This is a serious one. Strap yourselves in: you have to be able to hold two rival systems in your mind at once.
I am going to say something about meritocracy and also mediocracy.
The great Michael Young published The Rise of the Meritocracy in 1958. This was a satire or fantasy. Within a few years it made the word ‘meritocracy’ a word of world-historical significance. Not many of us will ever invent a wholly new word. Shakespeare managed to do it, many times. Milton too. Bentham coined a few words. The chap who invented ‘virtue-signalling’ did very well. So did Young. The word ‘meritocracy’ expressed something everyone wanted to express, and, immediately made sense to everyone who heard it, even though they had not heard it before. A bit later on, the Australian secularist David Tribe published a similarly titled book The Rise of the Mediocracy in 1975. This word ‘mediocracy’ is a less well known, but should be as well known. It seems that Tribe did not invent the word: but certainly propelled it into our own time as something to think about.
What these admirable sociologists were concerned with was modern society. And there were others. An American, William J. Goode, in an academic lecture, ‘The Protection of the Inept’ (American Sociological Review 32 (1967), pp. 5-19) observed that meritocracy created a problem. As well as creating a class that possessed merit, it also created of a class of those who lacked merit, the ‘inept’. So he wrote about the way in which society, especially meritocratic society, found ways to protect the inept. Later on, in fact only a decade ago, Joseph C. Hermanowicz wrote an academic article, ‘The Culture of Mediocrity’ (Minerva 51 (2013), pp. 363-387) — an article I read yesterday and strongly recommend. He observed that Goode had missed something. The protection of the inept created yet another problem. This was the marginalisation of the ‘adept’. Goode, perhaps innocently, confident of the hegemony of the adept, had not noticed this problem. Hermanowicz, with great elegance, suggested that what he called ‘mediocrity’ and what Tribe would have called ‘mediocracy’ was an “alternative system of rewards” to the system of rewards evident in meritocracy. So, on the one hand, we had a system of rewards for those who had merit. On the other hand, we had the emergence of a rival system of rewards for those who lacked merit. On the one hand, meritocracy; and, on the other, mediocracy. The argument was that within a meritocracy, the inept, who always outnumber the adept, are forced to find elaborate ways of perpetuating themselves. They do this through a heavy strategy of recruitment of the less able into the institutions they can commandeer (i.e., bureaucratically), and also by the creation of a culture which enforces the codes of the mediocre over those of merit (i.e., ideologically). Does this sound familiar? In this situation, if the adept among us attempt to restore the old meritocratic standards, they themselves are marginalised. They are called mavericks or complainers, said Hermanowicz — or, we should now add, sceptics or deniers.
The logical sequence here is magnificent:
- First, we have the establishment of a system of meritocracy.
- Meritocracy, in rewarding the adept, marginalises the inept.
- The inept require protection, and so, within a meritocracy, systems of protection are generated. Noblesse oblige and all that.
- But these systems of protection have a logic of their own: so that, against the first meritocratic system of values, a second mediocratic system of values emerges.
- Mediocracy establishes itself through the recruitment of the inept by the successful representatives of the inept within institutions, and by the creation of a language which subtly or unsubtly celebrates ineptitude.
- And thus the adept are to some extent – but never, some of us hope, entirely – marginalised.
At all points, our system — which we might have made the mistake of thinking was a mature meritocratic system — is, in fact, an uneasy co-existence of two rival systems of values within the same order: a meritocratic system and a mediocratic system.
Now let us slow down and think about them a bit.
- Meritocracy = a system of values in which everyone has equality of opportunity, and therefore there is only one reason for distinguishing persons: this is that some are more able than others. Everyone can be placed along a line running from the most able to the least. Within this system, those who are more able are promoted. Those with merit rule. It is a fantasy. But it is a fantasy we have come to take seriously. In Britain, since the late 19th century we have had competitive examinations for civil servants. In France and Turkey and possibly elsewhere, every year an entire nation of students is examined and ranked prior to being sent into higher education.
