A passage that stood out to me in Indigenous Mestizos: The Politics of Race and Culture in Cuzco, Peru, 1919-1991 by de la Cadena is the last passage of the book which reads: “The hegemonic acceptance of the "legitimate" hierarchies produced by education accommodates the relationship between the dominant and subordinate forms of discrimination.
"For instance, even in today’s meritocratic societies, the quality of education one receives, access to resources, and socioeconomic background can significantly influence one’s access to higher education, and thus, their ability to compete in a meritocratic society."
I think you've pointed out an important falsehood of meritocracy here! (and more elsewhere). At first I was thinking from a meritocratic perspective myself, and did not accept that differential treatment based on education was a serious problem. To question these things further, I am really interested in thinking through the problem Daniel raised: "How to have a concept of merit that combines these disparities and mantains some semblance of legitimacy?"
I suspect that what merit is deemed legitimate depends on the values of those that define what is worthy of merit, what is valuable.
"Furthermore, the notion of “legitimate hierarchies” in education resembles the meritocratic belief in the legitimacy of rewarding merit and that one’s place in society is directly caused by their invested effort." I'm interested in that relationship between "reward" and "merit." By the way, the blog entry reminded me of the diagnosis of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu in France, during the 20th century. Returning to one of the themes of past classes, educational systems in Latin America are to this day marked by demands that tear them apart: respond to the local conditions of the marginal multitudes, perpetuate the Nation project created by the literate elites and adapt to the international demands of the division of labor. How to have a concept of merit that combines these disparities and maintain some semblance of legitimacy? Is it even thinkable?
"For instance, even in today’s meritocratic societies, the quality of education one receives, access to resources, and socioeconomic background can significantly influence one’s access to higher education, and thus, their ability to compete in a meritocratic society."
I think you've pointed out an important falsehood of meritocracy here! (and more elsewhere). At first I was thinking from a meritocratic perspective myself, and did not accept that differential treatment based on education was a serious problem. To question these things further, I am really interested in thinking through the problem Daniel raised: "How to have a concept of merit that combines these disparities and mantains some semblance of legitimacy?"
I suspect that what merit is deemed legitimate depends on the values of those that define what is worthy of merit, what is valuable.
"Furthermore, the notion of “legitimate hierarchies” in education resembles the meritocratic belief in the legitimacy of rewarding merit and that one’s place in society is directly caused by their invested effort." I'm interested in that relationship between "reward" and "merit." By the way, the blog entry reminded me of the diagnosis of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu in France, during the 20th century. Returning to one of the themes of past classes, educational systems in Latin America are to this day marked by demands that tear them apart: respond to the local conditions of the marginal multitudes, perpetuate the Nation project created by the literate elites and adapt to the international demands of the division of labor. How to have a concept of merit that combines these disparities and maintain some semblance of legitimacy? Is it even thinkable?