Discuss how far sociologists would agree that Britain today is a meritocracy.
How to approach this question
Structure your answer as a debate.
1. Introduction: Define meritocracy and state that sociologists disagree on whether Britain fits this description.
2. Argument FOR meritocracy: Explain the functionalist view (role allocation, education as a fair system).
3. Argument AGAINST meritocracy: Explain the Marxist critique (myth of meritocracy, cultural capital, reproduction of inequality).
4. Further arguments AGAINST: Explain the feminist critique (patriarchy, glass ceiling) and the critique based on ethnicity (institutional racism).
5. Conclusion: Summarise the arguments and offer a justified judgement on 'how far' Britain is a meritocracy (e.g., it is more of an ideal than a reality).
Full Answer
A meritocracy is a social system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement. The functionalist perspective (e.g., Davis and Moore) argues that stratification is functional and meritocratic. However, this is heavily criticised by conflict theories. Marxists (e.g., Bowles and Gintis) argue that the 'myth of meritocracy' is a key part of capitalist ideology, persuading the working class to accept inequality. Feminists and anti-racist sociologists also provide evidence that gender and ethnicity act as major barriers to social mobility, proving that society is not truly meritocratic. A good answer will contrast these different perspectives.
Common mistakes
Only discussing social class and ignoring gender and ethnicity. Not explaining the functionalist view before criticising it. Simply listing points without structuring them into a coherent argument.
Expert