Transcript
Speaker: So welcome back everyone to the third episode of Debatable Discussions Podcast.
Speaker: As you all know by now, I'm sure, we discuss a variety of topics from the worlds of philosophy, history, ethics, theology, and more.
Speaker: However, today we will be talking about nepotism versus meritocracy.
Speaker: So today we also have a special guest with us, Stefan.
Speaker: Very thankful for being here with us.
Speaker: Hi, hi everyone, and thank you guys for having me.
Speaker: I really appreciate it.
Speaker: I'm Stefan, and I am a philosophy, politics, and economics student at one of London's top universities.
Speaker: So we're going to start by explaining what nepotism really is, first of all.
Speaker: So nepotism, and I have a definition in front of me right now, is the practice among people with power or influence of favoring relatives, friends or associates, especially by giving them jobs.
Speaker: So...
Speaker: Nepotism actually comes from the Italian nipote, which means nephew.
Speaker: And it started out originally with the Pope.
Speaker: So the Pope had a lot of illegitimate children who are all his nephews.
Speaker: And they were given high paying and very influential roles in society at the time.
Speaker: And this is how nepotism really started.
Speaker: So what do you think, John?
Speaker: So, yes, I mean, I think nowadays there's sort of a bit more of a negative rhetoric, perhaps rightly so, towards nepotism.
Speaker: As you said with the Pope, it can be easily misused and it can effectively be worse overall.
Speaker: Nepotism, using nepotism as if you get your sons and daughters to do everything for you, obviously it won't be the most effective outcome.
Speaker: Whereas, you know, that's why the whole battle with meritocracy is as it is, because it isn't necessarily based on merit.
Speaker: However, then you have some sort of pros to nepotism, which you don't really have with meritocracy, which are always worth evaluating.
Speaker: And that is with nepotism, you have enhanced trust or loyalty.
Speaker: So by having your son as, let's say, your associate, you know him better.
Speaker: You know how effective he's going to be, which can be really helpful.
Speaker: What do you think, Stefan?
Speaker: So I believe you guys have rightly pointed out and showed the core explanation, the core definition of nepotism, which is, you know, family relations.
Speaker: But in today's society, I think there's a wider way to look at it as well, which is the advantages that are given to people from certain social ethnic backgrounds.
Speaker: basically people who come from well-connected families, people who were privileged or went to good schools, so on and so forth.
Speaker: And that's what, that's its juxtaposition to meritocracy.
Speaker: People get into positions of power, especially in government, due to not their merit, but just where they come from and where they were born, which is,
Speaker: is the wider way in which nepotism works nowadays.
Speaker: Yeah, I'd agree with that as well.
Speaker: Especially, you know, we don't really have a diverse ruling class, I would argue, perhaps.
Speaker: You know, most of them have been to the same schools, done the same courses, have been friends forever.
Speaker: Yep.
Speaker: Yes, with recent British politics as well, you can see it, as you said, Stefan, with things like David Cameron, he surrounded himself with lots of people he knew from Eton, from a certain background.
Speaker: What?
Speaker: So also we have meritocracy as well, which is obviously, as I earlier alluded to, the big almost opponent to nepotism.
Speaker: And meritocracy, as in the name, is to do with merit.
Speaker: So you judge candidates based on the amount of merit they have.
Speaker: And, for example, in a job, this isn't choosing your son, but it's perhaps choosing the candidate who's got the most potential or the most skill towards doing a job.
Speaker: And nowadays it's particularly attractive, so to speak, meritocracy, mainly just because, as I said earlier on, it's quite fair.
Speaker: You know, as you alluded to, Stéphane, you don't judge anyone based on their background.
Speaker: So what do you think, Diane and Stéphane?
Speaker: I believe one of the many issues that I see with meritocracy, which at its very core, I believe is a very good idea and is the way we should run society.
Speaker: However, I believe one of its issues stems from its very definition, which is whoever has the most merit or whoever has the most skill gets positions of power.
Speaker: Because it's insanely difficult to understand
Speaker: to measure merit or skill to accurately rank people, especially in terms of ruling countries, government.
Speaker: It's almost impossible, I would argue, to know which candidate is objectively better.
Speaker: It's not just as easy as a simple maths test or anything like that.
Speaker: Ruling society is a very, very complex issue.
