Until quite recently — in the context of the entire course of human history, the equivalent of last Thursday, in fact — saying people should be proud of being good at something was rather uncontroversial.  There was an inherent value in having a skill that differentiated you from another person, and being rewarded for that skill was deemed appropriate.  In other words, there was merit in merit.  But according to a new strain of thought, society has been wrong since, well, forever.

The concept of meritocracy has come under significant attack of late.  It has been deemed socially unacceptable because, the argument goes, being better at something than someone else (let alone being better compensated for it) could make that someone else feel bad.

Meritocracy, according to a sadly growing number of academic papers, leads directly to a whole host of cultural woes.  It is discriminatory.  It is selfish.  It is competitive.  It traps people in "demeaning fears and inauthentic ambitions."  And, because the cultural systems that reward merit are racist, meritocracy in and of itself is racist as well.  Also, because being better at something than someone else is (as the argument goes) a mere matter of luck, genetic predisposition, social background, and the ability to spend the time other people cannot spare to hone a skill, it cannot be said to be in any way fair to others and, therefore, to benefit society.

Ironically, the anti-merit movement has been growing alongside another societal change — credentialism.  Credentialism essentially argues that you must have the proper, pre-approved training, the right degree, and the right certification to be taken at all seriously in your field of choice.  Other credentialists must then constantly review those pieces of paper to stay up to date with the zeitgeist for any particular endeavor.  Finally, people without the right letters after their names and job titles can be dismissed out of hand.  Not surprisingly, credentialism does not necessarily entail merit or skill — it's just about checking the right boxes.

Credentialism as something worthy has a reasonable origin.  Degrees and credentials can make a world of difference in many pursuits — think: doctors and med school, truckers and commercial licenses, welders and master status, and so many things as to which specific training actually matters.  But credentialism, as it stands today, sees value in the credential itself while ignoring the underlying ability.

Take, for example, education degrees.  In almost all cases, they are little more than academic doorstops, and in many cases, the person acquiring them does little work and shows minimal competence.  Graduate degrees in education are often obtained for three reasons: first, to satisfy one's vanity because you can call yourself "Doctor."  Second, to get the automatic pay raise that comes with a degree in public school systems.  And third, to signal to other people with the same degree that you are a member of the club.

Outside education, the merely credentialed tend to prowl the halls of lower-upper middle management, wearing their absurdly long and barely comprehensible job titles as badges of honor and proof of their innate worth.  (Side note: Anyone who is an "assistant to the senior deputy undersecretary" of anything is daily performing tasks that do not need to be done.)  Far too often, credentialism has almost no relation to actual talent, but it does have a relation — no matter how lamprey-like — to the idea of meritocracy.

Credentialism seeks to take the trappings and, therefore, the advantages of excelling within a merit-based system without proving merit.  The only talent needed is to sit still in a classroom while someone else is talking.

It is when the merely credentialed begin to think of themselves as members of a true meritocracy — and when observers improperly conflate the two ideas — that things get tricky.  Since a credential too often acts as a mask of merit, it can appear that the very concept of meritocracy does not hold water.  After all, a true meritocracy would not reward — let alone tolerate — such interlopers.  Therefore, other factors must be at play.

Attacks on meritocracy frame a merit-based system as a never-ending competition designed to make other people miserable.  This argument, though, fails — utterly and purposefully — to take into account that everyone has different skills, talents, drives, and personalities, and that meritocracy not only accounts for those differences, but encourages and nurtures them at the most basic — and most equal — level.

The opponents of meritocracy seem to believe that instead of being competitive, our entire existence would be better if it mimicked an eternal, no scorekeeping, "everyone's a winner" kindergarten soccer game.  What they forget is that every one of those kids knows exactly who won.  They keep score in their heads.

As do we all.

Thomas Buckley is the former mayor of Lake Elsinore and a former newspaper reporter.  He is currently the operator of a small communications and planning consultancy and can be reached directly at planbuckley@gmail.com.  You can read more of his work at https://thomas699.substack.com.

Image: Wizard of Oz by W.W. Denslow (public domain) with text from The Wizard of Oz (1939).

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.