meritocracy

Sometimes I wonder to what extent the support for social mobility is related to a belief in meritocracy. Both sound similar but conceptually different.

In the OED triangle, the support for social mobility means that no direct association between O and D should exist while allowing an indirect path through E (E in this case refers to ability + efforts rather than educational attainment), or extreme ideas might assume no association between O and E as well.

In contrast, meritocracy (I guess) only considers E-D and O-D, not O-E-D. To paraphrase, their concern is about the rule of competition or rewards allocation, where the perfect meritocracy is achieved when merit (E) outweighs origin or ascription (O). The lack of interest in O-E means that they do not question the sources of abilities, while it is likely that these merits are influenced by origins.

Then my question is what genetic perspectives might bring to these frameworks. Earlier scholars like Lipset & Bendix or believers in meritocracy would say PGSs measure abilities while this may sound a bit counterintuitive to other strat scholars who are more likely to take care of where the abilities come from. The latter group would say genes also comprise origin.

Bringing the genetic perspective may help us to highlight these different responses to the meaning of ability, or E. This also suggests that the inclusion of genetic perspectives challenges the well-established dichotomy between ascription and achievement in stratification research, as we discussed earlier.