Speaker: which is quite hard to measure.
Speaker: That's, I believe, one of the issues with it.
Speaker: Yeah, so on top of that as well, I would perhaps argue that, you know, it's not all about your skill in life as well.
Speaker: It's how you can communicate and get on with the people around you.
Speaker: So no matter how skilled you are, if you're impossible to work with in a team, then perhaps you shouldn't get the job.
Speaker: So I think that's one of the issues with meritocracy.
Speaker: I just wanted to ask you guys a question here.
Speaker: Do we think a meritocratic society is actually possible?
Speaker: Or is there an inherent bias towards people that you know are more familiar with?
Speaker: So I'm going to pass to John here first.
Speaker: I mean, as Stefan alluded to, I think it's a very good idea.
Speaker: But with positions of power and in politics, you can see it.
Speaker: If you look at the British political system, people choose people.
Speaker: They know who they know very well and who they know they can trust.
Speaker: And trust and loyalty are always a big thing in politics and even in business to an extent.
Speaker: So I think...
Speaker: There is always going to be that inherent bias because there's something that goes beyond, you know, how clever you are, how suitable you are for a role.
Speaker: And that is that people just go with who they trust and who they think will be loyal to them.
Speaker: So, yes.
Speaker: What do you think, Stefan?
Speaker: Yeah, I mean, that's the core issue with it.
Speaker: And I believe definitely it will be very, very hard to work without that trust.
Speaker: And on top of that, there's even like smaller, you know, just logistical issues with meritocracy.
Speaker: A government needs to be run quite efficiently, quickly.
Speaker: Having to, you know, launch a full investigation into who's this for every single role would take up a lot of time and effort.
Speaker: And oftentimes it's just, you know, whoever is closer, whoever you know, whoever you're aware of that ends up getting the job.
Speaker: Is that fair?
Speaker: Perhaps not.
Speaker: Almost certainly not.
Speaker: However, that makes it work.
Speaker: That makes it work, really.
Speaker: Yeah, so as well as Cuba, I think maybe with a meritocratic society, you know, if you've got a lot of great people in one area, there's likely to be a lot of egos there as well.
Speaker: There's likely to be a lot of people wanting to say, no, I'm going to do this.
Speaker: I'm better at this.
Speaker: No, no, I'll do it.
Speaker: You do it.
Speaker: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker: And instead of having something that runs well, perhaps you can go really into an hour and nothing gets done because too much time is being spent on who's actually going to do it instead of doing the job.
Speaker: So this sort of debate over meritocracy, nepotism, I thought it sort of quite nicely leads on to a scandal that happened, which was investigated quite majorly a few years back, called the Varsity Blues scandal in America.
Speaker: And this was a scandal in which over 50 people were convicted of
Speaker: for the fraudulent intake, fraudulently inflating entrance exam test scores and bribing college officials in a variety of ways to get their children into the desired university in the States.
Speaker: And also this sort of related to how there is actually a huge lack of meritocracy in our society.
Speaker: and how bribery and connections that you have are always going to get the people sort of at the top in the top social classes into the top places in the world.
Speaker: So yes, what do you guys think about this?
Speaker: Yeah, so I mean, Steph will probably know a bit better than I do, but do you get an advantage when applying to universities if you have like a legacy or, you know, your dad or mum went before?
Speaker: Well, in the UK, they
Speaker: tend to make it pretty clear you don't.
Speaker: Now, whether that's actually true or not is debatable.
Speaker: There are people who would argue that, you know, behind the scenes.
Speaker: However, officially, no, you get no advantages in the UK, which I believe is the way it should be.
Speaker: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker: So I'm just reading this as well.
Speaker: So $25 million has been paid to this guy, which I think is absolutely crazy.
Speaker: And it really stems back to another question as well.
Speaker: Is nepotism actually good for the quote-unquote nepo babies?
Speaker: Because if you get thrown in a pond that's too big for you and you're not going to perform well, surely that's also damaging.
Speaker: So what do you guys think?
Speaker: I do see the merit to that allegation as well.
Speaker: It's very hard to truly... I don't believe Nepal babies would agree, however, because at the end of the day, for them, it's just another thing to... They would argue they have achieved.
Speaker: I don't think they would look at it this way.
