Meritocracy and Disability

Yeah I probably butchered this one. Remember how I said these are my ramblings? Well I’ve been trying to work through this topic in my head, and not very successfully (as you’ll see below). Read at your own risk!

As briefly mentioned in my last post, I recently had the opportunity to learn about this idea of a meritocracy. The United States was founded on many different things, meritocracy being one of them. What I’d like to do now is explore this idea with consideration for my position as a person with a disability. Within this post, I will be setting aside the elements of age, race, and gender, however not entirely. I believe these are also very important elements, but they will not be today’s primary focus. I will also be actively avoiding the “woe is me” mentality here. I want to take a realistic approach to this exploration as I endeavor into further developing my thoughts on this subject. WIth my wordy preface done, let’s dig in!

I suppose the logical place to start would be to define “meritocracy”. I’ll break it down as my sociology professor broke it down for our class. The key word here is “merit”, which can be synonymous with “achievement” in this case. A meritocracy is the idea that status/success is determined or earned based on our personal achievements. We are what we work for. We succeed because we’ve genuinely earned it. Not only this, we are all able to achieve great status. Success is attainable for all identities, almost like an equal playing field. At least, this is the theory. The idea is that America is a meritocracy. I use the terms “theory” and “idea” very intentionally. We spent a good chunk of the 75 minute class period discussing whether or not this was a reality within the country. The primary lens we were looking through was race. I want to pivot this lens to the realm of ability status. Much like race, ability is part of our “ascribed” status, the elements we are not in control of. So, how does this part of my ascribed status effect my achieved status?

There are a few different subtopics I want to touch on here. The first of these is how different sociologists see disability. I want to summarize their thoughts based on some research I’ve done outside of my classroom walls. To do this, we’ll be venturing more into the social model for disability as opposed to the medical. We’ll begin with Karl Marx, the most famous conflict theorist to date. When commenting on disability, Marx’s ideas need to also hold consideration for historical “normalcy” and social structure. In many ways, Marx connects his thoughts on disability to his thoughts on class. Let me explain some more. According to Marx (whether we agree or disagree with him is a separate matter) people fall into one of two categories. We are either part of the bourgeoise or the proletariats. Either we own the means to production or we must work. How does this categorization take place? If you are independently wealthy, you’re part of the bourgeoisie. If needed, you could sell these large possessions (like companies or other financial ownerships) and be fine. If you can’t do that, then Marx argues that the only thing you can sell is your labor. This makes you a proletariat, part of the working class. In order to be truly successful, one must be part of the bourgeoisie. I’m going to make reference now to a fascinating article I recently read, which I’ll link at the end, if I can find it again. Essentially, Marx outlines that man’s ability to create an end-product is what separates us from animals. (This separation between man and animal is one that we’ll explore a lot in relation to more than just Marx’s thoughts.) Our ability to work is what makes us different. So what happens when that ability to work is impacted by a disability? We’ll get there.

First, let’s look at the argument Marx makes that working can actually create disabilities. Granted, we’re talking about exposure to particularly harmful elements and subsequent susceptibility to specific illnesses or conditions as a result of one’s profession. Let’s keep in mind that The Communist Manifesto was written roughly 50 years following the French Revolution, so we’re talking about a society that is not quite as modern as our contemporary one. The risk faced by even street workers was far higher than a lot of American professions today. This being said, Marx has some weight to his argument. What if work is what puts a person out of work? Does our ability status remove our separation from animals? Does a change in our ability status mean our ability to produce an end-product is gone? Marx argues that while he didn’t necessarily do this himself, individuals with disabilities were most definitely overlooked in the labor market, consequently impacting both their class and achieved status. Because physical limitations were seen as a cog in the capitalist machine, employment for individuals with disabilities was hard to come by. Again, keep in mind the timeframe. (More on that later.) So, if those with a disability couldn’t work, how did they gain merit? Under Marx’s observations, they didn’t. He saw a massive problem with this (again, conflict theorist). Commenting on an “impaired worker’s” opportunity to sue an employer over disability, Marx called it “sheer mockery” considering the financial impossibility of affording such a move. All of this made achievement a foreign concept for people with disabilities. Let’s take this a step further. Say, in the odd chance a person with a disability can afford to sue an employer. Their disability would have to have been caused by their work. What does that mean for people like me, who have a congenital disability? According to Marx, and especially at the time his work was being published, I would be SOL. No work, no achievement, no merit. Essentially, I wouldn’t be able to succeed. In this way, meritocracy works against those with disabilities. Marx outlines how the population of individuals with disabilities falls into a “residual” class, meaning we don’t neatly fit into society’s structure, meaning we don’t neatly fit into this meritocracy. If we don’t fit, then doesn’t this theory of a meritocracy fall? I’ll leave that question unanswered.

