polanalysis

pdf

School

University of Toronto *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

POLC78

Subject

Sociology

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by ConstableBoulder12801

1 University of Toronto Scarborough Final paper Political Analysis Ali Saleh POLC78 Renan Levine November 24th, 2023 1003613850 (2860 words)

2 Executive Summary: This paper explores varying notions and perceptions surrounding meritocracy in Toronto. The purpose is to determine whether a correlation exists between perceptions of meritocracy and political orientation. This research relies on qualitative data gathered from three sets of structured interviews from a University of Toronto colleague, a family member and a student at Toronto Metropolitan University. Towards this, I argue that meritocracy indeed is correlated with political orientation since citizens that hold the values presupposed by strong views of meritocracy tend to vote for conservatives, as opposed to citizens who are less inclined to hold these values, who vote for progressive politicians. The results have been mixed and do not paint a clear picture as to the connection between meritocracy and political orientation and whether orientation varies with perceptions on meritocracy. Therefore, I suggest more research in this area needs to be concluded to reach a definitive conclusion. Key Words: meritocracy, inequality, individualism, collectivism, political orientation, perceptions, social mobility Introduction The overarching theme of this paper will be meritocracy and inequality. Research in perceptions and political attitudes surrounding meritocracy and inequality is vast and disparate in scope. The implications for policy are equally vast, since these perceptions and attitudes are known to influence engagement in education, employment and influences our understanding of social mobility, wealth distribution and welfare (cite). To explore this, I will endeavour to answer the following: How does a perception of meritocracy influence views on policy? Specifically, does an entrenched belief in the values of meritocracy shape Canadians political orientation? For my hypothesis, I contend there is a correlation between perceptions of meritocracy and political orientations for Canadian citizens. I hold this conviction since it is my understanding that conservatives tend to value a ‘pull yourself up by the bootstraps’ mentality that values hard work, individualism and self sustenance. This stands in contrast against more liberally oriented groups who emphasize the importance of community solidarity and value progressive and redistributive policies for eliminating structural barriers that impede change. That said, my views are transitory and reserved as I am flexible and open to having my mind changed on the issue. Towards this end, I have conducted three interviews to test this hypothesis. The paper will be formatted as follows. I will begin by providing qualifying definitions to give critical contextual background for the topic. Then, I will provide the interview transcript

3 and the qualitative data gathered as a result. This will be examined and assessed with reference to the constructs and indicators as outlined in the first section. Finally, I will wrap up the paper with an evaluation that gathers the findings and synthesizes them to determine whether there is grounds to reassess the thesis. There will be a brief point on steps for next directions for emerging research on the topic. Operational Constructs To begin, I will provide formative definitions for terms critical to this research. The term meritocracy was coined by the British sociologist Michael Young in his book The Rise of Meritocracy (Hing et al, 2011). The term refers to an envisioned socially stratified society where outcomes in terms of wealth, employment and power are distributed on the basis of merit. Merit is a dynamic concept that is exceptionally culturally construed (Kalantzis et al, 1988). For the sake of parsimony, I will apply the common understanding of merit that stems from individual skills and competence in a particular domain or field. An individual's skills and competence is necessarily bound up with dexterity and intelligence, yet, this also connotes e ff ort and a willingness to undergo hardship to strive towards achievement. For this reason, skills and competence will be operationalized under two constructs: a) competence which includes the indicators intelligence and mastery of craft b) e ff ort which includes the indicators 'willingness to work hard' and 'work ethic'. The concept of meritocracy is grounded in the belief that success and achievement in society occurs as a result of individual merit, as understood from the aforementioned explanation. From the outset, it is apparent that meritocracy also presupposes a concept of merit that is bound with individual achievement. Individualism in this sense emphasizes the agency of individuals in shaping the trajectory of their life. An individualist society is characterized by one where the values of self reliance and self su ﬃ ciency trump the value of strong communal a ﬃ liation (Kyriacou, 2026). Everyone is self interested and in recognition of this social fact,