Speaker: But I believe for society, it's extremely detrimental, and especially when it comes to positions in academia, like getting into university.
Speaker: Because that's where everyone should have the chance.
Speaker: Everyone should have equal chances to really get there and take full advantage of the education opportunities that society offers.
Speaker: Because if there are external barriers keeping smart people from getting the education they deserve,
Speaker: then society as a whole loses out on the potential benefits of them getting it.
Speaker: So that's the main issue I see with, you know, Farsely Blues and all of these types of
Speaker: of scandals.
Speaker: What do you think, John?
Speaker: Yes, I mean, I think with all these scandals, as I earlier said, it does show that there's a lot of these Nepo babies and a lot of nepotism really in society.
Speaker: And it shouldn't be that way at all.
Speaker: And people shouldn't be able to profit from their parents' success.
Speaker: But I think...
Speaker: it's almost inevitable because at the end of the day, you know, money means a loss in the world.
Speaker: If you have the money that can get someone somewhere, you can effectively get very far with money.
Speaker: So I think,
Speaker: You know, nepotism really is just an unfortunate sort of byproduct of society, as we have seen in the Varsity Blue scandal.
Speaker: You know, people do say in the UK that the legacy or perhaps money can sort of get you into the university you desire.
Speaker: So I think it is just this sort of not very good byproduct of the way we live.
Speaker: Yeah, I'd agree with that as well.
Speaker: And just furthering it, it's in a way, I think impossible to regulate as well because, you know, they've paid like a sports teacher this much money.
Speaker: You know, there's always going to be someone in that university who's going to be willing to do something like this.
Speaker: So in any organization, there's definitely someone who is willing to get $25 million to push 50 people into a job.
Speaker: It's very tough to regulate.
Speaker: So the question is, how do we manage to balance, you know, the inherent bias that we get from nepotism?
Speaker: You know, if I know Steph better and I need to hire someone, you know, for example, to do my banking, I'm going to hire Steph because I'm like, you know, I know he's a smart guy.
Speaker: I know he can do it.
Speaker: How do we balance that with, you know, who's actually the best?
Speaker: So what do you guys think?
Speaker: Steph first, probably.
Speaker: I believe we must completely try our very best at least to completely eliminate institutional entrenched nepotism and make it so that at least as much as possible legally there is none because there will always be some leftover cronyism and nepotism that's natural no matter how much we try to combat it.
Speaker: So I believe the balance truly is try to get rid of it as much as possible because there will be some left anyways.
Speaker: Yes, I do.
Speaker: I agree with Steph totally there.
Speaker: I mean, I think at the end of the day, you want to get rid as much nepotism as possible.
Speaker: But yes, there will always be a bit.
Speaker: And I think society could possibly function better if there was more meritocracy, for example, in politics, even at the top.
Speaker: You know, if perhaps the advisors to people in any countries weren't the people they knew, but the people who were most qualified,
Speaker: potentially countries would be better run.
Speaker: So I think there's definitely room for more meritocracy in the world today.
Speaker: Yes, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Singapore today is a meritocracy.
Speaker: They run quite well, I think, economically and everything, because they all know what they're doing.
Speaker: I don't think there's a lot of
Speaker: people who are unsure of what their job is because of that competitive nature of the job.
Speaker: Oh, yeah.
Speaker: And also, I think if we think about nepotism, though, surely we need to link it to perhaps what I call the biggest nepotism farm in quotation marks there, which is a monarchy, which, yeah.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: So how do we think monarchies work with nepotism?
Speaker: How are they complementary to each other and how perhaps to limit that as much as we can?
Speaker: So I think obviously a monarchy is nepotism, it's sort of action, but how
Speaker: There's an argument to be made for monarchies for why we should have them that is probably greater than the disadvantage of it being a nepotism and someone has bought one into it.
Speaker: So I think, especially the British monarchy, there's a huge value to this monarchy.
Speaker: People all across the world idolise the British monarchy and it's a huge, almost export of Britain.
Speaker: And it has been the figurehead of Britain in a way that I don't think any sort of prime minister president can be because there's something constant and something that people idolise about the monarch.
Speaker: People almost see them as, I mean, they're not, but as the perfect person, sort of quote unquote, because they're at the top.
Speaker: So I think with the monarchy, yes, it's nepotism as you're just born into the right family, you're born into the line of succession.
