Hands to Work

The myth of the modern meritocracy is prevalent within Korean society. Even more so than in the United States, Korean citizens live and work under the firm belief that their efforts will receive commensurate compensation in the future. The rich and successful find comfort in the idea that they have arrived at their position through the work of their hands alone, while the lower classes find courage and tenacity in the belief that work will set them free from their lot. It is truly striking how a country otherwise so divided becomes so united when discussing meritocracy.

On the surface, meritocracy is certainly a pleasant ideology. The age-old adage of a day’s work for a day’s pay, the simple yet powerful belief that you will be rewarded for what you do, is rooted in the very origins of labour. Indeed, administrative meritocracy based on tests was practiced in 6th century China, while Genghis Khan was renowned for his selection of officers based solely on their capabilities. This is proof of the appreciation. Yet, the belief that such pure meritocracy persists in modern society is misguided and has consistently harmed society in various ways, both directly and indirectly.

The most fundamental problem with modern meritocracy is that it assumes or even necessitates the existence of great social inequalities. The basic premise of meritocracy in simple, hunter-gatherer societies was that he who did the most work produced the most, and thus reaped the greatest benefits. However, in modern-day economies, the meaning of meritocracy has changed. Due to widespread office jobs, meritocratic workplaces are often taken to mean that those who do their work efficiently and diligently will be rewarded with promotions and higher salaries. There are three issues with this model which are mainly caused by an oversimplification of a modern economy as well as general blindness and naivete. Firstly, it is predicated on the assumption that those on the higher rungs of the corporate ladder are truly motivated to promote talent and diligence above anything else. Secondly, it ignores present socioeconomic inequalities. Finally, and most importantly, it assumes a level playing field amongst the pool of workers.

The unfortunate truth is that such a level playing field may not necessarily exist and that those on the high rungs of the ladder are not necessarily looking for talent in any given office setting. Within the office, due to the self-interest of higher-ranking individuals, nepotism is rampant and good connections and personal wealth are often far more significant than ability and diligence in deciding salaries and promotions. Going even further into the problem, many may not even get the chance to compete in the field. Merit can be defined as any trait that is favoured by society because it conforms to its structure, values, or customs. In a society that increasingly values education and status, we can say that merit stems from a combination of wealth and intelligence. The core problem underlying all other issues with meritocracy is that due to the naturally uneven distribution of merit, it is not as equitable as commonly believed. IQ and academic capabilities, both common assessments of intelligence, have direct correlations with family wealth. Despite this, due to the insistence that we are merit is evenly spread, an unmeritocratic meritocracy is allowed to continue and the underprivileged and the poor are locked out of the bastions of wealth and power. This also affects the workplace; those who did not graduate from college have an incomparably lower chance of getting a job at a good firm than those who did. Individuals who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are also prejudiced against in workplaces. 

The very societal perception of what qualifies as merit is another fundamental problem. In many modern countries, people who work blue-collar jobs, which include jobs involving manual labour such as plumbing or construction, are not praised for their incredibly hard work accomplishing physically demanding tasks, but ridiculed and looked down upon. This is not to say that there are no cases in which people from low social backgrounds gain great wealth or status through effort, but those exceptions prove the rule. In general, the social ladder in modern society is highly immobile and stratified, almost resembling a form of feudalism.

The harms of such a flawed meritocratic mindset are many and various. The most straightforward problem is that it reduces the number of people willing to take on jobs that are seen as low-skill. The aforementioned blue-collar jobs, while essential to both life and the economy, have negative social connotations attached to them, which results in a dearth of manual workers and a saturation of white-collar office workers. This not only enforces an artificial social image on those who engage in these jobs but also seriously impacts the economy.

There are also deeper social harms caused by this mindset. The capability and incentive for social action are severely impaired, mostly because people who subscribe to the meritocratic ideology do not believe that the system is at fault. For any failure or injustice in the workplace, they tend to blame themselves first of all. This internalising tendency to turn the fault to themselves stops them from protesting socioeconomic inequalities. In the past, with this much inequality in wealth distribution, there would have been revolutions. Instead, meritocracy now acts as a veil that blinds people towards the inherent imbalances that still exist.

Compounded with the aforementioned biases, it also leads to the despair of the lower classes. The workplace bias that locks lower-class members out from any opportunities to climb the social ladder precipitates a vicious cycle in which those who are poor are doomed to remain poor. Rather than protesting against this injustice or feeling anger towards society, however, the meritocratic mindset leads the poor worker to believe that it is his fault that he is impecunious and that it is due to some flaw in his character that he cannot escape poverty. This leads to despair. 

Individuals are also negatively affected by meritocracy. Due to the intense, if artificial, competition, stress, and unhappiness are pervasive and ubiquitous in meritocratic societies. In extreme cases, this can also be reflected in high suicide rates. In Korea, this is certainly the case. Because the future of an adolescent hinges greatly on what colleges they are accepted into, they spend most of their childhood and teenage years constantly competing and studying. This can be seen in Korea’s high depression and teen suicide rates. 

The course of action we ought to take as a society is clear. The first step is to recognise meritocracy for what it is: a farce. We must look this ambiguous ideology in the face and declare that this system is corrupt. We must be able to declare that this belief perpetuates inequalities and is not a sound basis for a strong society nor one we want to live and work under. Secondly, we must reduce bias on the societal level and increase respect for so-called ‘low-skill’ labour. Blue-collar jobs must finally be recognised as the lynchpins of modern society. The youth should be educated about the values and benefits of pursuing blue-collar jobs, while the media should depict a wide variety of workers. It is crucial that meritocracy remains not only an intellectual plaything for the modern elites but an actual system that can be incorporated into society. Meritocracy is a societal dream, but we all know that dreams cannot come true without effort. We must all work together to ensure that the vision of the meritocracy remains truly and firmly meritocratic.

January 10th, 2025

Columnist Andy Kim