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 everyone is expected to fend for themselves and their loved ones. This stands in contrast to collectivism, which emphasizes strength in numbers, group solidarity and identity grounded in community interests. In a collectivist society, the interests of the group prevail over individual interests, as each member has mutual obligations to the group and is expected to be loyal to the group. The rationale behind this is individuals gravitate towards groups that share their values and goals and sacrificing one's individual whims and desires for group outcomes is preferable to self reliance. Since an assessment of individual merit requires an understanding of the individual in a vacuum, it should come as no surprise that individualism is subsumed within meritocratic systems. That said, an argument can be made that meritocracy is further bound up in notions of productivity and e ﬃ ciency as a corollary of individualism, which suggests meritocratic inclided individualism will likely lean towards free markets than collectivized welfare (Daniels, 1976). Bearing this in mind, meritocracy is interpreted as an ideal that society ought to strive towards. In this ideal, only the relevant inputs, in this case competence and e ff ort, yield the relevant outputs of success and personal fulfillment. The upshot of this ideal is it strives to undermine irrelevant factors that are arbitrary and do not bear on the aforementioned outputs, such as ethnicity or religion. However, as highlighted by Young, the emphasis on merit based outcomes risks reinforcing an unequal status quo dominated by elite groups who are further entrenched by a belief in meritocracy (Hing et al, 2011). Further, it is questionable whether meritocracy, when it is not referred to in 'all else equal' terms, truly reflects society and modus operandi of social hierarchies or whether it is a fashionable myth we tell ourselves to justify our worldviews (Lawton, 2000). Meritocracy can overlook other important extraneous factors such as the e ff ects of discrimination, inheritance, and socioeconomic privileges. There is much to be said on this contentious issue that lies beyond the parameters of this paper. Su ﬃ ce it to say, a commitment to meritocracy may be more indicative of cultural values and beliefs than in reality.

5 As it relates to policy, it is also important to define what is meant by political orientation in order to clarify the target of this research. Political orientation is di ﬃ cult to pin down since the liberal and conservative or left wing and right wing dichotomy is not rigid, with the Overton window shifting over time and substantial overlap between both camps (Greenberg and Jonas, 2003). For the purpose of this paper, I will rely on Greenberg et al's (2003) theory that political attitudes are shaped by ideological rigidity, psychology and cultural norms. An attitude is ideologically rigid if it is fundamentalist and intolerant of alternative perspectives; this can be found at both extremes of the political spectrum, especially for more authoritarian leaning orientations. Prevailing cultural norms such as an entrenched belief in meritocracy, social justice or traditionalism also configure prominently, as evinced in the United States where evangelical Christians tend to vote Republican and democratic socialists prefer Democrats. Jost et al's (2003) model places primacy on psychology as a predictor of conservatism, arguing conservatives are risk avoidant and as a result are resistant to change and tolerant of inequality. Greenberg et al (2003) contests the veracity of these findings with evidence from the literature that contest the over reliance on psychology. Bearing this in mind, psychology remains a relevant factor in order to cover ground for the ‘perception’ element in the hypothesis, yet will not be regarded as a primary predictor for correlation in this paper. Finally, there is social mobility. This is a concept laden with academic theory and data. Social is primarily concerned with the degree to which individuals can I mprove their socioeconomic status over the duration of their lifetime or across generations(Hout, 2014). As it concerns meritocracy, social mobility is a key measure that focuses on opportunities for upward advancement and the extent to which individuals capitalize on them. In Canada, social mobility is measured under the auspices of the GSS (General Social Survey). Statistics Canada, a government run public data administration agency conducts cross sectional survey data to gather information on social trends and monitor changes in Canadian living standards (StatCan, 2023). The GSS collects data on key demographic variables such as age, sex,

