient 'respect'. It then becomes relatively easy for populists (who are often people who have done relatively well in the system but still feel that their talents are not fully recognised) to whip up antagonisms to the 'establishment' and pull in the votes. On this view, meritocracies generate resentments which are a problem for democracies because there are always more losers than winners. Having said that, I would not like to go back to the system in the 1950s where class determined your role in society. What is evident is that we need to move to a system, where a much higher proportion of the population feel valued. This does not appear to be achieved by a simple meritocracy. We all have different contributions to make and should be respected for making it. I hope that people will forgive me for this diatribe, as I am just trying to sort things out in my own head (and I have always thought of myself as giving service rather than being one of the 'elite'). That's why I blog (without collecting any money for advertising).