Book review: Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and Myths of Mobility

Abstract

This is a scholarly and readable book which critically examines the powerful myths of social mobility, particularly in modern Britain. It shows how the strong policy emphasis on social mobility acts as a cover for the growing inequality of neoliberal economies, demanding a ‘cruel optimism’ as young people are expected to climb steeper and ever more slippery ladders. It is an outstanding cultural study, which includes not only an account of the shifting meanings of ‘meritocracy’ but also chapters on how plutocrat celebrities present themselves, the denial of racial disadvantage and the ‘mumpreneur’. It recalls Raymond Williams’ phrase ‘structure of feeling’ in the way it examines the messages and impact of media representations and policy discourses. Chapter 1 traces the shifting use of ‘meritocracy’. Even before Michael Young’s book The Rise of the Meritocracy, socialist researcher Alan Fox used meritocracy as a term of abuse for a society in which excessive rewards are given to ‘the gifted, the smart, the energetic, the ambitious and ruthless’. Young’s book is so clearly intended as a satire, yet very soon ‘meritocracy’ was being used positively. ‘By the 1990s UK’s New Labour had adopted a non-satirical idea of a meritocratic society with gusto’. The discussion includes Arendt, Bell and Foucault. Chapter 2 traces the shift from the compromise of ‘welfare capitalism’ to an increasingly divided neoliberal economy. In the 1960s, social mobility was possible because of an increase in professional and white-collar jobs, but later it would involve replacing those in the upper layers. It is in this context that ‘luminous media fables’ such as The Apprentice appear, showing a ruthless struggle for scarce prizes in which ‘all teamwork is a temporary means to an individualistic end’. The presenter of the UK version Alan Sugar is soon appointed official ‘Enterprise Tsar’, and ruthlessly competitive ingenuity and willpower is presented as a new kind of ‘neoliberal justice narrative’. Chapter 3 continues this historical narrative, showing how, under a Coalition and then Conservative government, an attack on living standards and welfare of poorer sections of society is accompanied by rhetoric about Britain being an ‘Aspiration Nation’. ‘We are the party of the want-to-be better-off’, said Cameron. The casualties of Austerity were then cast as responsible for their own suffering: