Social Equality and Meritocracy

Meritocracy is a system of a government or other organization wherein appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated talent and ability (merit). In a meritocracy, society rewards (via wealth, position, and social status) those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition. Evaluation systems, such as formal education, are closely linked to notions of meritocracy.
This is opposed to other value systems, where reward and legitimacy is based upon possession of wealth (plutocracy), family connections (nepotism), property (oligarchy), friendship (cronyism), seniority (gerontocracy), popularity (democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power.
Technocracy is a form of meritocracy, whereby appointments for positions are made based on demonstrated technical expertise.
The term 'meritocracy' was first used in Michael Young's 1958 book Rise of the Meritocracy. The term was intended to be pejorative, and his book was set in a dystopian future in which one's social place is determined by IQ plus effort. In the book, this social system ultimately leads to a social revolution in which the masses overthrow the elite, who have become arrogant and disconnected from public sentiment.
Despite the negative origin of the word, there are many who believe that a meritocratic system is a good thing. Proponents argue that a meritocratic system is more just and more productive than other systems, and that it allows for an end to distinctions based on arbitrary criteria such as sex, race, wealth and social connections.[who?] Conversely, detractors of meritocracy point to the central dystopian aspect of Young's conception: the existence of a meritocratic class that monopolizes access to merit and the symbols and markers of merit, thereby perpetuating its own power, social status, and privilege.[citation needed]
Meritocracy has been criticized as a myth which merely serves to justify the status quo; merit can always be defined as whatever results in success. Thus whoever is successful can be portrayed as meriting (deserving) success, rather than success being in fact predicated on rational, predetermined criteria of merit.
The following governing principles comprise meritocracies: Job placement is not awarded due to experience or expertise, but instead it is awarded 1) on the basis of merit (although experience, expertise and seniority tend to result in greater merit), 2) on the conditions of the opportunity under the application of the job principle and 3) to one that specifies the rewards for job attainment. These principles however, do not account for injustices but disregard them. Not all meritocrats operate in this manner. Most evaluate the structure of job equalities and inequalities through human abilities and personalities that allow them to perform job tasks to the best of their abilities.
Social Darwinism is a social theory which holds that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is a model, not only for the development of biological traits in a population, but also can be applied to human social institutions. Social Darwinism was at its most popular from the late 19th century to the end of World War II. Proponents of Social Darwinism argue that the theory perfectly justifies social inequality as being meritocratic. Darwin himself only propounded his theories in a biological sense, and it is other theorists and thinkers who have used Darwin to show how ambition is justifiable.