While Marx was not a proponent of this kind of society, his comments on the ideal manner of including the disabled community in society are minimal. Marx believed in a society that was mutually beneficial. He believed in a ”give what you can, take what you need” society. This would in theory hold space for individuals with disabilities to contribute and receive. This would in theory hold space for individuals with disabilities to gain merit.

As time progresses, we are blessed with Emile Durkheim, the Father of Sociology. If you haven’t already, I highly encourage you to go read my post “The Importance of A Good Sitcom” for more of my thoughts on Durkheim. Unlike Karl Marx, Durkheim is a functionalist. Where Marx points out flaws, Durkheim believes society functions alright. What I find really neat about Durkheim is that he discusses the realm of disability in both pre-industrial and industrial societies. This means that where Marx equivocates disability with unemployment, Durkheim sees a bit of wiggle room. He identifies that disability is very much so a spectrum, meaning that disability in an industrial society is not an automatic sentence of inability like it would be in a pre-industrial one. It doesn’t eliminate the ability to produce an end-product. In this regard, he sees an area in which society has improved. Durkheim also explores this idea about the differentiation between animals and mankind, especially in the realm of needs. Essentially, animals typically know how to meet their own needs. Humans don’t, thus birthing society. Under functionalist teachings, part of the reason society is functioning is because we’re helping each other meet our needs (that’s a very small reason under the functionalist umbrella). Now, let me be clear, I loathe the term “special needs”. My needs as a person with a disability are not special. They are justified. They may be alternative, but they are not special. However, just as Durkheim explores the difference between animal and human needs, there is an undeniable difference between able-bodied and disabled needs that must also be explored.

This is where stigma comes into play. Durkheim was one of the first sociologists to really study and explore the concept of stigma. The result of social stigma is “othering”. When completely able-bodied individuals look at a person with a disability, or even a population of individuals with disabilities, there is an innate othering. There is a lack of uniformity between the two demographics. Durkheim says in this case, 1+1=stigma. That is what causes this flexibility in the roles of individuals with disabilities. This margin of being able to work, being unable to work, and whatever lies in between is what differentiates Durkheim’s approach from Marx’s. In a way, Durkheim teaches that society functions enough to where not all individuals with a disability are ostracized. He claims that there is a certain degree of uniformity. However, even a functionalist like Durkheim believes that there is some level of discrimination. Again, how does this relate to merit? In the realm of functionalism, Durkheim kind of gives credit where credit is due. He at least recognizes the role of people with disabilities in society. Just as with any demographic, Durkheim believes that all roles play a part in the overarching functioning of society at large. Cool, what else? Writing about fifty years after Marx, there still wasn’t much knowledge about disability at the time of Durkheim’s work. And, in all honesty, the sociological standpoints he took primarily focused on economic factors. This consequently overlooked various cultural factors, including ability status. I know, not much to run off of.

