In un articolo pubblicato dal Guardian nel giugno del 2001, il compianto sociologo e scrittore laburista britannico Michael Young (autore del racconto distopico L’avvento della meritocrazia) invitava l’allora Primo ministro Tony Blair – spigandone le ragioni – a smettere di usare entusiasticamente nei suoi discorsi pubblici il termine meritocracy, neologismo coniato a suo tempo dallo stesso Young, ma per ragioni tutt’altro che esaltanti.

I have been sadly disappointed by my 1958 book, The Rise of the Meritocracy. I coined a word which has gone into general circulation, especially in the United States, and most recently found a prominent place in the speeches of Mr. Blair. The book was a satire meant to be a warning (which needless to say has not been heeded) against what might happen to Britain between 1958 and the imagined final revolt against the meritocracy in 2033. Much that was predicted has already come about. It is highly unlikely the Prime Minister has read the book, but he has caught on to the word without realising the dangers of what he is advocating.

Underpinning my argument was a non-controversial historical analysis of what had been happening to society for more than a century before 1958, and most emphatically since the 1870s, when schooling was made compulsory and competitive entry to the civil service became the rule. Until that time status was generally ascribed by birth. But irrespective of people’s birth, status has gradually become more achievable.

It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others.

Nell’articolo Young sostiene che il merito rischia di diventare uno strumento di alienazione sociale per la creazione di una underclass, quello che veniva definito “sottoproletariato”. In questo senso la divaricazione fra classi sociali inizia fin da scuola, “promuovendo” i soggetti più capaci e brillanti rappresentanti delle classi sociali inferiori fra le elite, e lasciando quindi le masse prive di guida.

The more controversial prediction and the warning followed from the historical analysis. I expected that the poor and the disadvantaged would be done down, and in fact they have been. If branded at school they are more vulnerable for later unemployment. They can easily become demoralised by being looked down on so woundingly by people who have done well for themselves.

It is hard indeed in a society that makes so much of merit to be judged as having none. No underclass has ever been left as morally naked as that. They have been deprived by educational selection of many of those who would have been their natural leaders, the able spokesmen and spokeswomen from the working class who continued to identify with the class from which they came. Their leaders were a standing opposition to the rich and the powerful in the never-ending competition in parliament and industry between the haves and the have-nots.

With the coming of the meritocracy, the now leaderless masses were partially disfranchised; as time has gone by, more and more of them have been disengaged, and disaffected to the extent of not even bothering to vote. They no longer have their own people to represent them.

Immagine da MicroMega