“In this age where academic intelligence is valued more than other aptitudes, I have grown up with the ability to study well better than others, and I can therefore stay here as a professor.” This is what the professor, who gave a lecture about meritocracy, which refers to the notion that ability can be the dominant force in society, said to the students. In a society that recognized Korea’s overheated ranking of universities and meritocracy as a worthwhile value and consequently considers the process of entering prestigious universities successful, I who had never thought about the fairness of the ability itself was shocked by what the professor said. If what he said is true, should the era in which an individual is born influence their social status and compensation?

  In response to this question, at least the current society will say yes wholeheartedly. This is because we currently live in a system that fully compensates for our efforts, initiating attempts, and talents, which allocate results in proportion to efforts and input of resources. However, there is a trap in meritocracy in which “fairness” is completely excluded. A state in which everyone gets impartial opportunities and rewards by not giving preferential treatment or disadvantage to a particular individual or group is defined as fair. Can we describe fairness when the starting point is the same and the result is fair, except for all of the innate, social, and wealth of an individual? Meritocracy completely ignores the social conditions and processes in which competence can be formed, and allows success and competence to be considered as fruits of one’s ability in a fair competitive society. The hereditaries that bequeath competence in various forms strengthen and solidify their abilities, and so eventually enable some to inherit their abilities.

  Nevertheless, as Michael Joseph Sandel, the author of The Tyranny of Merit mentioned, there is no perfect fairness in a society where meritocracy is prevalent. If we discuss the innate parts of individuals that we cannot control socially, such as those who have good innate abilities and those who do not, and those who have the sufficient environment to develop individual abilities in the process of growth and those who do not, the fairness is even harder to find. Likewise, a meritocratic society where fairness is inevitably excluded shifts the responsibility of success and failure to individuals. If an individual achieves success and victory which is defined by a society, the individual is praised as a person of ability and talent, and those who fail or lose are stigmatized as talentless or not hardworking. Do readers who read the former sentence already know the standard of success and failure is defined by society? For us not to bear the setbacks of responsibility in meritocracy, we need a new perspective on failure.

  Such a reality that defines oneself as a failure in a society of forced social standards and overheated meritocracy, and even accepts failure completely as one’s own fault, eventually constantly induces a fear of failure in people. We should not define failure by the criteria, defined by the successful people mentioned earlier, excluding all of the individual’s innate backgrounds. At times like this, it should be clearly recognized that rare and valuable abilities in a society are determined by social contexts, and this is why we cannot define an individual’s life as a failure. In a meritocratic society that regards competence above all, failure is inevitable. You can have the courage to fail without being labeled as a failure. Moreover, where can we find the courage to embrace failure without fear? This courage begins with a shift in mindset valuing the process over merely the outcome. When success is defined solely by results, the achievements and experiences gained along the way are often overlooked and forgotten. However, if we start to see failure as a vital part of growth, with each setback providing essential lessons for future success, it becomes less something to fear and more an essential step in our development. Through the courage to fail, we unlock the ability to take more creative and innovative risks, ultimately leading us toward a broader, more meaningful life path.

  In addition, as mentioned earlier, if we are not wary of the pitfalls of the fairness that meritocracy alludes to, talking it as the made up measure of success and failure, we will continue to live in this society fearing failure. Since the criteria for success and failure are part of the definition of social contexts, the courage to fail is expected to allow people living in this society to choose various aspects of life.