6 education, religion, ethnicity, income. As such, social mobility is understood as a quantifiable operational measure that provides key insights into the social dynamics that undergird perceptions on meritocracy and inequality. Interview Guide The following is the bare interview script. The interview are formal and semi structured, issuing both direct yes or no and open ended questions in order to elicit discourse feedback and conceptual insight. Responses are not included in order to safeguard the integrity of each respondent’s integrity and views. The findings are further dissected and analyzed in the evaluation section. 1. What does meritocracy mean to you, and how would you describe its values? 2. How do you think a belief in the values of meritocracy influences or shapes an individual's political orientation? Do you see a connection between the two? 3. Do you think meritocracy is a core value in Canadian society? 4. Can you think of any examples or instances in Canada where you believe meritocracy has influenced political decisions or policy-making? 5. Do you think there are problems with emphasizing meritocracy in our institutions? 6. Do you think political attitudes surrounding meritocracy influences systemic inequalities? 7. Do you think political attitudes surrounding meritocracy influences wealth distribution and economic policies in Canada ? 8. Meritocracy is often associated with the idea of equal opportunity and social mobility. How do you think this relates to education, employment, and access to opportunities? 9. Can you think of any polices that are based in meritocracy that serve to enhance social mobility ?

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7 10. Turning to critiques, some argue that meritocracy is an idea that we should strive towards rather than a reality. Do you think this stance is valid and how might it influence public policy in your view? 11. Should we discard the concept of meritocracy from our institutions altogether? Or, do you think there are policies and programs that can work to complement or improve perceptions about meritocracy in our society ? 12. To wrap up, based on our discussion today, do you think that a person's belief in the values of meritocracy plays a significant role in shaping their political orientation? Are there other factors you think are more important? 13. Thank you for your time and for sharing your perspective on this issue. Is there anything else you would like to share before we conclude our conversation? Evaluation The results of the interviews showcase polarity and disparity. One of the sources for this are admittedly open ended nature of a few of the questions that do not permit concision. This was deliberate as it o ff ers the interviews the floor to elaborate on their views and give in depth explanations. Moreover, the questions are targeted enough to delineate approximate profiles for identifying a link between perceptions on meritocracy and political orientation. All participants expressed a belief in the value of equality in opportunity. Each understood and agreed meritocracy necessarily connotes competence and e ff ort. One respondent supported meritocracy as a just ideal that facilitates strong public policy making in Canada also happened to express a tolerance for systematic intolerance per their response. This aligns with Sachweh and Sthamer’s (2019) finding that individuals in higher social positions will tend to adopt the view that meritocracy Is just when there is a prevailing sentiment of procedural justice, with the reverse occurring when public opinion is committed to procedural injustice. The other two respondents expressed dismay at systematic inequalities. One did not regard meritocracy as the determining factor while the other regarded it as a

8 significant factor nonetheless in the sphere of public policy. Furthermore, there was a di ff erence in the supposed underlying values of meritocracy and its relationship with public policy. Two interviewees agree that meritocracy presupposes individualism and libertarian free will, which agrees with the literature on the subject, while one expressed the opinion meritocracy only presupposes a commitment to strong work ethic. On public policy, all three concede meritocracy is a core value in our Canadian democracy. Their views all di ff er on how meritocracy is related to equal opportunity and social mobility. One interviewee expressed the opinion that there is no connection between them. Another expressed the opinion meritocracy is interconnected with social mobility yet undermines equal opportunity due to tolerance of systematic inequality. The third expressed the opinion meritocracy as an ideal for Canadian institutions and government is the foundational belief and perception that enables equal opportunity and social mobility In the period of 1987–2012, public attitudes on meritocracy were strong and positive, a ﬃ rming the view competence and e ff ort are correlated with achievement (Mijs, 2019). Consequently, there is a strong sense that public opinion on inequality in terms of poverty and wealth is shaped in some fashion by entrenched beliefs and convictions in meritocratic principles. These beliefs and values are reinforced through one’s social milieu, as citizens are only presented with rare opportunities to interact with those that occupy di ff erent positions in the socio-economic hierarchy (Mijs, 2019). Further, I find two of the interviews perceptions on meritocracy a ﬃ rm the findings of Sachweh and Sthamer (2019). They found that, while higher status groups tend to be more tolerant of inequality, perceptions of procedural injustice also play a significant role in shaping the degree of tolerance across the nation. The authors sketch out a concept of procedural injustice that is steeped in commitments to meritocracy or social justice. While it is beyond the purview of this research to gather economic data on disposable income levels and draw a putative connection to meritocracy, perceptions of injustice as it relates to inequality remain relevant. On the matter of income inequality, it is important to note on a cursory level that, while the cost of living is certainly on the rise, income inequality in

