Meritocracy or Myth? The Truth About the ‘Self-Made’ Narrative

The concept of the “self-made individual” has long been a central pillar of capitalist ideology. It suggests that anyone, regardless of their background, can achieve success through hard work, talent, and determination. This belief underpins meritocracy—the idea that social mobility is based on individual merit rather than inherited privilege or systemic advantages. The notion of meritocracy is deeply embedded in many Western societies, reinforced through education, media, and political discourse. However, sociologists have long debated whether meritocracy is a reality or a myth used to justify inequality.

This article explores the sociological arguments both for and against the “self-made” narrative, examining factors such as education, wealth, race, gender, and social capital. While some evidence suggests that hard work and determination can lead to success, a growing body of research indicates that structural inequalities place significant limitations on social mobility.

Economic Mobility and Opportunity Structures

Proponents of the self-made narrative argue that capitalist economies provide opportunities for individuals to improve their social and economic standing. The rise of entrepreneurship and technological innovation has allowed individuals to create wealth from nothing—success stories such as Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey, and Elon Musk are often cited as proof that social mobility is attainable.

Economic research suggests that some societies exhibit higher levels of intergenerational mobility than others. For instance, Scandinavian countries, with their strong social policies and equal access to education, have been found to have high levels of social mobility (Erikson & Goldthorpe, 1992). In these societies, individuals born into lower-income families have a greater likelihood of improving their economic status over time.

The Role of Education and Hard Work

Education is frequently portrayed as the great equaliser, providing individuals with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed. According to human capital theory (Becker, 1964), investment in education and skills directly influences an individual’s economic success. First-generation university graduates who break the cycle of poverty often serve as examples of how hard work and perseverance can overcome social disadvantages.

Sociologist Max Weber (1905) argued in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism that certain cultural values—such as discipline, work ethic, and frugality—are key determinants of success. From this perspective, an individual’s commitment to education and professional growth is crucial for achieving upward mobility.

Cultural Factors and Personal Responsibility

Another argument in favour of the self-made narrative is that cultural values and personal choices play a significant role in success. Some sociologists argue that individuals who exhibit traits such as resilience, discipline, and ambition are more likely to succeed, regardless of structural barriers. Studies have suggested that individuals from immigrant backgrounds, who often face economic hardships, are able to achieve upward mobility through entrepreneurial activity and strong community networks (Portes & Zhou, 1993).

The Myth of Equal Opportunity: Structural Barriers to Mobility

Critics of the self-made narrative argue that economic and social structures heavily influence life outcomes. Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984) concept of cultural capital suggests that individuals from wealthier backgrounds inherit advantages that go beyond financial wealth, such as access to elite education, influential social networks, and cultural knowledge that facilitates professional success.

Research indicates that in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, wealth is more inherited than earned, with economic mobility being relatively low (Chetty et al., 2014). Factors such as access to quality education, unpaid internships, and professional networking create significant barriers for individuals from lower-income backgrounds. This suggests that meritocracy often serves as an ideological justification for social inequality rather than a reflection of reality.

The Role of Race, Gender, and Class in Shaping Opportunities

Intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1989) highlights how race, gender, and class intersect to create barriers that limit social mobility. Women and ethnic minorities frequently encounter wage gaps, employment discrimination, and fewer opportunities for professional advancement (Correll, Benard & Paik, 2007). For example, studies show that Black and Latino workers in the United States face higher levels of job discrimination and have lower earnings than their white counterparts with similar qualifications (Pager, Western, & Bonikowski, 2009).

Furthermore, the motherhood penalty—where mothers are perceived as less competent or committed workers—contributes to persistent gender wage gaps, undermining the idea that hard work alone determines success (Budig & England, 2001).

The Psychological Burden of the Self-Made Myth

Another issue with the self-made narrative is that it places the burden of success solely on the individual, ignoring structural barriers. Sociologist Jo Littler (2017) argues that belief in meritocracy can justify inequality by blaming individuals for their economic struggles. When people are told that success is purely a matter of effort, those who fail to achieve upward mobility are often seen as lazy or undeserving rather than as individuals facing systemic disadvantages.

Psychological studies have found that belief in meritocracy can reduce empathy towards disadvantaged groups (McCoy & Major, 2007). When people believe that everyone has the same opportunities, they are less likely to support policies aimed at reducing inequality, such as universal healthcare, social welfare, or progressive taxation.

Conclusion: A Balanced Perspective

While hard work, talent, and perseverance undoubtedly play a role in success, structural factors heavily influence life outcomes. The self-made narrative can be empowering for individuals, providing motivation to strive for success. However, it becomes problematic when used as an ideological tool to justify economic inequality and dismiss the impact of structural barriers.

Rather than entirely rejecting meritocracy, a more nuanced approach acknowledges that social mobility exists but is constrained by factors such as race, gender, class, and inherited wealth. To create a society where opportunity is truly based on merit, policymakers should focus on reducing barriers to mobility—such as improving access to education, enforcing anti-discrimination laws, and reforming labour policies.

Ultimately, understanding the limits of meritocracy allows us to have a more honest discussion about inequality and the measures needed to create a fairer society.

References

• Becker, G. S. (Ed.). (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education.
• Bourdieu, P. (Ed.). (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste..
• Budig, M. J., & England, P.. (2001). The Wage Penalty for Motherhood.
• Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (Ed.). (2014). Where is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States..
• Correll, S. J., Benard, S., & Paik, I.. (2007). Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?.
• Crenshaw, K. (Ed.). (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique.
• Erikson, R., & Goldthorpe, J. H. (Ed.). (1992). The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies.
• Littler, J. (Ed.). (2017). Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and Myths of Mobility.
• McCoy, S. K., & Major, B. (Ed.). (2007). Priming Meritocracy and the Psychological Justification of Inequality.
• Pager, D., Western, B., & Bonikowski, B.. (2009). Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market.
• Portes, A., & Zhou, M.. (1993). The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants.
• Weber, M. (Ed.). (1905). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.