Good piece, as ever, by @NickCohen4 on the collapse of meritocracy. Though I'd see it slightly differently: I think Cummings passionately believes that he is *constructing* a meritocracy, in a way that demonstrates the problems with that concept. [THREAD] theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
2. Cummings sees himself as a meritocrat. His blog drips with contempt for the calibre of civil servants, MPs & ministers. He rages against an out-dated "establishment", that shuts out mavericks & rewards low-wattage arts graduates, with no understanding of science or innovation.
3. The govt is stocked with people, like Cummings, who think that their own merits went unrewarded: ministers who were sacked; diplomats whose careers stalled; and lawyers who never made partner. They see themselves as victims of a rigged "establishment", not of "meritocracy".
4. The rhetoric of govt appointments is always meritocratic: recruiting "the best people" from the private sector. If, as Cummings thinks, "the system" is rigged for mediocrity, "merit" will only be found by circumventing it. What critics see as "cronyism", he sees as meritocracy
5. And here's the problem with meritocracy. How do we judge "merit"? How do we avoid just rewarding the kinds of merit we recognise in ourselves? Meritocracies are always structured by power: that's why "meritocracy" rewards good lawyers more than good nurses or good neighbours.
6. Cummings seems to have total faith in his own ability to assess merit & very little in anyone else's. The result is a kind of "ego-meritocracy", in which *he* must control appointments; *he* must vet ministerial Spads; *he* must pick the companies to whom contracts are given.
7. The contradictions are striking. Cummings advertises for "misfits and weirdos", but prescribes in detail what skills they'll have & what they'll have read. He wants "people who are much brighter than me", but is confident he can tell who they are, with the wrong sort "binned".
8. Cummings is right that bureaucracies can be self-perpetuating: that institutionalising one set of skills and attributes can shut out others, making recruitment actively *anti*-meritocratic. But that is truer still of a single individual - esp. if they believe they're a genius.
9. Unlike some, I don't doubt Cummings' motives: I think he passionately believes that he's improving the quality of govt. But "benevolent cronyism" has all the flaws of "benevolent dictatorship", especially when its members believe that their own merits have gone unrewarded.
10. In other words, I am doubtful whether "meritocracy" is a useful defence against this government, or against the cronyism that is practiced in its name. Instead, we need a better critique of the *concept* of meritocracy, that recognises its dangers as well as its value.
11. "Meritocracy" should be tempered by two constraints: (1) checks on personal patronage, as a defence against "meritocratic cronyism"; & (2) a commitment to equality of worth. A "meritocracy" should not reward the good banker 250x more than the good plumber, parent or citizen.
12. The problem with this government is not that it rejects meritocracy, but that it puts too much faith in its own ability to assess merit & bypasses any institution that challenges it. And its view of merit underpins a defence of inequality, as a reward for the deserving rich. 
13. Johnson, in particular, has always seen wealth as a reward for merit - which is why, instead of "moaning or preaching or bitching" about the "self-made super-rich" (a contradiction in terms), "we should be offering them humble and hearty thanks". telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/sho…
14. As the pandemic has reminded us, "merit" & "reward" are poorly aligned in Britain. If we emerge with a broader understanding of merit, & a greater willingness to question what we value, something important will have been gained - & a better politics perhaps made possible. END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
