Drawing Lines (Part V): Elitism vs Meritocratism

A meritocracy is a power structure in which ruling authority is delivered by those deemed most meritorious. The problem of course lies in the definition of merit. History shows us that merit tends to be defined by those in power; the trick then is to 'sell' the idea that merit can be made definitive and objective.

This trick is of course best executed through the use of numbers and statistics, since (for some reason) they are seen as more objective than words and ideas. This means that a proper meritocracy needs a national or global statistic-delivering system which produces statistics correlated to performance in things seen to be of utilitarian value. Examinations are a possible example of one such system.

An elite is of course the most meritorious or most powerful subgroup in a sociocultural entity. Looking at the previous two paragraphs, it is obvious that meritocracy can be used to establish an elite, and that an elite has by definition a large stake in establishing a meritocracy.

The difference between elitism and meritocratism is therefore a subtle one. An elitist believes that there is nothing inherently wrong with cultivating, developing, nurturing, maintaining, and establishing an elite. A meritocrat believes that there is nothing inherently wrong with using a system that identifies elites and then cultivates, develops, nurtures, maintains and establishes them. The difference lies in the fact that an elitist assumes the presence of an elite a priori, while a meritocrat believes that starting from whatever you have, you can develop one.