Meritocracy and social stratification are ideal forms of governance only when proper legislation is in place. These strategies have the potential to either create a better society for everyone or disillusion the majority while benefiting a few individuals in the society. The expectations of the society that every individual should achieve certain goals to be considered successful serve to compound the issue since people will go the extra mile to satisfy the community’s desire. They may decide to engage in illegitimate activities to get the resources needed to achieve their goals. The system allows a few individuals to access all the resources and enrich themselves at the expense of the majority lower-class individuals. This study will evaluate various benefits and limitations of the meritocracy and social stratification based on Karl Marx Conflict theory and Robert Merton’s Strain theory.
Critique on Meritocracy Using Social Class Stratification Theories
Introduction
Meritocracy is a system where individuals in a society are evaluated based on specific parameters that act as the merit to access opportunities (Allen, 2011). Some of the tools that meritocratic societies use when making crucial decisions include the level of education, closeness to power, authority, and class. The system dates back to the 6th Century and was quickly adopted by some Asian Countries, such as Ancient China, as their form of government (Jiayu, 2017). Since then, different forms have used the system to govern their countries including Singapore and Ecuador. According to Allen (2011), Michael Young postulated that this form of governance would bring inequalities to the regions where it was applied (Young, 1994). While his argument may have had some value then, modern meritocracy has been modified to suit the interests of individual societies and has been associated with increased economic, political, and social lives development (Tan, 2004). A proper application of the process yields in highly efficient leadership that executes its mandate with high-level professionalism due to their relatively advanced qualifications level (Allen, 2011).
Social class stratification is a phenomenon where individuals in a society are categorized based on different merits. The system has resulted in different economic classes of individuals in the society including the upper class, middle class, and the lower class. These classification criteria have led to inequalities in the society ( Kiuranov, 1982). Karl Marx’s theory opines that the strategy has developed two opposing camps in the society where exploitation and abuse of rights are imminent. While meritocracy and social stratification are not the only reasons that have developed inequalities in the society, they have contributed significantly to the gap. Individuals’ inequalities develop from other sources rather than stratification but there exist a significant level of systematic inequalities that are created by the societal perspective on social stratification (Vryonides & Lamprianou, 2013). Some people have capitalized on this form of rule to amass wealth and oppress the weak in the society. In such cases, these individuals use their societal accepted qualities to acquire authority, exploit natural resources, and enrich themselves at the expense of the multitude. This paper will critique meritocracy based on the Karl Marx Conflict theory and Robert Merton’s Strain theory. It will show that meritocracy has led to inequalities and rise in crimes as a result of societal pressures to achieve certain goals in life (Tan, 2004).
Meritocracy based on Karl Marx Conflict Theory
The conflict theory on social stratification stipulates that meritocracy is a biased system of governance that benefits only a section of the society (Bartos and Wehr, 2002). The proponents of this theory, including Karl Marx, argues that it is unfair for the society to classify people based on set parameters which lead to inequalities. Instead, the society should develop a mechanism of ensuring that there exist equity and equality among its people ( Kiuranov, 1982). For example, it would be unfair for a football coach to earn millions of dollars while a teacher earns as little as $ 20,000 annually. Marx’s developed this theory during the industrialization period in the 19th Century. The philosopher observed that the society has been divided into two distinct groups during the season where one group comprised the owners of the industries and the other had the people who worked in those industries. The theory highlights the capitalist nature of the economy that is associated meritocracy (Wolch & Dear, 2013). The lower class individuals were subjected to manual labor and struggled to survive while the few upper-class people in the society became rich. The opposing interests of these two groups widened the gap between them with the main factors causing the divisions being wealth and power (Brown, R, 2017). The low-earning individuals in the society were disillusioned and lost interest to live which led to misery and powerless status among the workers of these industries (Pearlin & Kohn, 2012).
The phenomenon observed by Karl Max in the industrialization era has been adopted by many proponents of the theory (Tan, 2004). They argue that the divisions in the society have resulted in distinct classes of people. These classes will always be in conflict due to the differences in economic status as well as educational status (Vryonides & Lamprianou, 2013). The people who believe are educated, have authority, and power will always despise the low-class people leading to a poor and imbalanced economy.
