making merit

Elites often strive to justify their success by invoking the concept of merit. But how do they define merit? According to a new article by Sam Friedman and colleagues, the answer varies across countries.

Published in Social Forces, the study draws from 71 interviews with elites in the United Kingdom and Denmark to identify national differences in success narratives. Elites in the United Kingdom defined merit as innate talent, attributing their success to qualities such as intelligence, creativity, or good judgment. In contrast, Danish elites defined merit as hard work, emphasizing their dedication, accumulated expertise, and contributions to civic society. Despite these differences, their success narratives shared a key quality: both groups portrayed themselves as unstrategic, downplaying calculated planning and self-promotion and instead insisting that others had spontaneously recognized and rewarded their positive qualities.How we define merit has implications for understanding and addressing inequality.

How we define merit has implications for understanding and addressing inequality. When merit is perceived as innate, inequality may appear inevitable—the implication is that some people are simply born with less creativity or good judgment. Defining merit as hard work offers a more hopeful narrative, yet this perspective can lay blame on those perceived as unsuccessful, implying that they did not work hard enough. Ultimately, the study shows how the idea of merit is interpreted differently based on national cultures, yet similarly justifies inequality.