- Mediocracy = a system of values which is antithetical to meritocracy. Here, there is no external reason for distinguishing persons: therefore there are no ‘examinations’ in the sense of exams. On the contrary, all of life becomes an examination — an examination of how well one fits in: and the most successful class is the class of those not with the most merit but those who can somehow commandeer the antimeritocratic imperatives of mediocracy. The fittest are, simply, those who fit in the best. There is no line of ability. The ruling class is composed out of those who find a way of distinguishing themselves by being undistinguished (though in an apparently effective way).
In fact, we should perhaps admit that there are three rival systems. For there is no such thing as pure meritocracy or pure mediocracy. Not only do they co-exist as rivals but they are imposed on an older and more dignified system of values — a third system. This is where a society is divided into classes, castes, estates, guilds and dynasties – some of which are superior, some inferior, all of which are concrete and particular. Here there is no such thing as generalised equality. One is born to a particular station and the good life is carrying out the duties appropriate to that station. The English philosopher F.H. Bradley in the 19th century called this ‘My Station and Its Duties’. It is Platonic, if designed, and let’s say Feudal, if inherited. In order to contrast it effectively with the other two systems I shall call it, clumsily, but memorably, ‘mystationanditsdutiesocracy’. The logic of this system is ‘know your place’.
We live, now, in a once great country which was mostly run as a ‘mystationanditsdutiesocracy’. In its last glow of greatness, in the late 19th century, it attempted to become a ‘meritocracy’. So it was, perhaps, for a century: a meritocracy imposed on a mystationanditsdutiesocracy. But in the last 70 years a third system, a ‘mediocracy’ has arisen and entrenched itself. It has never wholly eliminated ‘mystationanditsdutiesocracy’ or ‘meritocracy’, but now — with all the battalions of the Civil Servants, the Lawyers, the Teachers, the Doctors, and the Administrators in its employ — it is ruling without any regard either for a sense of duty or for an awareness of merit.
I’d like to serve this argument up with a squeeze of lemon, some white pepper and a glass of champagne to the leaders of the various political parties. Perhaps it would make them feel guilty and a bit ashamed. The Tories have presided hypocritically — ‘Levelling Up’, anyone? — over the perpetuation of mediocracy. But now the shrewder and more brutal – because conscientiously mediocre – Labores, if I may call them this, are about to preside moralistically and self-satisfiedly over the final official entrenchment of the heightened and singularised Attlee-Blair system of mediocracy. (Prediction: the next great leader of Labour will have a surname beginning with a ‘C’.)
Let us also say this, since we are approaching the General Election. Historically, the role of the Conservative party was to defend ‘my station and its duties’. Historically, the role of the Liberal party was to defend ‘meritocracy’. Historically, the role of the Labour party was to defend ‘mediocracy’. Fair enough. But consider. The historic Conservative party and the historic Liberal party have collapsed: they have become nothing more than the cynical and idealistic wings of the Labour party. Even Reform seems to just be some spatchcocked nostalgia designed to appeal to those who remember the fine old days of the 1970s, when ‘my station and its duties’ still had some prestige and ‘meritocracy’ still had most of the glory.
How about this, as an explanation for why politicians are now so mediocre?
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Isn’t it ironic that she appears to have taken a job with an organisation located in a somewhat anti-Communist part of the world? Perhaps she’s got a bank account registered over there as well.
Let’s hope her new office is in Beijing, seeing as she likes authoritarian governments so much she’ll no doubt be very happy over there and as a bonus she is out of our backyard as well.
Sadly though I suspect that she will still find time to pop up on the BBC to issue her lockdown edicts.
If she is telling people she’s 40 that says a lot about whether she’s trustworthy because she was born in 1955.
“40 year *member of*”, not “40 year old”
Ah fair enough ! It was a bit early in the morning !
I admit I double took too.
I’m not normally in favour of ageism, being a bit of an old trout myself, but if she was born in 1955 then it’s definitely time she bowed out into retirement gracefully. Clearly she still craves the power.
Well, what do you expect? She’s just another boombaby convinced that the sole purpose of the world is to play nice with her fancies and that nobody else, neither older nor younger, matters in the slightest. We’re all supposed to wear masks and be subject to close monitoring for Dangerous Pathogens[tm] forever because she’s – unselfishly – convinced this will protect her and her pals. See also Neil Young’s and Joni Mitchell’s stance on The Science of Vaccination[tm]. We don’t matter so much.