Singapore is one of the Asian countries that has adopted the capitalist approach of the economy. The social values and culture of the people of Singapore differ and people struggle individually to achieve their goals (Tan, 2004). While modern-day Singapore is highly developed, there are still middle-class individuals in the society who are struggling to meet their targets and achieve their goals. Tan (2004) notes that the majority of the people in the Asian country are in the middle-class economic status but there exist distinct classes of divisions based on power, education, and authority. Some of the people who believe that the capitalist approach is the best to enhance the economy of any nation has capitalized on the achievements of Singapore to elaborate the benefits of meritocracy and social class stratification. The system cultivates a self-driven population that is willing and ready to achieve their dreams ( Teklu, 2018). However, it is critical to note that disparity in the amount of time and effort needed to achieve individual vision vary due to the concept of social stratification. The people who are associated with power and authority has an easier time to implement their plans and strategy since they have immense resources at their disposal (Talib & Fitzgerald, 2015). On the contrary, the low-class individuals in such a society are required to put more time into their visions and also look for avenues to fund their projects. Whereas such people may succeed in the long run, they will have been subjected to unfair treatment which probably slowed the achievement of their dreams. This concept shows the need to ensure that the society is harmonized to enhance equality and equal opportunities despite the age, race, economic status, power, or position in the authority (Frank, 2016). Majority of the nations in the world today are capitalist in nature and has propagated social stratification which has led to inequalities in the world. While large countries such as the United States of America have tried to foster equality and ensure equitable distribution of natural resources, there still exists a gap created by race, power, and authority (Moore, 2000). The society in these regions has developed classes that are, in most, cases used to discriminate against certain individuals based on certain societal parameters. This approach has derailed the development of countries of the world and it is common for people to die of hunger while a few individuals have numerous resources at their disposal (Jiayu, 2017). As such, it is necessary that social stratification and meritocracy are abolished to ensure a more uniformly distributed society.
Robert Merton’s Strain theory
The theory postulates the effects of imposing societal goals to individuals who have no means to achieve them. The Merton theory was developed in 1938 where Robert Merton believed that people in the United States had been convinced to achieve the American Dream to acquire wealth and become successful in all aspects of their lives (Brown, P, 2003). However, the access to the needs required to meet the specific individual goals was not provided which had the potential to the Americans adopting any means at their disposal that would help them achieve their goals (Li & Heath, 2016). The strain on these people to perform originated from the pressure that the society imposed on them which made them turn to crime and other illegitimate ways of earning resources that would actualize their dream of making money and developing wealth (Brown, R, 2017).
Individuals will confirm, work harder, and use all other adaptation strategies at their disposal. However, some of the transformations may lead an increased rate of crime as people try to fit in the society. Such adaptations include innovation, rebellion, and the retreatist individuals in the society (Guinier, 2015). When the pressure becomes too much for such individuals, they will adopt illegitimate methods that aid them to meet the societal expectations which will eventually lead to a surge in criminal activities (Bovens and Wille, 2017). Also, the theory explains the strain that exists between the society-accepted goals and the society-accepted means to accept them. The fact that the society has set high standards for the goals that individuals are expected to achieve does not always translate into the same society offering a conducive environment for people to achieve such goals (Tan, 2004). While the society continually pressures people to meet their goals, it maintains that that should be achieved using legitimate means which further stresses out the populace ( Teklu, 2018). As a result, people will rebel against the society’s set standard of achieving the goals which will eventually lead to criminal activities such as selling illegal drugs and burglary. Social stratification further compounds the problem because people feel that the society is unfair to them (Clark, 2014). The parameters that such a community has set are relatively hard to achieve which leads to disillusionment. As such, it is critical that people are provided with equal chances in life if they are expected to achieve goals that the society has set for them. Unfair treatment and distribution of resources based on the education level, power, and authority only leads to heightened criminal activities and is thus retrogressive rather than progressive.
Effects of Social Stratification
The classification of people in the society based on different parameters can either impact the society positively or negatively.
Positive Effects
The pressure from the society has inculcated a culture of working hard on everything that an individual is assigned to do. As a result, people are intrinsically motivated to work towards the achievement of their goals and targets (Bartos and Wehr, 2002). This has led to high level of education among capitalist nations as people try to achieve the parameters that the society use to classify people. The struggle to achieve this is due to the association of these parameters with the accessibility to funds and resources needed to complete projects and achieve success as set by the society. In countries such as Singapore, the UK, and the US, the literacy levels have gone high with the majority of the youths below 25 years accessing tertiary level of education (Buchmann & Hannum, 2001). The high success in the education level of these specific nations is due to the fact that these youths believe that when they get the right education, they will access power, authority, and numerous resources that are directly linked to the achievement of their dreams as well as the success goals that the society has set for them (Bartos and Wehr, 2002). Also, people believe that communication is a crucial element in the achievement of their goals which have led to a revolutionary adoption of foreign languages to be trained in schools. Majority of countries teach English while some African schools have embarked on teaching foreign languages including French, Japanese, Chinese, and German. As such, the social stratification has had a significantly positive effect on the education in these regions. It plays a critical role in the development of the society and helping people achieve their goals (Vryonides & Lamprianou, 2013).
Also, social stratification has boosted the economies of various regions as the Gross Domestic Product increases. People are working hard towards the achievement of their goals which have had a net effect of improvement in their economic statuses as well as those of individual countries (Hayes, 2012). In a majority of these nations, the countries charge taxes based on the incomes of the specific individuals. As such, the higher an individual earns, the more tax the government will get and consequently result in better infrastructure and living conditions. However, this system is unfair because these facilities will be only be enjoyed by those people who have had an opportunity to get the parameters that the society needs to accelerate an individual’s achievement of goals ( Bornschier & Trezzini, 1997).
Negative Impacts
Social stratification has numerous adverse effects on the society. It has led to disillusionment among the youths who cannot access opportunities to the biased classes created by the used and used to limit the access of specific individuals to resources (Jarman, 2016). The Robert Merton’s Strain theory comes into play where low-class individuals are strained beyond what they can accommodate which results in the adoption of unscrupulous means to achieve the social expectations (Littler, 2017). As a result, the society has had increased levels of crime, money laundering, drug trafficking, corruption, prostitution, among other criminal activities (Bartos and Wehr, 2002).
