Library book graffiti and long conversations

Some time ago I borrowed a copy of the book that first introduced the word "meritocracy" to widespread attention, The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1870-2033 - an Essay on Education and Equality, by Michael Dunlop Young. As you can tell from the title, it's satire. Young wrote this mock-history to criticize what he saw as the tendency for the educated elite in Britain of his time (the 1960s) to think that their social and economic position were something they deserved because of their hard work and talents alone (hence the "rule of the meritorious"). This simply ignores of course the huge inequalities of opportunity at the time, which still remain with us today. It is not true that someone who is poorer is necessarily less able.

Today people use "meritocracy" as a term of approbation. There seems to be something wholesome and commonsensical about it, but the problem, as Young recognized and satirized, is that it is a moral trap, leading people to a false sense of entitlement and an estrangement from empathy. Not surprising, then, that his book would be popular reading for students.

The copy that I got from the college library turned out to be full of underlinings, circling, and marginal notes. Normally I'm very annoyed by these things. Another book I borrowed recently was full of dog ears, and I spent ten minutes standing in the stacks unfolding every single one of them. However, when I looked closely at the marginalia, I found them to be amusing, even educational.

Some people didn't get that this was satire. There was one set of notes that expressed alarm and dismay of the "how could he say that!" sort. In a different hand on the same pages were notes upon those notes, expressing surprise that the other guy was dense enough to think that this book was 'for real'.

Then I turned to chapter V and the facing blank page was covered in a graffiti 'conversation' of sorts. Given the age of this book copy, successive generations of students over maybe several decades could have been responding to each other in these pages!

In case it's not clear from the picture, here's what the graffiti says, each line being in a different handwriting:

"Hi! You are a member of the upper 5% of the meritocracy!!"

"If you know what I mean"

"Yes, but will that get you into Med School, turkey?"

"Only if your dad's the dean of admissions!"

"Who cares, you're all a bunch of pompous Harvard assholes"

"Trained to be so, of course"

"His Lordship's artificial leg was not to be found"

"The greatest fulfillment lies in submission..."

[arrow to the previous statement] "Hmmm is this female handwriting?"

On the one hand this is a validation of both the Tragedy of the Commons (no one takes care of common property because it belongs to no one person) and the Broken Window theory (that crime proliferates in poorly-maintained neighborhoods because the poor maintenance shows that people don't care enough to protect their property). Once someone started writing in the book, I suppose it was easier for the next guy to forget about the rules.

On the other hand, this shows how little some things change at Harvard - we all still have hang ups about elitism, and are never really comfortable with the H-bomb. Little surprise then that a book about meritocracy should attract so much inline commentary over the years.