A classic case of Jumped as a tiger, landed as bedside carpet.
Why would a scientific organisation need a nudge unit in the first place?
Maybe health is not a science.
The WHO is NOT a “scientific organisation.” The WHO is the lead organisation for something akin to a cult religion known as “The Science.”
There are crucial differences between the two; Science as most rational people understand it is always open to testing, questioning, debate and subsequent change.
‘The Science’ is regulated by the WHO and is not open to the vagaries of ‘Science.’
Indeed. Ayn Rand was warning about the dangers of state science 70 years ago. Of all the various dystopian novels, the COVID-19 lockdown era most resembled Atlas Shrugged. Many of the people involved in lockdowns and the many of the things they said were straight of the book’s lineup of bad guys.
I shouldn’t be surprised she was given a job at the WHO. Birds of a feather and all that!
Well the WHO have certainly put down a marker. Giving this despicable, traitorous pensioner a job is a statement in itself – the madness has not gone away and will undoubtedly be ramped up shortly under her edicts.
Youth are entirely disposable else why give this 67 tear old trout a job?
Yet again the WHO is clearly stating that it is an organisation that will operate outside anything remotely connected to science and rationality. Michie’s track record is proof of that.
Why is the UK still a member?!?
I thought Brexit was all about sovereignty!?!
All these UN organisations started as part of the mechanism supposed to ensure eternal world domination by the so-called allied powers of the second world war. Britain can hardly walk away from Churchill’s international legacy, even despite the massive amount unintended consequences.
Not good that she is now able to push her communist agenda throughout the world in the name of ‘science’ and ‘health’.
If they had given her an honorary membership of the CCP for services to the revolution instead, that would have been a bit too obvious. OTOH, there’s a silver lining to every cloud: The lady now formally being an halfway extraterritorial international expert means she’s domestically out of the way as she can certainly no longer claim to be concerned with British interests.
Or perhaps not quite so out of the way.. From the WHO pandemic preparedness treaty proposal:
“[The treaty] could include promoting high-level political commitment and whole-of-government whole-of-society approaches, addressing equity, enhancing the One Health approach, and strengthening health systems and their resilience.”
Sounds a lot like the UN aren’t very keen to stay in their lane..
Of course not. But Michie is no longer the official witch of the British government supposed to expertly advised it how to remote-control the British people by suitable magic charms (Look him into the eyes and … et al) aka hard hitting personal messaging. That’s at least an improvement. She’s now on the payroll of the World Hysterics Organization for service to keeping the panicdemic going, ie, collecting the reward for a usefulness and loyalty.
“The treaty] could include promoting high-level political commitment and whole-of-government whole-of-society approaches, addressing equity, enhancing the One Health approach, and strengthening health systems and their resilience.”
Clearly as duplicitous as it reads. No idea what it means and it’s a raging cert neither did the author.
Orwellian gobbledegook.
I remember that interview with her a year ago.
She likened the rigor of now wearing face masks always to picking up dog poo in parks.
“We didn’t use to pick up dog poo, but now we do. We’ve willingly changed our habits to accommodate good societal behavior, and we should do the same with face masks.” (or something to that effect).
Ironic her subject matter closely aligned with what I thought of it and her.
That Michie likens other people than her importinent self breathing (or talking) to dogs crapping in the streets is quite telling. Good societal behaviour would be picking her up and dumping her in the next bin should she be seen anywhere outside. I prefer the society of those whom she regards as mere dogs (or of real dogs, for that matter).
I didn’t use to want to dump all my dog’s (I don’t really have a dog!) poo through her letterbox but I do now…. I think we can put her own way of seeing the world to good use!
