Skip to main content

The language of meritocracy, the workings of power, and the lack of accountability

One of the challenges of an organizational structure built on the rhetoric of meritocracy is its inability to put checks and balances in place to hold accountable the structures of power that are accumulated through claims to meritocracy.

The logic of meritocracy works precisely on the acceptance of inequality as natural to a structure that is built on merit, with merit standing in as a signifier of capability.

Inequalities are justified to the extent that they are based on differentials in merit.

Inequalities in differential labour, differential assigned workloads, differential pay structures can all be justified to the extent that they can be justified by some claim to merit. The powers that be in meritocratic structures determine the rules of the game to justify these inequalities.

Now all of this would work in a meritocratic system if the system was devoid of the workings of power and the traps to equal access that are put up by structural differences in access to opportunities.

In the concept of a meritocratic structure, once one has achieved the markers of what constituted merit, he/she has an opportunity of being part of the system. This logic would of course work if a meritocracy was based on continual evaluation on the basis of clearly articulated and transparent structures, with checks and balances of accountability built into the system such that those who were once in but have failed to perform to the standards of merit are automatically filtered out, making place for new power players in the system by virtue of merit.

In other words, for meritocracy to work, the rules, processes, and guidelines would have to be transparent to organizational members broadly, and opportunities would have to be extended equally so every organizational member has a chance at merit.

However, meritocracies are not devoid of power. Quite the opposite. Once through some claim of meritocracy one set of actors have been incorporated into the structure, it is of ultimate interest to the power brokers within the system to maintain their power. The maintenance of this power can now be achieved through the changing of rules, creation of new systems and new metrics that would serve the interests of power, and that are overall directed toward servicing the control of the power elite. In many instances in organizations, these rules are not transparent and are not available to all organizational members. This lack of transparency then keeps intact the power structure while keeping those in these structures out of the lens of scrutiny. Inequalities produced by the structures are continually justified without any accountability to organizational members.

Power in a meritocracy thus makes sure that new rules, standards, and arguments are propped up to retain and propagate power, maintaining intact the status quo. In organizational structures, these workings of power retain as intact the dominant modes of circulating power, simultaneously consolidating additional power in the hands of the meritocratic elite. Inequality thus is continually perpetuated in meritocracies that work by perpetuating differentials of access and differentials of labour, opportunities, and rewards.

Accountability in such systems is lost as structures don't really create opportunities for remaining accountable. The logics of the organization and its rules are not rendered visible in such instances, ensuring that inequalities are perpetuated.

Popular posts from this blog

The whiteness of binaries that erase the Global South: On Communicative Inversions and the invitation to Vijay Prashad in Aotearoa

When I learned through my activist networks that the public intellectual Vijay Prashad was coming to Aotearoa, I was filled with joy. In my early years in the U.S., when learning the basics of the struggle against the fascist forces of Hindutva, I came in conversation with Vijay's work. Two of his critical interventions, the book, The Karma of Brown Folk , and the journal article " The protean forms of Yankee Hindutva " co-authored with Biju Matthew and published in Ethnic and Racial Studies shaped my early activism. These pieces of work are core readings in understanding the workings of Hindutva fascism and how it mobilizes cultural tropes to serve fascist agendas. Much later, I felt overjoyed learning about his West Bengal roots and his actual commitment to the politics of the Left, reflected in the organising of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), a political register that shaped much of my earliest lessons around Global South resistance, collectivization, and orga...
Read more

Upper caste Indian women in the diaspora, DEI, and the politics of hate

Figure 1: Trump, Vance and their partners responding to the remarks by Mariann Edgar Budde   Emergent from the struggles of the civil rights movement , led by African Americans , organized against the oppressive history of settler colonialism and slavery that forms the backbone of US society, structures around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) formed an integral role in forging spaces for diverse recognition and representation.  These struggles around affirmative action, diversity, equity and inclusion were at the heart of the changes to white only immigration policies, building pathways for migration of diverse peoples from the Global South.  The changes to the immigration policies created opportunities for Indians to migrate to the US, with a rise of Indian immigration into the US since the 1970s into educational institutions, research and development infrastructures, and technology-finance infrastructures. These migratory structures into the US were leveraged by l...
Read more

Whiteness, NCA, and Distinguished Scholars

In a post made in response to the changes to how my discipline operates made by the Executive Committee of the largest organization of the discipline, the National Communication Association (NCA), one of the editors of a disciplinary journal Rhetoric and Public Affairs (RPA), Professor Martin J. Medhurst, a Distinguished Scholar of the discipline, calls out what he sees as the threat of identity (see below for his full piece published in the journal that he has edited for 20+ years, with 2019 SJR score of 0.27). In what he notes is a threat to the "scholarly merit" of the discipline, Professor Medhurst sets up a caricature of what he calls "identity." In his rhetorical construction of the struggles the NCA has faced over the years to find Distinguished Scholars of colour, he shares with us the facts. So let's look at the facts presented by this rhetor. It turns out, as a member of the Distinguished Scholar community of the NCA, Mr. Medhurst has problems wit...
Read more