Against Merit
A Critique of Aristocracy
If you prefer the audio of this article, click here.
You hear a call echoing from the halls of power to places on the internet that boys fear to tread. You find it in Ragnar Redbeard. You find it in Jordan Peterson. You find it in internet anons poasting physique. The clarion call of the right-winger:
We must have the best!
Whether you call it “aristocracy” or “meritocracy” hardly matters—the two mean the exact same thing. A rose by any other name. Behind this call for “rule by the best” is something plausible. More than plausible—downright trivial. What, do you want the worst? Do you want rule by the average? Something less than the best? Who could even question it?
To get a sense of what’s wrong with “rule by the best”, I want you to watch this video, Monty Python’s Greatest Sketch Ever.1 It’s only a minute long:
For those of you who prefer to read, here it is:
Alan: Hello children.
Noel: Hello.
Jackie: Hello.
Alan: Well, last week we showed you how to be a gynaecologist. And this week on ‘How to Do It’ we’re going to learn how to play the flute, how to split the atom, how to construct box girder bridges and how to irrigate the Sahara and make vast new areas cultivatable, but first, here’s Jackie to tell you how to rid the world of all known diseases.
Jackie: Hello Alan.
Alan: Hello Jackie.
Jackie: Well, first of all become a doctor and discover a marvellous cure for something, and then, when the medical world really starts to take notice of you, you can jolly well tell them what to do and make sure they get everything right so there’ll never be diseases any more.
Alan: Thanks Jackie, that was great.
Noel: Fantastic.
Alan: Now, how to play the flute. (picking up a flute) Well you blow in one end and move your fingers up and down the outside.
Noel: Great Alan. Well, next week we’ll be showing you how black and white people can live together in peace and harmony, and Alan will be over in Moscow showing you how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. Til then, cheerio.
Alan: Bye.
Jackie: Bye-Bye.
My objection to meritocracy is the same as my objection to technocracy: it is trivial. Yes, of course we want the best. No shit, sherlock. The one thing you forgot to specify is all the content. Technocracy, or “rule by expert”. OK, but expert in what? Meritocracy, or “rule by the best”. OK, but the best at what? More importantly, the best for what?
Advocating rule by “the best” simply pushes the question of legitimacy back a step, to where we then need to say by what standard “best” is measured. This is not a nitpicky objection, it is absolutely fundamental. Advocating for “the best”, full stop, is exceedingly dangerous. It presupposes a trans-cultural standard of “best” irrespective of folk. It is anti-folkish, through and through.
This same idea is reformulated in calls for a “natural elite”. This is just Jordan Peterson’s fetish for “merit”, but given a “might is right” coat of paint. The idea is that history is a battleground, and that if the playing field were truly level then the cream would rise to the top unimpeded. The only reason why inferior specimens rule over us now (which, no doubt, they do) is because natural selection is being interfered with, and we need to get out of the way and let nature take its course. Laissez faire.
But in nature, nepotism wins 100 times out of 100. To illustrate, let’s look at hereditary monarchy.
If there’s one thing almost everyone can agree on, it’s that on paper, hereditary monarchy is obviously stupid. Its theoretical shortcomings are well known. Sons don’t always, or even often, inherit the genius of the father—we all understand regression to the mean. Men should not inherit titles, power, or sovereignty. These things should be earned. They should go only to the best.
This is a bit strange, because we’ve now found ourselves in a position where we are opposing the idea of inheritance. Would we say the same thing within the family? Should you not inherit the property of your father? Or just not his privileges? It seems we are making a distinction here.
People do tend to treat governance as something radically different than “private” matters. In one sense, we can understand it. After all, becoming a king or a prime minister is not quite the same as becoming a plumber or a doctor. Your actions affect far more people. The domain is more complicated. Unless we actually believe in democracy, it should be quite clear that you can’t easily get rid of a bad king or a bad kingmaker, the way you could just hire another plumber. Anyone you can vote for is irrelevant anyway.
So if sovereignty should not be hereditary, how do we solve the succession problem? How does power get passed from one person to another? To the victor go the spoils? If you want to see how that principle works in practice, if you want to see how ideas of “meritocracy”, or “natural elite”, or non-hereditary aristocracy function in real life, look no further than Alexander the Great.