The nudgers want to harness social norms. But Novak Djokovic won’t be harnessed.
https://lauradodsworth.substack.com/p/the-nudgers-want-to-harness-social
Laura Dodsworth
Yellow Boards By The Road
“But what can I do? I am just one person”, said 7 billion people …
Thursday 4th August 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A321 Wargrave Road &
A4 New Bath Road
Twyford, Berks RG10 9PN
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram astandintheparkbracknell
“…so I’m very happy to speak about science, which is what my job is, and to limit it to that.” Michie is a behavioural psychologist with no background in epidemiology or infectious disease.
So, not a scientist at all, not in the proper sense anyway, and someone who is clearly uncomfortable talking about her political affiliations despite her occupying positions of power. It is really not surprising though. Tedros Ghebreyesus was/is a Marxist and I imagine there are others in the WHO with similar backgrounds and it has a strong tie to China. So, if anything, it is very important that Mitchie talks about her background and her beliefs especially as she will head up what is essentially a Nudge Unit for an organisation that is seeking global power through its pandemic treaty.
The perfect justification to cancel the direct debit.
Just another reason why the WHO and UN have now become an existential threat. Neither organisation ever made much sense anyway.
I mean, how can you have a Security Council prosecuting a war when people supporting the opposing side were also deciding on UN actions? For example, the Korean War had the UK and US on the UN Security Council discussing policy in the South alongside Chiang Kai-Shek’s Republic of China and the Soviet Union, who were communists supporting the North.
Nudge Units are an extremely worrying trend and really need proper exposure, as brainwashing the electorate is a violation of democracy.
‘Nudge units’ are worse than outright bullying of a population through physical force, as this sort of intimidation through fear, panic and emotional manipulation – as in any abusive relationship – absolves the bully or the totalitarian from any acknowledgment of the dark forces motivating their actions. CS Lewis put it nicely:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Spot on! Nudge units need serious media investigation. Thirty years ago, this subject would have been the subject of double-page spread exposés in newspapers and there would have been major investigations on the likes of Panorama and Dispatches.
I expect any objection from the UK Government would have stopped the appointment. Indeed her dismissal, along with the rest of SAGE about a hear ago would have done for her and them.
This is the problem with not having a proper government right now. Also, of course, many of our politicians were probably subject to more aggressive ‘nudging’ than the rest of the citizens of this country. Alexander Johnson looked positively stare-eyed sometimes (although I wonder if he was brain damaged in hospital.)
There is something amiss here and only Greenacres has made the point – why does an organisation reputedly devoted to health even admit to needing a “nudge” unit? This in itself is an admission that a substantial amount of underhandedness is and will continue to be deployed. It’s not as if the majority of any population needs to be nudged to do the right thing is it?
Are we simply becoming inured to this type of behaviour by those who believe they are TPTB?
The future so-called One Health Approach of the WHO is supposed to be jointly about the health of humans, animals and the planet. At least health of the planet is meaningless nonsense. Hence, it’s about pushing principally arbitrary policies, presumably principally about climate change. That’s why they need a nudge unit. It’ll hopefully convince people that everything we did since we stopped being hunter-gatheres was a dreadful mistake and urgently needs to be undone.
Good. I might as well disregard the diktats of the Boss class rather than a tuppence ha’penny academic. I feel more like I’m targeting the organ-grinder, somehow, instead of the monkey.
She’s already rich so another accolade for her will make little difference to me.
That’s right, the “chair” of the Who (if only), not “chairman”. Landsakes…
And once and for all, China’s WHO!
Nudge units have only a single purpose purpose to spread panic and propaganda. Michie’s appointment is therefore fitting. WHO desperately needs a new Director-General. The current incumbent has lost the plot.His recent declaration about Monkeypox has exposed his lack of credibility for all the world to see. If only our eyes had been opened about him early in 2020.
It interests me, how did the likes of Michie, Pantsdown Ferguson (and many others) get to be appointed and annointed as “The Science”?
Someone picked and recommended them. That someone didn’t just use a pin and an old telephone directory. It is impossible that they were NOT aware of Ferguson’s long history of total incompetence. Michie’s Marxism MUST have been known.
So, as well as these two malicious chancers, we need to know who thought it appropriate to use taxpayers’ money to employ these toxic barstewards. And ensure that whoever it was, is immediately fired and imprisoned for Gross Misconduct in Public Office.
That’s us fecked now…