Merit and meritocracy

Meritocracy is a deeply held and uniquely American belief. It is so ingrained in our collective consciousness that it has become both hard to see and hard to critique. This paper explores ways to engage students in discussions about meritocracy, especially the notion that public schools serve as the great "equalizer."

This paper presents detailed methods for constructing a flexible philosophical–analytical model through which to apply the analytic principles of CDA for the interpretation of metaphors across policy texts. Drawing on a theoretical framing from Foucault and the augmentation of Nietzsche’s views on valuation, we sketch a framework for examining ways in which evaluative semantic categories can be linked to sociological theories in order to bring out their relevance for the purpose of critical discourse analysis. This multi-level research framework draws upon a relationship between language analysis, the philosophical study of valuation, and political economy as a composite formulation of values through which neo-liberalism is discursively entwined and progressed through a system of principles of e/valuation.

This paper examines the way the metaphor of diversity provides a moral basis for inequality in Singapore’s meritocratic education system. Based upon a collection of policy texts from 2002 to 2012, our analysis illustrates that the metaphor of diversity in policy texts provides ways for systemic discrimination within the education system and that this inequality is given legitimacy as necessary through various moral discourses. The paper employs a critical discourse analysis that draws upon the relationship between language analysis, the philosophical study of valuation, and political economy as a composite formulation of values to highlight the ways in which an argument for inequality permeates policy from within a frame of meritocracy, and to analyse how changes associated with new modes of value determination serve to legitimize inequality.

1. The article questions and challenges the official meritocratic principle of ‘equal opportunities’ (Wong, 2000) in Singapore's education system. Drawing on Foucault's and Nietzsche's philosophical perspectives, there is an explicit illustration through an in-depth analysis of how inequality is inbuilt in policy report/speech.

2. Discourse builds in/tangible structures in society and greatly determines the possibilities of the now. As such, I am also arguing that it would be more difficult to 'help' any 'community' if the structural discrimination which has been deeply embedded, is not made explicit through national policies, and by this I mean an explicit illustration through an in-depth policy analysis of how inequality is inbuilt in Singapore's education policies. It may be through this that discriminatory structures could be substantially challenged.

An initial analysis of the original 1979 policy on primary school streaming which I conducted illustrates how dichotomous (arbitrary) categorization of pupils, i.e. 'slow' and 'fast' learners legitimates and sustains increasing institutional/structural access (over the years terms like 'talents' have been employed in policy discourse), of who gets privileged knowledge access. Through this, I also ask then to what ends do forms of 'categorization' or conventional designation entail? By this, given that categorization legitimizes structural access, my question is, what is 'Malay/Muslim community' and how is this categorization necessary?

3. Even though the analysis in the article was based on Singapore's education system, it provides possible ways of understanding how inequality is continuously being inbuilt through policies on the basis of the ideology that economic growth is the (only) way forward. A way to critique this ideology is to expose its underlying assumptions. I believe the findings have much resonance with the widening inequality across many developed nations, as Singapore's policies have parallels with that of the U.K., U.S., and international organizations such as the World Bank.

4. Economically considered, the transliteration of meritocratic discourse into the metaphor of diversity pinpoints how the appeal of development for all necessarily also demands the advance of inequity for the sake of the whole, i.e. advancing the 'growth with inequity' principle.

5. The analysis highlights that value judgments are continually at work in the policy discourse and that despite the strong discourse of meritocracy that the Singapore education system promotes, it is argued that it is in the interests of the Singapore people that 'talents' should get privileged access to knowledge as it is through this that more 'opportunities' for the rest of the population are created. The findings demonstrate that although the underlying assumptions of this 'logic' that has been constructed in policies are unsubstantiated, the logic is continuously legitimated through forms of e/valuations.



This article has been featured in websites such as: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150428105815.htm
http://www.eurasiareview.com/28042015-what-is-value-of-inequality-within-singapores-education-system/

"This paper will investigate the utilisation of direct democracy within the decentralised virtual community Anonymous, and in particular, their ability to function as a coherent political actor while adhering to their self enforced anonymity based persona. Anonymous is best understood as a virtual embodiment of the hacker ethos; orchestrating activist based operations which adhere to their internal majority opinion. Recently, Anonymous has been involved in providing support for the Middle Eastern democracy protests and orchestrating attacks on HBGary Federal and Sony Corporation.

We argue that meritocracy and direct democracy form the base for their decision making process. This, in itself, derives from their unique community characteristics which draw upon an anti- individualistic ideology. Anonymous functions as a leaderless ‘hive mind’, devoid of personal philosophy eschewing any individualisation or emergence of leadership or personality. Anonymous is able to identify insider status within the community through reference to individual knowledge of a collective cultural capital. Esoteric memes comprise the fundamental cultural formation of the group, and, as such, a detailed knowledge of these allows for inter-community communication. Anonymous employs aspects of meritocracy in formulating collective decisions. With all members utilising the same user-name, individualism is nonexistent. As such, the merit of an argument is based solely on its content as opposed to a pre-constructed perception of the individual and their perceived history or standing in the group. Furthermore, an individual’s mastery of the group’s culture denotes their involvement within the community and the level of their understanding in relation to its founding ideology.

From this basis, and utilising aspects of direct democracy, Anonymous is able to orchestrate large scale activist operations; coinciding with the current membership’s majority outlook. In this sense, Anonymous has no definitive political, philosophical, theological or sociological preference as the group’s membership is in a constant state of flux.

For these reasons, the paper argues that Anonymous, while utilising direct democracy in the decision making process, also employs aspects of meritocracy in judging the relevance, validity and worth of individual postings and contributions to their debates on upcoming actions and campaigns. Therefore, this paper provides a contribution to greater understanding of decentralised virtual community decision making processes amongst activist organisations."

Authors Meets Readers: Martin Powers in Conversation with Sandra Field,
Jeffrey Flynn, Stephen Macedo, and Longxi Zhang. This is the published proceeds of a panel at the American Philosophical Society Convention devoted to a discussion of China and England: The Preindustrial Struggle for Justice in China and England.