This week, New York Instances columnist Ross Douthat took up a long-standing argument in opposition to meritocracy, blaming it for the rise of right-wing populism. He was reviving 20th-century sociologist Michael Younger’s argument in opposition to a authorities populated by a choose elite outlined by their cognitive excellence and private achievement. Any such class, Younger argues, is certain to be boastful and contemptuous of these under them. It is going to devise coverage that at finest ignores the pursuits of the plenty and at worst actively undermines them.
Response to Douthat has been swift and predictable. Within the remark part, a number of left-wing posts declare that Douthat misdiagnosed up to date populism as a response to advantage fairly than the inequality of wealth. On this view, we undergo not from meritocracy however from oligarchy.
There’s one other important argument as nicely. In a tweet, Steven Pinker requested whether or not, if Douthat opposes meritocracy, he would “fireplace his competent analysis assistant & rent a dull-witted one?” A unique model of this argument would possibly ask whether or not, after we want surgical procedure, we’ll search essentially the most expert surgeon to carry out the operation.
But when Douthat went additional again in historical past, he might convincingly reply to each the issues of plutocracy and the Pinker protection of meritocracy.
Why Rousseau feared a meritocratic elite
Younger wasn’t the primary to fret about handing political energy to a cognitive elite. So did 18th-century thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who burst on the Parisian mental scene by declaring in his “Discourse on the Arts and Sciences” that the humanities and sciences corrupt morals and society.
Rousseau’s reception within the 1750s was no gentler than Douthat’s on Tuesday. He was decried as a hypocrite and a barbarian who wished to burn down the libraries. As Rousseau slowly labored by these criticisms, he arrived at just a few vital realizations.
First, in response to the argument represented by Pinker, he concluded that the issue with what we now time period “meritocracy” is just not expertise or the general public use of expertise. Moderately, it’s how society values gifted folks. By way of his idea of amour-propre, which accurately means self-love however is commonly translated as vainness, Rousseau argues that expertise is problematic because the core of an individual’s identification.
In different phrases, when expertise is the measure of a superb human, there’s a good likelihood those that possess essentially the most expertise will grow to be morally corrupt. Individuals who outline themselves as innately superior to others inevitably grow to be boastful and merciless. Extra so than the nobles, who owe their superiority to arbitrary bloodlines, gifted individuals are satisfied that they’re particular — and therefore extra more likely to dominate these residing under them within the hierarchy of social esteem.
Second, in response to the oligarchic critique, Rousseau realized that in a business economic system that rewards folks financially in line with their productiveness, it’s tough to disentangle expertise and wealth. Skills enhance productiveness and make somebody a simpler financial actor. Though there are notable exceptions, it’s typically true that essentially the most cognitively demanding professions are additionally among the many most extremely compensated. In our local weather, many gifted folks not solely really feel entitled to amass as a lot wealth as potential, but in addition attempt to pay as little in taxes as nicely. Moderately than help authorities providers, comparable to training, they privately fund different methods that work for them however not the plenty.
To stop this, Rousseau hoped to nip the Enlightenment tendency to overvalue expertise within the bud by reviving the agricultural provinces’ cornerstones of identification: patriotism, faith and advantage. He laments in his “Discourse on the Sciences and Arts” that “folks now not ask a few man whether or not he has probity, however whether or not he has skills.” By shifting public identification’s emphasis from expertise to patriotism and advantage, he hoped unusual folks would neither resent the gifted nor really feel ashamed in the event that they lacked distinctive expertise; their talents or lack thereof would simply be trivial info, akin to blond hair or bushy eyebrows. This fashion, Rousseau believed, society might discover a wholesome place for the cognitively gifted that may not corrupt their personalities by encouraging them to search for public reward.
Like Pinker, Rousseau argues that it’s higher to be ruled by brilliance than by idiocy. However he wished the nice artists and scientists to make use of their skills in authorities service, creating good public coverage. That approach, he felt, they may supply social worth with out drawing undue consideration to themselves or reminding others of their mediocrity.
Rousseau’s answer is unrealistic. He gives no critical proposals about to how one can reverse the twinned 18th-century cultural developments: the rise of commerce and meritocracy. Why would intellectuals need to conceal themselves away in authorities and work on public coverage fairly than grow to be obscenely rich and celebrated as cultural icons akin to Homeric heroes? As Friedrich Nietzsche and lots of different 19th-century philosophers noticed, faith and advantage couldn’t rise up in opposition to the tide of science and financial self-interest.
Additional, Rousseau’s religion in patriotism is likely to be too optimistic. As we have now seen over the previous 150 years, patriotism could be corrupted right into a nasty nationalism.
Nonetheless, we will be taught from Rousseau’s failure. Greater than both Douthat or Pinker, he noticed why meritocracy could be so corrupting. He grasped that there’s a world of distinction between doing engineering work and being an engineer. He noticed that the important thing situation is how one can make good use of humanity’s numerous skills with out making a ruling class of the intelligent and the corrupt. Even when he doesn’t supply a believable highway map, he clarifies that the answer will probably be present in defining public identities based mostly on one thing aside from expertise.
Michael Locke McLendon is professor and chair of the division of political science at California State College at Los Angeles and writer of “The Psychology of Inequality: Rousseau’s ‘Amour-Propre’ ” (College of Pennsylvania Press, December 2018).