At a time when the invocation of merit constitutes a strong theme – and one of the most consensual – of power policies, the book of two American sociologists, S. Mc Namee and R. Miller appears particularly interesting. He indeed questions the belief in consubstantial meritocracy in “ American dream “, Since the United States is supposed to be the country where all the opportunities are open for anyone who undertakes to mobilize its talents.
As soon as at the same time all statistical data reveal strong social inequalities according to factors as distant from merit as family origins or personal relationships, this belief appears well for what it is: an ideology which “ support (In the Anglo-Saxon sense) Company in its current operating mode. It is necessary to believe, in short, not only that the meritocracy must govern society but also that it actually reigns.
The authors emphasize that this ideology fundamentally emphasizes the individual and his personal responsibility ; they point the origin in the “ Protestant ethics »Settlers who entered America from the XVIIe century, ethics which also constituted, as the sociologist Max Weber will analyze it at the start of XXe century, a soil particularly favorable to the development of capitalism. But the “ American dream “, It is also a global confidence in the future, covering very specific material objectives: becoming a owner, placing your children well in life, getting rich and ensuring a comfortable retirement … These objectives are on the way to becoming more and more difficult to achieve (the authors use the expression:” Downsizing the American Dream ”), With the increase in housing cost, the downgrading of young people, the pension funding crisis. So many obvious problems not specific to the United States, and on which the book gives a lot of factual information. But the most interesting contribution of this work undoubtedly lies in the specific analysis that it offers of the meritocracy itself, considered as an ideology which is maintained against all odds, in a context where so many realities come to take it in default.
A first part of this analysis consists in identifying the key factors that define merit, factors which will then be systematically related to the social realities of America today. The most immediate factor, in the Anglo-Saxon context-would it be the same in France where this question is taboo ? -, it’s talent or “ Innate Ability ». The authors recall the editorial success of Herrnstein and Murray’s work (The Bell Curve1994) which claimed to demonstrate that intelligence is largely determined by genetics and that it largely explains the social becoming of people and the related inequalities, in particular racial inequalities. The debate raged as soon as it is released and the authors have a particularly well -informed synthesis. But, the most original is elsewhere, and in particular in the fact that the authors highlight the other personal characteristics of fact inseparable from the talents, and which participate in the character “ deserving From an individual. This is what they designate as “ HAVING THE RIGHT Attitude », Notion which refers to moral qualities of seriousness, work, or even” compliance (Conformity, even conformism). A relatively tautological halo since, in fact, we will say individuals who have succeeded that they precisely have this profile. And the authors to refer to recent work of economists like Bowles and Gintis, which confirm the importance of the qualities “ morals This type in determining wages, beyond professional skills, such as certified by the diploma in particular.
This is a first “ snag The meritocratic principle that professions and remuneration must be based above all on skills. This questions, including on the ethical level since employers pay the qualities which, here and now, suit them and who are not always the most “ morals ». To put it in today’s vocabulary, “ Work more to earn more “Do not necessarily target the most deserving, but those that the market needs … One thing is certain, however: this blurred set which covers the merit must be underpinned by an ethics of” Mind Power », That is to say of the omnipotence of the mind on the course of things (the American equivalent of” When you want, we can ” French). And the authors to point this in this regard, the commercial success of all the books of “ self-Help »Who swarm advice for taking charge and constitute in their eyes the modern form of this prevalent Protestant ethical…
This merit is widespread at random, as the obsessive Gauss curve would be highlighted by Herrnstein and Murray ? Obviously not. In a country where, on the one hand, the inequalities are strong and where, on the other hand, the correlation between the income of parents and those of their children is particularly high, the authors have no trouble demonstrating that, in the race for the best places where only individual talents are supposed to prevail, some leave with a step ahead. The advantages of birth prove to be early and cumulative, by multiple, both material and relational paths (the “ share capital »Dear to American sociologists). An entire chapter is devoted to the importance of relationships and their sometimes spectacular effects on individual destinies (the example of GW Bush is presented here with a certain humor). All this obviously has nothing to do with merit, and in total, for the authors (but without being precisely a means of seeing how it was estimated), these family inheritances would weigh more than merit.
What about the role of education ? In the United States as in France, education is supposed to identify and select the most deserving, the most talented and the most motivated. With the expansion of education, we witnessed a rise in what sociologist R. Collins calls the “ Credentialism », Namely a locking of access to posts by increasingly demanding diplomas, not necessarily functionally necessary, but protecting the best placed individuals from competition from the contenders. Access to diplomas therefore becomes an increasingly crucial issue. It is then easy for the authors to recall the analyzes of Bourdieu and Passeon and Bowles and Gintis, demonstrating, not without a functionalist determinism which is no longer any bet today, that the school has precisely for the purpose of allowing and legitimizing the success of children initially the most favored. More original is the criticism of the dominant perspective in American sociology and economy (themselves influential in France, especially among economists), that of “ Status Attack », Where the researcher’s objective is to quantify the impact on individual professional success of both merit (often apprehended by tests of Qi) and factors which, in a meritocracy, should not have any influence, namely social origin, sex, ethnic origin, etc. Indeed, this perspective somehow takes the problem of a meritocracy “ upset (By illegitimate influences), where destinies remain fundamentally an individual adventure, by neglecting the context and economic structures, or even factors of a different nature as chance.
Gold “ Being in the right place at the right time »Appears in fact extremely important. While the “ American dream “And all the meritocratic ideology postulate that anyone as soon as they are deserving will find on the market a” request “Corresponding to his talents, the number and characteristics of the jobs offered at a time t obviously affect the effective realization of these “ odds »Abstract and the contours of merit itself. And the authors to emphasize that there are undoubtedly much more talented and workers than positions where their qualities will be perfectly recognized. This accent on the theme “ No one can strictly say that he deserves everything that happens to him or what he does with his life Is both trivial and capital in the context of individualization and guilt that we know.
The work ends with an analysis of discrimination phenomena which, like social inequalities in general, disrupt the relations supposed to exist between merit and success (school, then professional), by insisting that the different sources of discrimination are often accumulated between them. The devices which claim to counter these phenomena appear to be not very effective, as well as the strategies of “ uncomfortable Individuals that the authors describe as more and more multifaceted in the disadvantaged areas of the country. The solutions, in their eyes, require to get out of this deeply individualistic model.
This work points the many flaws of the meritocratic model and insists on its harmful character: this model justifies the inequalities present, makes the “ winners »Sure of their right and unjustly depict the« losers ». But beyond its great descriptive interest, we can regret that it remains relatively distant from a reflection closer to political philosophy, like that developed for example, in Great Britain, by Brian Barry. A crucial question is whether it is possible, given its limits and even the aporia that it constitutes in an unequal society, to do without any reference to meritocracy. It is not certain: for people, to believe that what we do, that efforts will be precisely sanctioned are springs of the most “ functional From a psychological point of view, as the abundant literature in social psychology shows, on the motivating, even irreplaceable character of the “ belief in a just world ». From a different perspective, some sociologists underline the need to articulate the principle of merit with other principles of justice (cf. for example François Dubet). We will therefore remain relatively hungry by closing this work. But it is nonetheless stimulating in the French context, where these debates remain most timid among researchers, even though the merit, the individual responsibility that it postulates, the competition and the hierarchies which it justifies occupy the front of the stage.