Speaker: But then there's quite a good argument to be made for why we should have a monarchy.
Speaker: Stefan?
Speaker: Yeah, I believe totally I agree with you on the argument about stability and constancy that is brought about by monarchy.
Speaker: And that is definitely one of the pros of it.
Speaker: I'd also go even further and say that
Speaker: A monarchy helps in that the future monarch has been brought up from a very young age, knowing that's what they're going to do, and has been given the best possible education in the fields of, you know, politics, government, ethics.
Speaker: And so arguably they are well prepared.
Speaker: But I would introduce the historical concept of an elective monarchy.
Speaker: which we used to see at some point in the early Middle Ages, about a thousand years ago, in many countries, and which was basically out of the royal family, normally out of the children of the monarch.
Speaker: Basically, the nobles in the country would choose who is the best preferred out of them.
Speaker: So it wouldn't be just the eldest.
Speaker: It'd be...
Speaker: out of that family whoever is best prepared and that does introduce an element of meritocracy which makes it i would argue slightly better yeah i was i was even gonna go further back you know in the roman times how the early emperors would pick out their successors yeah instead of instead of their sons being their successors so like when someone was 16
Speaker: the emperor would say, okay, you are now my adoptive son and you will be the future emperor.
Speaker: So how do we think that works?
Speaker: Do you think that would be a feasible idea maybe?
Speaker: Or in our big world today, probably not.
Speaker: I mean, I think it's a good idea in practice.
Speaker: It's very meritocratic.
Speaker: However, then you lose the element of the monarchy of being a family.
Speaker: then that's sort of the sort of integral part of the British monarchy.
Speaker: It's not really, but people view it as one family, which throughout history has ruled a country.
Speaker: And you lose that when you sort of add in people sort of choosing the most suitable person next to lead them.
Speaker: And as Stefan alluded to, I think the future monarch is prepared.
Speaker: They spend their whole youth...
Speaker: with this sort of huge pressure on them to get ready to lead the country.
Speaker: So I think, you know, with the education nowadays in the world is very good to sort of prepare them anyway for being the future monarch.
Speaker: Steph, what do you think?
Speaker: I totally, I do agree with what John said.
Speaker: And I would say that
Speaker: It's obviously very difficult to find a balance when it comes to monarchy.
Speaker: I mean, this topic has been discussed constantly in the UK for the past century.
Speaker: It's a very tricky one because whatever you do choose to do, people will be upset.
Speaker: And it's the same with the whole debate about meritocracy and nepotism.
Speaker: Wherever you choose to set the standard, the boundary, some people will be upset, some people will be left out.
Speaker: But at the end of the day, it's however much nepotism society and people overall decide to put up with, that will keep happening.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah, I'd agree with that.
Speaker: It was really, really interesting to introduce the concept of the mini election in the monarchy as well, the interior election in a way.
Speaker: I think that would be perhaps the easiest fix we could bring to bring a bit more meritocracy in that spectrum of the world.
Speaker: Does anyone have any concluding remarks on the issue?
Speaker: Right.
Speaker: As I've said, we do need to find a balance.
Speaker: That balance, I believe, will sort of come out of society without any need for express intervention.
Speaker: I believe people agree.
Speaker: sort of naturally on how much nepotism they allow before, you know, revolting in the streets.
Speaker: So it really depends very much from country to country, from society to society.
Speaker: And historically, we've seen the standard on nepotism kind of constantly evolve with society.
Speaker: Some would say it's becoming less and less important and it will eventually disappear.
Speaker: Will that happen?
Speaker: Probably not.
Speaker: But it could, definitely.
Speaker: Thank you very much, Stefan, for being with us today.
Speaker: It's a huge privilege.
Speaker: And thank you, everyone else, for tuning in.
Speaker: Yes, thank you, everyone.
Speaker: Thank you, Stefan.
Speaker: It's been a very relevant, pressing discussion.
Speaker: It's great to have you here.
Speaker: So next week, we will be discussing another pressing issue in the fields of
Speaker: you know history art and philosophy and yes anything we'd like to say down I just like to say that Steph is the first guest special guest on the podcast there's definitely not the last and in the next coming weeks we'll have another one soon so tune in for that as well thank you everyone thank you everyone for listening
