Merocratic

“merocratic” is a less common spelling or variant of “meritocratic.” While meritocratic is the standard term found in major dictionaries The word was originally coined in 1958 by sociologist Michael Young as a combination of “merit” (from the Latin mereō) and “-cracy” (from the Greek kratos, meaning power). “Merocratic” is often used interchangeably in informal contexts, but meritocratic is the preferred version for formal use.

Meritocratic — the standard form — describes a system or principle where individuals advance, are rewarded and gain power based on demonstrated ability, talent and effort rather than inherited privilege, wealth, social class or personal connections.

The concept carries both a promise and a critique built into its origins. Michael Young coined the term in his 1958 satirical novel “The Rise of the Meritocracy” — and the irony that most people miss is that Young intended it as a warning, not a celebration. He argued that a society that rewards merit creates a new and particularly cruel form of inequality — because if your position reflects your ability, then those at the bottom have no one to blame but themselves. The old aristocracy at least had the decency to be arbitrary. The meritocracy is arbitrary while pretending not to be.

---

The tension in the concept today

The meritocratic ideal — the best rise regardless of origin — remains powerful as an aspiration precisely because the alternative, inherited privilege, is so obviously unjust.

But the critique has grown stronger — that what passes for meritocracy in practice measures the ability to perform well in systems designed by and for the already advantaged. The child who tests well because of expensive tutoring, the candidate who networks effectively because of elite university connections — these are merit in the formal sense but privilege in the substantive sense.

Young lived to see his satirical warning become an unironic ideology — and was horrified.

It is one of the more instructive cases of a concept escaping its creator’s intentions entirely — not unlike what happened to Gramsci.