CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN MARCOS THESIS SIGNATURE PAGE THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF ARTS IN SOCIOLOGICAL PRACTICE THESIS TITLE Holding "Accountability" Accountable: How The American Myth of Meritocracy Legitimizes Social Inequality and Containment Practices in Education AUTHOR: Mary Molly Lockwood DATE OF SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE: April 25th, 2003 THE THESIS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE THESIS COMMITTEE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN SOCIOLOGICAL PRACTICE Dr. Richard Serpe THESIS COMMITTEE CHAIR Dr. Alicia Gonzales THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER Dr. Sharon Elise THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER MASP THESIS Holding "Accountability" Accountable: How the American Myth of Meritocracy Legitimizes Social Inequality and Containment Practices in Education Submitted By: Mary Molly Barrett Lockwood May 8th,_3003 ~ MASP Thesis Committee: Chair: Dr. Richard Serpe Dr. Alicia Gonzales Dr. Sharon Elise Table of Contents Introduction 1 The Myth of Meritocracy: Social justice Neutrality and Public Education 3 Meritocratic Individualism: Dominant American Identities, Ideology and Institutions 4 Social and Historic Constructs Shape the Ambiguities of Meritocracy 5 Theoretical Paradigms That Lend Perspective to Meritocratic Individualism 6 The Social Legitimacy of Meritocracy and Myth Creating 7 Historical and Social Constructions of Meritocratic Individualism 13 The Protestant Reformation: Divinity and Materialism Sustain the "Morality of Meritocratic Individualism" 17 Social-psychological Process of Attribution and Meritocratic Individualism 19 Social Determinism: Scientism, Objectivity and Socially Constructed Destinies 26 Eugenics, Social Control and Educational Testing 28 Historical Pragmatism and Meritocratic Individualism 33 Theoretical Perspectives 38 Critical Race Theory 39 Critical Race Theory and Social Constructivism in Education 45 Social Control theory and "Segregation" in Education 47 Meritocracy and Our Educational System: Raising the Bar Or Raising Barriers? Is It Time to Hold "Accountability" Accountable? 48 America's "Testing Culture" and Meritocratic Assumptions 49 The Social Construction of Accountability: Education Shaped by "The Political" 52 High-Stakes Testing & Accountability: The New Euphemism for Containment Practices and Policies of Discrimination 54 High-Stakes Testing Authenticity: Testing Accountability Validity 57 High-Stakes Testing: Consequences 60 Table of Contents Discussion 63 Liberal Concepts and Ideologies of Individual Freedoms 63 Significance of Meritocracy to Social Arrangements and Inequality 66 Meritocracy as a Disunifying Mechanism of Equality 70 The Crooked Path of Merit/ Accountability/ Ability 73 Conclusion 76 In Education and Beyond: Pedagogies of Freedom 79 References 82 Acknowledgements 'The Professors t.., the C.SL-<SM soeLologkj 'PtpartmtiM: are a woll\derfu.lLM remarkabLe group. l>eea&.LSe 1 ea.., eoiM:rast IIM..f::j e;cpetie~ here at C.SL-<SM wLth mM -pnor' u.ll\.dergrad college e;cpetie~- 1 k.MW- you. rock.!!! you. have aLL eoiM:nbu.ted to m1:1 persolo'I.£IL all\.d soewLogteaL growth. 'Tha""'k. fjOU. alL. Dr. sharo""' sLise, fjOU. have Lmp&~eted me Ltk.e lo'\.0 olo'l.t eLse. It is lo'I.Ot easM to pu.t LIM:o words how f::jOu. have raised ml1 &lwt:~rell\.tSS of rt:~ee &111\.d whU:e prtvtlege - all\.d Lt ht:~s..,'t &~Lwal1s bee.., easl1. you. are a remt:~rk.abLe perso..,. Thalo'l.k.f::jOU., Sh&lrOio'l.. Dr. Ri.c.ht:~rd serpe, whe""' 1 f!.rst mt:~de eoiM:aet wtth f::jOU., 1 dtd II\.Ot ret:~Ltze f::jOU. were the Ch&~LYIIM..&IIo'l. of the DepartmtiM:- or 1 wou.Ld ~er have brtdged th&~t &~u.thori.tkj/stu.deiM: stat&.LS gap. 'Tha""'k.s for beL""'9 reaL elo'I.Ou_gh for mt to taLk. to. 'Thalo'l.k.s for LettL""'9 mt go where 1 lo'l.teded to go with this thesis. Th&llo'l.k.f::jou., Ri.c.ht:~rd. Dr. ALLet&l Cjoii\.ZaLes, whe""' 1 f!.rst Looked at the M&lsters program t.., the eataLogu.e- the statisttes requ.Lremt!M:s kept mt from appLf:1L""'9 for &I Lo""'9 ttmt. I eou.Ld II\.Ot ht:~ve mt:~de it throu.gh withou.t f::jOtA.r eo~~~.StderabLe persolo'I.&IL effort! you. were aLw&~f::jS there for me all\.d weiM: waM bef::joll\d the e;cpeeted LV\, gLYL""'9 of Mou.rseLf. you. &Ire " verl1 gelo'l.tro&.LS perso..,. Th&llo'l.k. kjOIA., Alie'l.&l. 'Dr. Krisn""' 'Sates § Dr. V&IL caLLalo'l.&ilo'l., f::jOU. are great, vLtaL roLe modeLs. Kr£stt..,, lo'l.tVer Loose th&~t Lau.gh! v&~L, f:1Du.r e!M:h&.LSL&Istte elo'l.trgl1 is remt:~rk.abLe. 'Tha""'k. kjOu.. Mo~~M., Dad -what ca~~~,. 1 SA!:j? yeah, I'Ve suye tatu~~~,. ~~M.!:j sweet tLI'M.e to get heYe. Please be LooR.£.11\.9 dow~~~,. OV\.I'M.t MA!:j1..'Jt±}l, .2003. 1 dLd this foy I'M.t­ but !:jOU weye fot'tVeY L~~~,. ~~M.!:j thoughts all\.d heart. 1 Love !:jOU. RLc.haYd, IIM.!:j brililatA.t, R.~EiL husball\.d - !:jOU AYe IIM.!:j YDCR.