The Bad Physics of Meritocracy

Image by Simon Flöter.

(originally written for Working Not Working)

There is no formula for becoming a successful creative, but even we are bound by the laws of physics. Our motivational advice mirrors high school science books: move your mass. Take risks and gain momentum. Orbit positively charged people. In the face of these constants, there is a variable often unconsidered. These platitudes rarely consider the bell curve creatives face. Gaining professional traction varies wildly dependent on geography, socioeconomic and minority status, and the university attended, if at all. Individually the grade varies in steepness, requiring more effort exerted.

Stewart Scott-Curran commented on this privilege blindness in a thoughtful tweet:

“‘It’s just how business is…’, ‘It’s up to individuals to innovate and prove their value…’

“Comments like these generally come from the same type of people.Those who are already in a position of power, influence, privilege and who ultimately benefit the most from the status quo. ”

And this touched a nerve. The quoted arguments imply the subjects should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. There is so much wrong with this reasoning, and frankly, this is bad physics.

A word on relativity: we define ourselves by the company we keep. There’s always a poor person in a brood of millionaires, a softie in a gang. Our personal biases are affirmed by those we orbit, and if we only orbit those that resemble us, any variables will amplify and convince us of our diversity. Look no further than Silicon Valley for a prime example. Sub the word orbit for bubble, and we have the relativity of Internet relationships.

“There is no formula for becoming a successful creative, but even we are bound by the laws of physics. Our motivational advice mirrors high school science books: move your mass. Take risks and gain momentum. Orbit positively charged people. In the face of these constants, there is a variable often unconsidered. These platitudes rarely consider the bell curve creatives face.”

If our circles affirm we’re working hard enough to achieve success, those not achieving by our rules—and not belonging to our circle—aren’t trying hard enough. This is a meritocracy. Meritocracy is an easy mistake; if those in our immediate circles are observing from a fixed position, we’re apt to think the rest of our industry should join us. Those outside our orbit may appear stalled or retrograded. We wonder why they aren’t with the program. We assume our path is the only trajectory.

Meritocracy mindset is many things, among them elitist and exclusionary. Roadblocks exist in every industry and create steeper barriers of entry for different participants. Music requires expensive equipment and storage, barring those in lower socio-economic circles or high density cities. Tech is traditionally harder to penetrate for minority groups and those without Ivy League educations. Meritocracy is also ageist; prodigious success is venerated and those achieving in middle to later years are deemed lazy by this logic. Famously late bloomers like Julia Child, Leonard Cohen, Lisa Congdon, and Octavia Spencer hit their stride in their mid-30s and 40s. Diminishing someone’s arc because immediacy is not on their path is shortsighted and un-empathetic.

Generating attention and skill for your work requires an immense amount of force. Over time, we hope to gain enough speed to attract work rather than peddle. Good press, client referrals, and VC funding give wings to our fledgling ventures. Sometimes outside forces act positively upon our businesses in the way of a prominent feature or a family connection. Other times we fall victim to killed campaigns and drawn out publishing dates which can slow our roll. Some of us enter the creative workforce by way of tradition or expectation. Others enter the arts solely because our interests and talents carve our path. These two paths are inequivalent by nature and should be treated as such. Yet the thinly veiled statement that one should ”pull themselves up” is often applied by those of us coasting on inertia. We assume they’re moving slower when we are the ones coasting; it’s easier to log more laps on a shorter course.

“Yet the thinly veiled statement that one should ‘pull themselves up’ is often applied by those of us coasting on inertia. We assume they’re moving slower when we are the ones coasting; it’s easier to log more laps on a shorter course.”

Coasting is a privilege in many ways because the evolutionary process is violent growth. Building momentum means evolving our crafts, honing skills, breaking into new markets. “Proving value” assumes those working hardest or producing the best work are the most popular, well-paid, and successful. Life does not work this way. Market value, technique, overhead costs dictate what works, and these variables swing wildly between industries. A med tech designer will almost always make more money than a nonprofit sector creative, for example. Some of the most sellable work is consistent and therefore less interesting because clients can sell a predictable concept to their upper management. Expectations are fulfilled, everyone’s happy. Consistency, similarly, is a privilege. The path forward is free of large obstacles and uphill battles. Flexibility and experimentation are not required to keep the ball rolling. Some of us need less evolutions to reach our final form.

Meritocracy and value-proving rhetoric have no place in the creative world. This language limits the most important aspect of artistic relativity: timing. Those achieving great success have found their alignment in present circumstances. Not everyone's trajectory will realize itself simultaneously. ”Pulling oneself up” diminishes the individual paths we trod to realizing our purpose.