This is an interesting perspective. I appreciate the importance of meritocracy (which is more of an American myth, as other factors have always held greater sway than merit). While I'm an avid Francophile, what I don't appreciate about the French is their historic obsession with conformity (which you refer to as "integration.") When the ideal is conformity, we lose the value of alternate perspectives, which often offers the greatest opportunities for innovation. That is why I prefer the metaphor of a tossed salad over a "melting pot."
Because it's never been fully realized, meritocracy could be considered a myth. But it can also be considered an ideal. By striving toward ideals, we may not necessarily reach them, but we can get closer than we would if we dismissed them from the start. I consider meritocracy to be an ideal worth striving toward, even if it is necessarily (like all things human) imperfectly executed. The alternatives, including kinship selection and social engineering, tend to be worse for society as a whole.
As for integration, I would distinguish it from conformity. Integration requires the acceptance of core shared principles, but need not be totalizing. A classic example, of course, is the American civic creed, which combines freedom of speech and religion (among others) with a commitment to "self-evident" truths. Without sufficient integration, "inclusion" itself collapses as a principle, because there is nothing left to be included within.
This is an interesting perspective. I appreciate the importance of meritocracy (which is more of an American myth, as other factors have always held greater sway than merit). While I'm an avid Francophile, what I don't appreciate about the French is their historic obsession with conformity (which you refer to as "integration.") When the ideal is conformity, we lose the value of alternate perspectives, which often offers the greatest opportunities for innovation. That is why I prefer the metaphor of a tossed salad over a "melting pot."
Because it's never been fully realized, meritocracy could be considered a myth. But it can also be considered an ideal. By striving toward ideals, we may not necessarily reach them, but we can get closer than we would if we dismissed them from the start. I consider meritocracy to be an ideal worth striving toward, even if it is necessarily (like all things human) imperfectly executed. The alternatives, including kinship selection and social engineering, tend to be worse for society as a whole.
As for integration, I would distinguish it from conformity. Integration requires the acceptance of core shared principles, but need not be totalizing. A classic example, of course, is the American civic creed, which combines freedom of speech and religion (among others) with a commitment to "self-evident" truths. Without sufficient integration, "inclusion" itself collapses as a principle, because there is nothing left to be included within.
Well said. I appreciate the intent.