­ SOI'M-etL~~M.tS A btt jagged - but IIM.!:j YOCire, 11\.tVertheltss. I d(d Lt hOII\.t!:j - but yo~A. got ~~M.t heYe. yo~A. H-AvEi ALWAys ~EiLIEiVEiD IN MEi. H-aYdL!:j the tt:fPLcaL! R.ocR. Oil\., waLR.weed! Laya, ~~M.!:j beaunfuL R~EiL daughteY. you aye the ~~M.Dst Ye~~M.aYR.abl.t cyeatuYe. The woYLd foyeVeY chall\.9ed foY I'M.t whe~~~,. !:jOU etA.teyed L.t- all\.d the woYLd wtLL have to Ltay~~~,. to YecR,o~~~,. wL:th !:jOu, 1 YtcR.oV\.. R.DcR. Oil\., ~btl ~Qy! To ~~M.!:j cohort all\.d feLLow stude~~~,.ts, tha~ foy LettLV\..9 I'M.t bL.tch all\.d ~~M.OAV\.; tha~~~,.R,s foy LtASLghts all\.d heLp; tha~~~,.R,s foy just beLV\..9 thet't all\.d R.MwLV\.0 we weye aLL L~~~,. Lt togetheY. 11 wLsh evtY!:jOV\.t the veY!::l best LLfe has to offey. DY. TOV\.!:j ~YaLLow, nta~~~,.R,s foY heL-pLV\..0 ~~M.e fyo~~M. 'theye• to 'heYe. • you have had I'M.DYt ~-pact tha~~~,. !:jOU R.Mw. 1 AI'M- forevey gYAtefuL. R.DcR. Oil\.! Abstract Meritocracy is often mentioned in discussions of social inequality, stratification, oppression and "White Privilege," but it is seldom investigated as to its ubiquitous role as a dominant inaugurator of social inequality in America today. Emanating from the central liberal concept that opportunities to compete for resources and goods are fair and equal for everyone, the American social justice ideal of "meritocratic equality" masks the realities of group determinants in relation to the anatomies of "hegemonies of power" in American culture. Disingenuously deflecting inequality issues from institutional inefficacy onto individual inadequacies and obfuscating fundamental issues of injustice, America's "meritocratic myth" camouflages meritocratic individualism's role as a catalytic agent behind group differential practices in America's social, political and economic architecture. This discursive analysis critiques the puissant connections between meritocratic individualism (meritocracy) and the conceptions and practices of dominant "Americanized" identities, ideology and institutions. It particularly brings into focus the ways meritocracy legitimizes practices of social inequality, especially within the institution of public education. Meritocracy is examined through the lens of myth, as an abstracted ideology whose "universal" tenets have become habituated through uncontested religious, social, psychological and historical processes, which this paper explores. Critical Race Theory provides the analytical framework to examine supposedly "neutral" principles of the "fair" and "good" society in relationship to widely accepted principles of merit, ability, performance and "deservedness." In particular, education's "accountability-consciousness" is deconstructed to expose this politically motivated, euphemistic ploy in perpetuating surveillance/containment practices that recreate racial, social and cultural stratifications, while deftly casting pathology onto the individual, rather than institutional policy and practice. 1 Introduction The United States is more unequal than at any other time since the dawn of the New Deal- indeed ifs the most unequal society in the advanced democratic World (Boshara, 2003). The concept of social mobility and status, based upon individual character, self-reliance and hard work, is so imbued in the "American Way" of life that one might think this merit-based philosophy is directly written into our Constitution. It certainly is abundantly written into our dominant colloquialisms, our sentimental rags to riches stories, and the American script for success. In America, it is broadly accepted that one "gets what one deserves", and "deserves what one earns." Such "deservedness" is accredited to one's personal ability and achievements - not the presence, or lack of- structural or institutional expediencies. As an unexamined construct of "Americanism," and systemic feature of the prevailing geopolitical landscape, the folk model/ideology of "meritocratic individualism" is deeply embedded in the "psychic-identity" of the individual American, and entrenched within the conceptual creation and subsequent practices of our foundational institutions of health, education and welfare (Sacks, 1999; Newman, 1993; Kinder & Sears 1999; Schuman, Steeh & Bobo 1999; Sniderman & Hagen, 1999). Principles and practices of meritocracy are fiercely tied to the dominant discourse regarding concepts of social justice, individual rights, "right action" and "the good society" (Lemann, 2000; Sen, 2000). While the "dominant discourse" may not be universally embraced, it shapes the methodologies and pedagogies by 2 which individuals and institutions within the principal culture organize the stories they tell about themselves. Wrthin this primary culture, meritocracy has become synonymous with democracy, and is viewed as modernity's "fair" alternative to the restrictive social ranking system of "statused lineage," practiced in our not so recent past (Leman, 2001 ;Sacks, 1999;Arrow, Bowels & Dur1auf, 2000; Sen, 2000; Schumann, Steeh & Bobo, 1985; Chang, 1996; Peterson, 1994; Kinder & Sears, 1999).