Jahel Queralt, a 43-year-old jurist with a PhD and a professor of political law at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, has a life story that could serve as a narrative of personal triumph. Yet she attributes her journey to sheer luck. Raised in a secluded home devoid of essential services like water and electricity, Queralt vividly recalls her first foray into academia in 2007 at Oxford. It was there she encountered Gerald A. Cohen, a prominent figure in analytical Marxism and one of her thesis mentors. This experience was memorable, particularly when she inadvertently let slip an expletive at the prestigious All Souls dining hall, earning her a quirky reputation among those present. Today, she humorously reflects that this incident stems from having learned English by watching The Wire.
Nadie merece nada. Por quƩ la izquierda necesita la meritocracia (Nobody Deserves Anything: Why the Left Needs Meritocracy) is the title of her autobiographical essay. In this work, she critiques the conflation of meritocracy with capitalism while deconstructing the moral frameworks surrounding personal success. Queralt shares experiences of navigating academic conferences, often feeling out of place among Ivy League elite, yet finding solidarity with fellow outsiders.
From Humble Beginnings to Academic Success
Question: In the essay, you describe a childhood that feels almost utopian, despite its isolation.
Answer: My upbringing was materially deprived but filled with happiness. I am a product of an unplanned teenage pregnancy, raised in a family that never enjoyed financial stability. My father, influenced by Rudolf Steiner, often risked our crops, while my mother juggled cleaning jobs to support us. She eventually decided we should move to my grandmother's house in Alcanar. They never bought a house, but they allowed me a sense of freedom, always encouraging me to “fly.”
Choosing Law over Philosophy
Q. You aspired to study philosophy but ended up in law. Why?
A. Being aware of our limited finances, I sought a profession that could provide stability. Yet, during law school, I realized I didn't belong in prestigious law firms, feeling insecure compared to my privileged peers. I avoided the judicial civil service exam because it meant returning to my hometown, which I was determined not to do. Consequently, I transitioned to the philosophy of law department, where I excelled academically.
The Role of Luck in Personal Advancement
Q. You express disdain for the label of “self-made woman.”
A. It's common to see moral superiority in such narratives, but I consider myself fortunate. While my efforts have played a role in my success, I cannot claim I deserve it. Many hardworking individuals possess similar or greater efforts but lack equivalent opportunities.
Q. You emphasize the importance of luck in achieving personal success. Why?
A. Circumstances greatly influence success, from physical appearance to serendipitous encounters. I don't believe everything we achieve is solely a result of our merits.
Meritocracy and the Political Landscape
Q. In your essay, you assert that the left requires meritocracy. Why is that?
A. Often, the most vocal critics of meritocracy are those who stand to gain the least from it. My essay responds to critiques from influential academics like Michael J. Sandel and Daniel Markovits, who frame their arguments from a progressive liberal stanceāmore centrist than leftist in nature.
Q. What do you critique about their positions?
A. The concept of meritocracy predates the critiques posed by figures like Michael Young in 1958. Its roots extend to the French Revolution and post-World War II welfare states, where meritocratic principles began to take form. These principles aimed to dismantle hereditary privileges and ensure that roles were filled based on ability, granting individuals a fair opportunity to succeed.
We have assumed that meritocracy and the market go hand in hand, and they do not. The large price differences between master's programs don't buy knowledge; they buy shortcuts.
Q. Yet, you argue meritocracy has become problematic today.
A. Indeed, the misconception arises that high salaries or prestigious positions are deserved purely based on merit. This is misleading, as inequities are exacerbated when we equate meritocracy with market outcomes, resulting in an increasingly unmeritocratic societal structure.
Q. You point out a paradox: the most unequal societies tend to be those that most fervently believe in meritocracy. Could you elaborate?
A. This reflects the flawed premise of the American dream. For instance, a child from the lowest socioeconomic quintile in the U.S. has only an 8% chance of climbing to the top, yet a staggering 70% of Americans maintain belief in the idea that hard work ensures success.
Envisioning a Fairer Society
Q. How can a truly meritocratic society be achieved?
A. My goal isn't to provide solutions, but to emphasize that a genuine meritocracy necessitates addressing and rectifying inequalities. Measures such as tax redistribution and educational reform are essential to creating equitable opportunities.
Q. You also tackle the sensitive topic of genetic inheritance in your essay. How does this relate to meritocracy?
A. Acknowledging that nature can yield unfair outcomes is critical, as material improvements alone won't resolve deep-rooted disparities. In any society, variances in abilities, physical appearance, and mental health will exist, which need to be recognized and managed.
Q. How can society address genetic differences without resulting in stigma or eugenics?
A. The answer lies in the responsible and equitable management of information. While there is a risk of data being exploited in competitive environments, overlooking genetic factors can lead to severe consequences, particularly in terms of preventive care for individuals facing familial challenges.
