In 1958, Michael Young wrote The Rise of the Meritocracy, a satirical essay that examines the shift from aristocracy to meritocracy in 19th-century Britain. Written from the perspective of a historian in 2033, the book “looks back” on how society gradually replaced inherited privilege with a system based on ability and effort.
Young criticizes aristocracy, arguing that this system wastes human potential, because capable individuals born into lower classes are denied opportunities. In contrast, meritocracy efficiently uses talent by giving the most capable individuals positions of power and responsibility. This, in theory, makes society more productive and fair.
Though Young acknowledges that, in terms of efficiency, meritocracy is an improvement over aristocracy, his main argument criticizes meritocracy. it. At first glance, meritocracy appears to solve inequality by removing inherited advantages. However, Young argues that it simply changes how inequality is justified. Young states, “Every selection of one is a rejection of the many.” Society still ranks individuals into hierarchies (structured systems of higher and lower positions), and these rankings are deserved rather than given.
This leads to one of Young’s most important insights: meritocracy makes inequality seem morally acceptable. As success results from intelligence and effort, those at the top can claim they deserve their position. Similarly, those at the bottom are often seen as responsible for their failure. Young highlights the psychological consequences of this shift, writing that, “for the first time in human history, the inferior man has no ready buttress for his self-regard.” In other words, people can no longer blame external factors like class or bad luck for their situation, damaging their sense of self-worth.
Young also identifies the consequences of meritocracy and questions whether merit is truly earned. While meritocracy emphasizes effort, it also relies heavily on intelligence, which is largely determined by factors beyond individual control, such as genetics and upbringing. If intelligence is not earned, then the system may still be influenced by luck, even if it claims to reward fairness. Another drawback of meritocracy is the formation of a new elite. Over time, the most able individuals rise to the top and tend to remain there, often passing their advantages on to their children. Young warns that this creates a self-reinforcing hierarchy, where the upper class is increasingly defined by ability alone. He writes, “The new upper class is no longer a mixture of the able and the fortunate; it is more nearly a class of the able alone.” This makes the system more rigid and harder to challenge than traditional class structures.
Young further predicts that meritocracy could weaken social solidarity—the sense of shared responsibility within a society. Individuals focusing on personal achievement may become less concerned with the common good. He also suggests that political movements representing the working class may decline, as talented individuals from those backgrounds are absorbed into the elite rather than advocating for their original communities.
Overall, The Rise of the Meritocracy is highly relevant and thought-provoking. Young challenges the common belief that meritocracy is inherently fair, showing instead that it can create a more justified and therefore more difficult-to-question form of inequality. His work offers important insights into how modern societies evaluate success and fairness. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in understanding the hidden assumptions behind the systems that shape our lives.