Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
If asking an emigrant worker in the United States his or her reasons for coming to America, the most likely answer will be the American Dream. Similarly, investigating several stories of success, in which a Cinderella-like transformation occurred, a phrase such as “living the American Dream” will most likely be heard during a speech or an interview. In the perception of such people, the American Dream is directly connected to meritocracy, i.e. a judgment on people on their individual abilities rather than the connections of the families, and in that regard such perception means that they would be able to succeed, regardless of the point at which they started. Meritocracy as a notion was always connected to the American dream, where the United States was perceived as a perfect example of a society embodying such notion. Nevertheless, the researches studying the last decades of the twentieth century lead to people thinking otherwise.
Analyzing an article published in the Economist, “Meritocracy in America,” it was argued that the increase in income inequality, as well as the decrease in social mobility, is the main factor in questioning meritocracy in America. In that regard, this paper argues that meritocracy in itself is promoting inequality in abilities, and thus equality is a myth in meritocratic society, and the results of the recent studies of inequality might just confirm such statements.
The Economist article, published in the magazine’s print edition in December 2004 in Washington, DC, uses the findings of various social studies to demonstrate that there is a constant decline in social mobility, and an increase in income inequality, all of which can support the notion that the country no longer supports meritocracy ideals. Such conclusion is based on the suggestion of The Economic Policy Institute examining the period from 1979 to 2000. In that regard, the article points out that the social institutions, such as private companies, has a role in such matter, through decreasing the social mobility and creating the caste of elites in the country. Such role can be seen in the shift in companies’ hierarchies, where “[i]t has became harder for people to start at the bottom and rise up the company hierarchy by dint of hard work and self-improvement” (“Meritocracy”). As stated in the same article in the Economist, “[t]here is… growing evidence that America is less socially mobile than many other rich countries” (“Meritocracy”). Accordingly, the article supports the notion that these elites believe in meritocracy principles, and that is why they promote their children to be the best. Thus, it cannot be stated that the family connections for such elite was favored at the expense of individual abilities when putting these people on the top, as the lives of the elites’ children was in constant competition.
Social mobility, an important notion in the context of meritocracy and the American dream, implies that people are able to move in the social ladder. According to meritocracy, such movement is based solely on individual abilities. Thus, it can be argued that it might be standards of the individual abilities that were risen, and it just happened to be that these standards mostly found in people “coming from a solidly middle-class background, owning a home, having the right connections and lots of cash and just plain luck” (Martin). People tend to find other people similar to them and in that regard; it can be assumed that the individual abilities of the individuals, in a particular historical period resulted in that successful people had the aforementioned characteristics.
Additionally, it can be assumed that the American dream, in the context of meritocracy, assumes that the reliance on individual abilities should be combined with equality in factors developing these abilities. In that regard, unequal distribution of education and its quality for different population layers are only a few examples of inequality (McNamee and Miller). However, does unequal distribution exclude that individual abilities are still the measure of success? Answering such question, it should be mentioned that it is a matter of privileges given for specific groups, or in other words, different starting points. Thus, assuming that such factors would be equalized, the success through wealth, power and status would still be concentrated in a specific group of talented people. In this case, these groups of people would be bearing other common characteristics, which will happen to be unequally distributed in the society, such as location, the chosen major of the parents, the number of kids in the family, etc. The equalization of education would be more representative of a meritocracy society, but nevertheless, it can be assumed that a caste of more successful people would be created anyway.
A final argument can be seen through the possible solutions to such situation. The only possible way that can be extracted for the comments on the inability of people to move through social classes, can be seen in giving equal chances. In that regard, will such move make all people happy? As long as success is related in some way or another to intellectual abilities, the answer would be negative. The necessity of equality cannot be argued, in terms of providing the equal opportunities, but nevertheless, the outcomes will remain different for different people. Oxford University researchers conclude that with the increase in social mobility, the upward movement will be combined with downward movement as well. In a study published in the British Journal of Sociology, one of the study’s co-authors, Dr John Goldthorpe stated, “If we are to have an education-based meritocracy, then it must be accepted that this will mean significantly more downward mobility than occurs today” (“Policies”). Although the study was conducted in Britain, it can be assumed that the principles of social mobility and meritocracy can be applicable in the United States as well.
It can be seen that the problem problems present in the society can hardly be blamed on the absence of meritocracy. In that regard, meritocracy is concept promoting inequality in itself, which is not a bad idea, considering that people cannot be equal. Nevertheless, even solving the problems of unequal privileges, it can be stated that the ideals of meritocracy and the American dream will lead to existence of winners and losers, and successful people and unsuccessful, as long as success demands talent.
Works Cited
“Policies Promoting Equality of Opportunity Would Create as Many Losers as Winners”. University of Oxford, 2008. Web.
Martin, Phillip. “Are You Worthy? It’s Time to Question Meritocracy”. 2009. The Huffington Post. Web.
McNamee, Stephen J., and Robert K. Miller. “The Meritocracy Myth “. Sociation Today. 2.1 (2004): n. pag. Web.
The Economist. “Meritocracy in America.” The Economist. Economist.com, 2004. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.