Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Meritocracy and Its Discontents Rhetorical Analysis

In the essay “Meritocracy and Its Discontents,” author Christopher Hayes argues that the

education system in America has created an unjust system where privileged students are set up

for success, while the rest are left to fail. In Hayes’ writing, he captures the inequalities of

education through rhetorical devices such as cause and effect relationships, repetition, and irony.

Hayes argues that the pure form of the meritocracy, which is a system that delegates power to the

academically qualified, is in reality a corrupted principal that upholds the social elite. Through

Haye’s convincing tactics, he reveals the true secret behind the meritocracy: education today is a

barrier that renders the American Dream a near impossible feat.

One of the most powerful devices that Hayes implements is his use of cause and effect.

Throughout the essay, Hayes illustrates the defining principles that the meritocratic system

strives to create, only then to show the inequities that such a system actually practices. One

example of this is when Hayes simplifies the actual motive of the meritocracy. He claims that

“[meritocracy] is straightforward: it gives everyone what he or she deserves. Effort and talent are

rewarded, ignorance is punished” (51). The hard work sentiment has been promoted and

idealized for centuries in a capitalist society, and Hayes suggests that the meritocracy is a way

where everyone can achieve a deal of success if one only works hard enough. However, later in

the article Haye’s reveals the actual implications of the meritocracy system. As Hayes puts it,

“the Iron Law of Meritocracy states that societies ordered around the meritocratic ideal will

produce inequality without the attendant mobility. Indeed, a society will grow more unequal”

(57). He disturbingly conveys that the meritocratic system is not as flexible as most imagine it,

and he states that there is a sort of unmovable “iron” in a meritocracy. While the purpose of
meritocracy might be good, Hayes argues, the effects are anything but fair. Along with the Iron

Law of Meritocracy, Hayes also introduces the “Principle of Difference”, which states that there

is a natural differentiation between people’s innate abilities and what they can contribute to a

complex society. This “Principle of Difference” ideal goes hand in hand with the metaphorical

iron quality of meritocracy because it places greater demand on individuals with specialized

jobs-- jobs that usually include a higher salary. However, the problem with the Principle of

Difference is that individuals who are delegated with the most important and high paying jobs

are also associated with being the hardest working, when in fact the people who have these high

paying jobs usually have them based off privileged circumstances. He supplements his argument

by exhibiting that the test prep agency is a multimillionaire business that makes money off of

privileged individuals--namely, white and Asian families-- that are able to afford the thousands

of dollars it takes to pave a way into the higher caliber schools, which eventually lead to high

caliber jobs and lifestyles. Hayes understands that hard work is pertinent in almost any successes

in life, but the way that the meritocracy system functions depends on a social hierarchy that

ultimately favors the ones already with higher status.

Another prevalent technique that Hayes uses is a repetition technique that further

challenges the “level playing field” metaphor. Several times, Hayes describes a lengthy narrative

where an authority figure argues that the current system in which we live in is fair and just. Yet,

Hayes criticizes these arguments and repeats what a “level playing field” really entails. One

notable example of this is when Hayes brought up how Hunter High School, an elite institution,

admits students solely based off of test scores. Hayes shows that although Hunter may have good

intentions--it “rejects any subjective aspects of admission” -- it’s “dependence on a single test is
not strong enough to defend against the social mechanisms of inequality” (34). Hayes argues that

this test-only admission process actually contributes to diversity issues at top ranked educational

institutions, and it is a leading reason why Caucasians and Asians soar in numbers while

minorities and lower-class students numbers continue to drop annually. Later in the article,

Hayes also highlights a quote from the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke. Bernanke

states that “although we Americans strive to provide equality of economic opportunity, we do

not guarantee equality of economic incomes”(42). Again, Hayes showcases that the “level

playing field” metaphor is not realistic, because the working class has been “deprived by

educational selection of many of those who would have been natural leaders” (41). Repeatedly,

Hayes goes back to his argument that no matter the good intentions that the meritocratic system

strives for, it ultimately reinforces a caste system where those born into money have a far better

chance of success. The meritocratic system does offers that no matter what background one is

from, success can be attained. Barack Obama is a shining example of a minority man who was

raised by a single parent, yet still achieved remarkable success and is celebrated as a president of

extremely high approval ratings. However, there is a reason that there has only been one African

American president in the history of the United States--people from lower backgrounds do not

have the same opportunities that people of higher class families enjoy. The meritocratic system

offers a slim hope that everyone, regardless of social class, can attain success, yet it continually

favors those that have a leg up.

Hayes, above all else, turns to irony when he showcases the ridiculous praise that a

meritocratic system receives. Essentially, all of his notable rhetorical devices (cause and effect

and repetition) show some type of irony because the implications of a so-called “progressive”
meritocratic system actually uphold social immobility. One of Haye’s early examples of irony is

when he illustrates a satisfied student at Hunter who exclaims that when she looks at the student

body as a whole, “it gets me very sappy about the American dream. These kids are getting an

education that is unparalleled, and it’s not about where they come from or who they are” (35).

However, Hayes quickly turns this positive into a somewhat humorous and ignorant statement.

Hayes points out that in reality, in 2009 the entering class was just 3 percent black and 1 percent

Hispanic (36); a racial demographic that does not even somewhat mirror the actual demographics

of diverse New York City (Need citation, even if it is not a direct quote you pulled it from his

essay). This quote shows that the so-called anyone can receive a great education “no matter

what background” ideal is actually based on the fact that the definition of intelligence is based on

attributes such as “class status, cultural legacies, socioeconomic status, and early educational

opportunities” (52). Indeed, Hayes shows the reader that success in America is almost entirely

dependent on factors that students have no control over. The meritocratic system celebrates those

that were born into a higher status, but it makes those that were born into more unfortunate

circumstances less likely to land jobs and positions of power.

The underlying theme of Hayes’ piece illustrates, in short, the meritocratic system creates

great divisions instead of a level playing field. It is a system that fosters the already elite class in

America and inhibits the growth of new leaders. Schools like Hunter may promote a so called

unbiased entrance exam, but there are a myriad of factors that play into whom ultimately gains

admission and thus into other elite institutions that garner our world leaders. America’s faith in

meritocracy has instead become a system that continually recycles the already privileged people

in our community and inhibits mobility among other classes.

Вам также может понравиться