Due to the social classification, some low-class individuals are unable to take care of the elderly which have led to lower healthcare services to certain people in the society. This method of administration has created numerous inequalities leading to lower hatred as the classes fight and conflict over the limited resources (Pearlin & Kohn, 2012). The low-class individuals delay marriage due to inability to provide their families with basic necessities which have led to late births and a compromised quality of life for these individuals. To reverse these shortcomings, it is necessary that social stratification is dropped and that the society adopts a method that will enhance equality and equity in the distribution of resources (Harvey, 2000).
Conclusion
Meritocracy is an initiative that can only work with proper legislation to ensure equality and equity among all the people in a region. A region requires well-educated and informed individuals to govern them and thus the social stratification phenomenon can work to ensure that only the best get into the leadership positions. If uncontrolled, however, the strategy may lead to inequality, disillusionment, and increased criminal activities. These negativities would result from the societal pressures that individuals should achieve certain goals in life for them to be considered successful in the society. These pressures create a strain in these individuals since they lack the resources to address their needs. As such, such people resort to criminal activities to satisfy the needs of the society. It is, therefore, critical that the society enhance a more accommodative approach to issues to enhance societal growth and discourage stratified growth patterns among people in the society.
In the future, researchers should develop an appropriate method that can be applied to ensure equal distribution of resources in the society. This method will encourage a more uniform distribution of resources among the people in the society.
References
Bartos, O. and Wehr, P. (2002) Using Conflict Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-232.
Bovens, M. and Wille, A. (2017) Diploma Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.1-256.
Brown, P. (2003) The Opportunity Trap. European Educational Research Journal, [Online] 2 (1), pp.141-179. Available From: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/eerj.2003.2.1.4 (Accessed: 14 May 2018).
Brown, R. (2017). Higher Education and Inequality. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, [Online] 22 (2), pp.37-43. Available From: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13603108.2017.1375442?needAccess=true (Accessed: 14 May 2018).
Clark, J. (2014) Closing the Achievement Gap from an International Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer, pp.1-324.
Frank, R. (2016) Success and Luck. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp.1-208.
Guinier, L. (2015) Tyranny of the Meritocracy. Boston: Beacon Press, pp.1-176.
Harvey, L. (2000) New Realities. Tertiary Education and Management, [Online] 6 (1), pp.3-17. Available From: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13583883.2000.9967007?needAccess=true (Accessed: 14 May 2018).
Hayes, C. (2012) Twilight of the Elites. New York: Broadway Books, pp.1-292.
Jarman, J. (2016) Social Inequality and Its Consequences in the Twenty-First Century. Contemporary Social Science, [Online] 11 (2-3), pp.103-112. Available From: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21582041.2016.1254277?needAccess=true (Accessed: 14 May 2018).
Li, Y. and Heath, A. (2016) Class Matters. American Journal of Sociology, [Online] 122 (1), pp.162-200. Available From: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/686696 (Accessed: 14 May 2018).
Littler, J. (2017) Against Meritocracy. London: Routledge, pp.1-250.
Moore, R. (2000) Multiracialism and Meritocracy. Review of Social Economy, [Online] 58 (3), pp.339-360. Available From: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00346760050132364?needAccess=true [Accessed 14 May 2018].
Talib, N. and Fitzgerald, R. (2015) Inequality as Meritocracy. Critical Discourse Studies, [Online] 12 (4), pp.445-462. Available From: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17405904.2015.1034740?needAccess=true (Accessed: 14 May 2018).
Tan, E. (2004) Does Class Matter? Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, pp.1-130.
Wolch, J. and Dear, M. (2013). The Power of Geography. London: Routledge, pp.1-416.
Young, M. (1994). The Rise of the Meritocracy. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, pp.1-180.
My References
Allen, A. (2011). Michael Young’s The Rise of the Meritocracy: A Philosophical Critique. British Journal of Educational Studies, 367-382.
Bornschier, V., & Trezzini, B. (1997). Social Stratification and Mobility in the World System: Different Approaches and Recent Research. International Sociology, 429-455
Buchmann , C., & Hannum, E. (2001). Education and Stratification in Developing Countries: A Review of Theories and Research. International Review of Sociology, 77-102.
Jiayu, Z. (2017, October 6). A Comparison of Social Stratification in the U.S. and China. Retrieved from China US Focus: https://www.chinausfocus.com/political-social-development/a-comparison-of-social-stratification-in-the-us-and-china
Kiuranov, C. (1982). Social Classes and Social Stratification. International Journal of Sociology, 1-100.
Pearlin, L., & Kohn, M. (2012). Social Class, Occupation, and Parental Values: A Cross-National Study. Taylor & Francis Group.
Teklu, T. (2018). Meritocracy and inequality: moral considerations. Palgrave Communications, 102-121.
Vryonides, M., & Lamprianou, L. (2013). Education and social stratification across Europe. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 77-97.