Enter Max Weber. The third and final sociologist I’ll discuss before my own thoughts, Weber is a more “modern” sociologist of importance. Diving right in, when it comes to understanding the role of disability in sociology, Weber refers to the study as “adolescent”. Though I am a mere sociology novice, I would agree with this statement. There really isn’t an abundance out there, at least not a lot that I can readily comprehend. What I do know about Weber is his lengthy approach to “ideal types”. Apparently Weber’s Economy and Society is a bit of a beast, which naturally makes me want to take it on full force. Anyways, the definition of an “ideal type” is a rather self explanatory one. Ideal types are the theoretically perfect social structures, actions, and roles. Further, an ideal type could outline what the perfect member of society would look like. What I find fascinating about Weber is that he describes that the construction of an ideal type is “one sided”. Thus, ideal types are inherently just ideas, and that ideal types are subjective to the person creating them. AMAZING! So, how do disabilities play into Weber’s created ideal types? Unlike Marx and Durkheim, here I will not be going too far into Weber’s personal thoughts. Though the sociologist delves into the links between society and religion in fascinating ways, I’d rather focus on the “ideal type” created by our society today. In line with Weber’s analysis on the American work ethic The United States has created this idea that success is linked to at least one 9-5 job, a nice house, and a slew of letters attached to our name, indicating various levels of intellect. However I think this can be taken a step further. What do we think of when we think of the “average” American? I won’t be listing it out, but think education, profession, wealth, race, gender, etc. Does “able-bodied” naturally come to mind? Not directly, but it is an inherent assumption. Part of our “ideal type” today is physical and mental ability. In this vein, we match Weber’s “work-too-much” and “one-sided creation” of society and social perceptions. The othering we see in Durkheim’s study on stigma, and Marx’s classification of the disabled community as “residual” both sort of work in our contemporary ideal type. Never in a million years did I expect a conflict theorist, a functionalist, and an anti-positivist would merge into the chaos I call American society. Granted, that would require I’ve gotten everything correct so far, which is highly unlikely.

What is complex about this area of study is that the social model often focuses on economic status (class, wealth, etc). Areas like ability status are really hard to apply here. For all I know, I have this all wrong and completely botched not one, not two, but three sociological perspectives. I’ll see myself out…

So what do I think? Well I’m glad you asked… My answer may be a bit wordy, but that’s exactly what these posts are for. My primary disability is physical (Congenital Nystagmus) so that will be the primary lens I am working with. That being said, my thoughts on this are ongoing and evolving. I’ll start by bringing it back in time a bit. Not too long ago, there was a TikTok trend going around that was all about questioning whether or not Hellen Keller was actually blind and deaf. How could someone who is blind and deaf possibly be as smart and successful? This is the issue I have when it comes to meritocracy and disability. I blame in part the “ideal type” created by society today for this genuinely stupid trend. So, following this, I have a question. How often are we seeing individuals with a disability achieving notable status? I don’t mean how often are we seeing them find jobs, I mean how often are we seeing them approaching the “elite” status? In this grand scheme of things, I’d say our meritocracy is failing here.

So let’s bring it down a notch or two. Let’s look at the individual basis. I’ll speak from my experience. I live by the following saying:

“I am not who I am because of what I’ve experienced. I am who I am despite what I’ve experienced.”

Since arriving at my university, I have been actively trying to climb the ranks both academically and professionally. Honors, awards, “promotions”, the whole nine yards. I hope my humility is still reliable when I say that to an extent, I believe I’ve been able to moderately succeed. I’m proud of how far I’ve climbed. However, part of a meritocracy is also the consideration of how hard an individual works to to achieve what they do. My sociology professor used the example of Oprah Winfrey. A black, female, and low income individual who rose to the top of the entertainment industry, Oprah is considered highly successful despite having an ascribed status that would otherwise reduce such success. She’s had to work harder than most to achieve what she has. While I am in no way near Oprah’s respectability, I share the belief that “othered” identities have to work harder. This doesn’t mean the “ideal type” doesn’t work hard, but it does mean that I have to take steps in my education and employment that aren’t even a thought in many of my peers’ minds.

I could ramble on and on about my experiences, but in all honesty I don’t believe I’m quite at the point of “success”. I’m still very seriously working towards it. I haven’t started my career yet. My sociology professor often refers to the little box at the bottom of a job application that talks about how the employer can’t discriminate against x, y, and z. Disability is under there, and oh how it makes me nervous. So as we continue living in this “meritocracy”, I wonder what my merit will develop into. I wonder what my accolades will look like, and what they’ll mean to an employer. They’ll be hiring a college degree, experience in managerial roles, and considerable skills. They’ll also be hiring visual impairment. I don’t know that I’ll reach Hellen Keller status, but I do hope to achieve something. Here’s to hoping our meritocracy allows for that.

This was a long one, I know. It took me three days to write. I confused myself, I confused my internet browser, and then I confused myself again. The next post won’t be so serious. I’ll pick music or something fun, I promise. Thanks for hanging in there, and kudos to you if any of this word vomit made sense!