In May, the NEET-UG examination for undergraduate medical admissions faced multiple allegations of discrepancies and fraud. NET, an exam that decides whether an individual can teach college students, was cancelled on similar grounds. This is a deeply worrying trend for Indian higher education and society. However, behind these examination scams lies something more pernicious: the seductive allure of merit.
Why has meritocracy become so central to our lives? Economic anxieties and wealth inequality are plausible explanations. In an unequal world, people are anxious to ‘make it big’ to secure a larger share of the social dividend. But there is more to merit than this ‘economic’ explanation: people want to be seen as self-made. CEOs thus often emphasise their ‘middle-class’ background and frugal lifestyle even when they are born into wealth and privilege. This helps them preach that anyone can succeed if they try.
But is the success of an individual entirely his/her own doing? Are not factors like class, caste, and race relevant? Privileged individuals have more resources, opportunities, and networks that give them a head-start. Moreover, merit is deeply entwined with ‘cultural capital’ that creates a sense of belonging among individuals coming from similar backgrounds. This leads to an unconscious bias that significantly impacts many decisions, palpably manifest in job interviews. Merit, therefore, should be understood in this subjective framework. The acknowledgement of shared cultural capital influencing our perceptions of what qualifies as meritorious is necessary.
The subjectivity of merit is evident in its historical evolution. The idea of merit has been shaped by the values and the biases of each era. Ancient societies valued physical strength and military prowess, while the Renaissance emphasised intellectual achievements. The industrial age prioritised technical skills and innovation and, today, merit includes educational qualifications, professional experience, emotional intelligence, and cultural awareness. Institutional mechanisms for assessing merit, such as standardised tests and interviews, are also contingent upon the idea of merit of the time. As society evolves, so does the concept of merit.
This brings us to another intriguing question: is a theoretically perfect meritocracy desirable? In The Tyranny of Merit, Michael Sandel provides a startling inversion of what is ‘common sense’: does one’s possession of the capacity to provide the services that the market demands legitimise his/her claim to an increased share of the social dividend? For instance, a highly-skilled cricketer born in a country that doesn’t value cricket is likely to be pauperised and compelled to do tasks considered ‘menial’ to earn a livelihood.
In a society where this meritocratic hubris prevails, the arbitrariness of talent and its relation with what the economy demands is glossed over. A person could be considered ‘meritorious’ in one society and lacking merit in another with the same skills. It is due to this arbitrariness that Friedrich Hayek and John Rawls reject the idea that economic rewards should reflect what people ‘deserve’. This is a provocative proposition, for it means challenging the values that are embedded in "untutored public opinion", which holds that justice implies giving people what they truly deserve.
Meritocracy has led to cut-throat competition among students as though they are corporate conglomerates, eager to eliminate their rivals. The corruption in education is directly linked with this meritocratic culture. Additionally, the notion that one’s success is one’s own doing has led the successful to look down upon those who could not succeed. This fuels resentment amongst the ‘unsuccessful lot’ which finds expression in ‘populism’. The sense of dispossession among the ‘unsuccessful’ is exploited by far-Right movements promising to restore a lost sense of identity.
Shashi Singh is an independent researcher and writer. Sumit Kumar teaches history at Kirori Mal College, Delhi University
