snobbery and meritocracy — Tarik Yildirim

Like many phenomena, snobbery is easier to recognise than to define. The definition of a snob in The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is inadequate. The Penguin English Dictionary does much better. It defines a snob as ‘Someone who tends to patronize or avoid those regarded as social inferiors; someone who blatantly attempts to cultivate or imitate those admired as social superiors; someone who has an air of smug superiority in matters of knowledge or taste.’ The same dictionary defines ‘inverted snob’ as one ‘who sneers indiscriminately at people and things associated with wealth and high society.’ One possible derivation of the word snob is from the Latin sine nobilitate, without nobility.

I doubt whether there is anyone in a modern society who is entirely free of snobbery of some sort, straight or inverted. After all, everyone needs someone to look down on, and the psychological need is the more urgent the more meritocratic a society becomes. This is because, in a meritocracy, a person’s failure is his own, whether of ability, character or effort. In a society in which roles are ascribed at birth and are more or less unchangeable, failure to rise by one’s own achievement is nothing to be ashamed of. To remain at, or worse still to sink down to, the bottom of the pile is humiliating only where a man can go from log cabin to White House. Of course, no society is a pure meritocracy and none allows of absolutely no means of social ascent either; thus my typology is a very rough one, and is not meant to suggest that there is ever a society in which the socially subordinate are perfectly happy with their lot or are universally discontented with it. But it does help to explain why justice, of the kind according which everyone receives his deserts, might not necessarily conduce to perfect contentment. It is obviously more gratifying to ascribe one’s failure to injustice than to oneself, and so there is an inherent tendency in a meritocracy for men to perceive injustice where none has been done.

Theodore Dalrymple - Of Snobbery and Soccer

Let's for a moment leave aside the caveat that there is no absolute measure of meritocracy...

Some CEOs believe that success is more due to effort and intelligent planning than to luck and market related unpredictable factors. They tend to be more snobby than the CEOs who acknowledge the overwhelming importance of unpredictable factors. The latter group recognizes the fact that the market place can never be meritocratic. Hence, they feel less need to find people to look down upon.

Some academic fields, such as mathematics, are as meritocratic as a system can practically get. Of course there are trends in mathematics too. Your work may be unappreciated today, but hailed later on. Nevertheless it is easier to separate the good mathematicians from the bad ones, than to separate the good CEOs from the bad ones. Hence, in the world of mathematics, one expects more snobbish behaviour. Is it true?

I am not sure. There seems to be other factors at work here. For instance, I find it hard to imagine someone devoting his life to such an abstract and difficult subject without really loving it for its own sake. Those who seek fame, status, money and power usually prefer other endeavours.

Update (November 2011) : Apparently the link between humiliation and meritocracy was first pointed out in the 18th century:

The long line of German authors who radically rejected "Western" ideas of the Enlightenment and the social philosophy of rationalism, utilitarianism and laissez faire as well as the policies advanced by these schools of thought was opened by Justus Möser. One of the novel principles which aroused Möser's anger was the demand that the promotion of army officers and civil servants should depend on personal merit and ability and not on the incumbent's ancestry and noble lineage, his age and length of service. Life in a society in which success would exclusively depend on personal merit would, says Möser, simply be unbearable. As human nature is, everybody is prone to overrate his own worth and deserts. If a man's station in life is conditioned by factors other than his inherent excellence, those who remain at the bottom of the ladder can acquiesce in this outcome and, knowing their own worth, still preserve their dignity and self-respect. But it is different if merit alone decides. Then the unsuccessful feel themselves insulted and humiliated. Hate and enmity against all those who superseded them must result.

Ludwig von Mises - Anti-Capitalistic Mentality (Pages 13-14)