Merit, privilege, equality: what if it’s not that simple?
Is meritocracy kind of… a lie?
It’s a question I’ve been hearing more and more, in articles, social media, podcasts, etc... Like, do people really succeed because they “worked hard”… or because they started way ahead? A comfortable background. The right people. The right codes. And suddenly, what we call “merit” feels a lot like disguised privilege.
Thing is, this isn’t a new idea. Back in the 60s, Bourdieu was already saying school doesn’t actually reward the most deserving, it just reproduces social inequality. Then in the 2000s, Piketty came in and showed how wealth mostly gets passed down. Not earned, inherited.
And now? People are pushing even harder. Some say meritocracy should just be abolished. That it's this comforting story we tell ourselves to believe the system is fair, when it’s been skewed from day one.
But honestly… is it really that black and white?
Of course, inequality exists. Some people start life with ten steps of advantage. Saying otherwise would be a joke.
But does that mean the whole system needs to be burned down? Does every form of success become suspicious unless it comes out of struggle? And what about effort? Skill? Discipline? Are we just throwing all that out?
Because here’s what we tend to forget:
Yes, some people are born with money, stability, and connections. But if they’re not capable, focused, or grounded… They don’t go far. And they don’t stay long.
Having access is one thing. Turning that into something real, something that lasts, that’s something else.
Right now, there’s this habit of reducing all success to background, like it erases the work, the stress, the responsibility. But running a team, building a business, leading anything: that’s not easy. It’s pressure. It’s risk. And it’s not for everyone even with “good contacts.”
Respect for everyone doesn’t mean absolute equality.
Yes, everyone deserves dignity. But no, that doesn’t mean we should all earn the same, be seen the same, or do the same.
Some roles are heavier. More technical. More exposed. And yeah, they should come with more, as long as it’s fair. No superiority complex. No abuse.
So maybe the real question isn’t: Should we cancel meritocracy? But: How do we open responsibility to people who are actually capable, even if they didn’t grow up with the right background?
So I’m asking:
Do we need to rethink this whole merit thing? Is background enough to explain success? Does “merit” still mean something today?
What’s your take? :)
- L.S.K.
(P.S. Translating this into English since apparently nuance doesn't hit unless it’s in meme format with a cartoon dog. Also just got back on Tumblr and it’s like my teenage bedroom got squatted by anarchist art students who start yelling “brainwashed” if you say not all rich people are demons. So here’s some context. Good luck.)