9 Canada has been relatively stable over the past 25 years, with increases felt most strongly amongst lower income groups (Bank of Canada, 2022). The current climate on inequality as a result of a global increase in the cost of living in the aftermath of the pandemic and global supply shocks permeates throughout Canadian society and is critical in framing current views on meritocracy into proper perspective. According to a poll conduced by the Angus Reid institute, a majority of Canadians view the country as one that prioritizes meritocracy while a plurality of Canadians identify with their parents in terms of social class. The findings of this research is reinforced by the findings of Anderson and Gimentata (2018) who conducted a comparative analysis by pulling data from PiASS (Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies) to operationalize meritocracy as meritocratic based social mobility. Their data compares the salience of competence, which can otherwise be referred to as merit, as opposed to social origin and the impact it has on social mobility. Canada and the Netherlands ranked amongst the highest in terms of meritocracy profiles accompanied by strong social mobility patterns. This stands in contrast with Germany and the US, which ranked high in meritocracy yet low in social mobility. This finding aligns with Roe (2018) et al which found that societies with entrenched meritocratic beliefs tend to regard individual merit as the sole predictor for social mobility. However, this polarity in belief includes low status groups, contrary to the intuition that they are in a position to be resentful towards the status quo and thus less supportive of inequality writ large. In countries such as the United States, there is a strong preference for meritocracy as an ‘inequality legitimizing myth’. This sentiment is not as prevalent in Canada. This is evinced in the literature as well as the findings in my research, since the interview participants, save for one, recognized Canada as a meritocracy yet refused to showcase a tolerance for inequality as a result. For future directions, I suggest relying on representative samples covering Canadians in the populous provinces, namely Ontario and Quebec. Survey data from sources such as the GSS and PiACC can supplement the qualitative research by highlighting more quantifiable

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

10 measures such as social mobility, income and standard of living. A methodology that employs both psychological models similar to Jost et al’s (2003) while ensuring compatibility with hypothesis criteria with more orthogonal variables will be useful. Primary emphasis should be placed on how psychology, values, beliefs, and cultural practises intersect with policy preferences and inequality tolerance. These models should incorporate meritocracy in both its qualitative and quantitative forms in order to build holistic understanding on the issue.

11 Bibliography Mijs, J. J. (2021). The paradox of inequality: Income inequality and belief in meritocracy go hand in hand. Socio-Economic Review , 19 (1), 7-35. Lawton, A. (2000). The meritocracy myth and the illusion of equal employment opportunity. Minn. L. Rev. , 85 , 587. Hout, M. (2015). A summary of what we know about social mobility. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 657 (1), 27-36. Esping-Andersen, G., & Cimentada, J. (2018). Ability and mobility: The relative influence of skills and social origin on social mobility. Social Science Research , 75 , 13-31. Kyriacou, A. P. (2016). Individualism–collectivism, governance and economic development. European Journal of Political Economy , 42 , 91-104. Greenberg, J., & Jonas, E. (2003). Psychological motives and political orientation--the left, the right, and the rigid: comment on Jost et al.(2003). Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., Garcia, D. M., Gee, S. S., & Orazietti, K. (2011). The merit of meritocracy. Journal of personality and social psychology , 101 (3), 433 Sachweh, Patrick, and Evelyn Sthamer. "Why Do the Affluent Find Inequality Increasingly Unjust? Changing Inequality and Justice Perceptions in Germany, 1994–2014." European Sociological Review 35, no. 5 (2019): 651-668. PLUS Roex, Karlijn LA, Tim Huijts, and Inge Sieben. "Attitudes towards income inequality:‘Winners’ versus ‘losers’ of the perceived meritocracy." Acta Sociologica 62, no. 1 (2019): 47-63. Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., Garcia, D. M., Gee, S. S., & Orazietti, K. (2011). The merit of meritocracy. Journal of personality and social psychology , 101 (3), 433. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Issaris, M. (1988). Culture and merit. 65-79. Korzinski, D. (2023, October 12). Canadians & class: Strong belief in Canada as a meritocracy, but plurality identify as the same social class as their parents . Angus Reid Institute. https://angusreid.org/great-canadian-class-study/

polanalysis

Related Documents