Abstract
Zachary Howlett’s book provides a new account of meritocracy in China. Unlike economists with their single-minded ideas of merits vis-à-vis individualized skills, Howlett deconstructs the concept to its social foundations. The book’s central subject is Gaokao, the national college entrance examination, where merits are constructed, tested, and publicly displayed. Howlett conceptualizes Gaokao as “fateful rites of passage” (pp. 10–18) that people feel as not only serving “to represent the universalistic judgment of the national community but also that of the ultimate transcendental power—fate” (p. 203). Fateful events are rituals; therefore, they are suited for ethnographic examination. Using such data from three sites in Fujian during 2011–2013, Howlett’s work is the latest attempt to understand the enormous Chinese system.
This book comprises six chapters, analyzing various aspects of the fatefulness of Gaokao. Chapter One provides the contextualization. Chapter Two examines the high stakes involved and the consequences of the exam. Chapter Three focuses on the uncertainty of Gaokao. Chapter Four discusses the individual character of the test takers, while Chapter Five zooms in to the moment of the examination. Chapter Six provides a unique perspective on the religious and magical dimension of the fateful event.
As diverse as these chapters are, Howlett’s central heuristic reverses the commonly held belief that meritocracy reflects the ability of the test taker. On the contrary, he demonstrates that stratification among learners took place long before the final battle, as their learning differences accumulated gradually and were often reinforced by their school institutions (pp. 77–85). He argues that meritocracy’s face value, that of procedural fairness, should not divert readers’ attention from the underlying problems of structural unfairness (p. 82).
Furthermore, as with any standardized tests, Gaokao “transforms social labor into individual merit” (p. 181). Thus, meritocracy masks enormous hidden social inequalities by shifting the societal focus to a singular score. Students are told that their efforts and attitude matter, but Howlett’s critique is that they are not sovereign in producing their fate because so many more things outside of the test takers matter (p. 180). The moment of the exam, where meritocracy takes shape, is the individuating moment where these things fade into the background. Thus, meritocracy’s most salient feature is its ability to produce a belief in the individual. In a strange way, though this marked individualism differs from another famous version created by standardized tests, the American version (e.g., Fischer et al., 1996, p. 207), both meritocratic ideals strike a chord in their respective societies.
Howlett’s arguments certainly have merits (pun intended), but I found them inadequate for two reasons. First, his argument lacks a solid ontological ground. Many have argued that the ideal Chinese personhood is distinctively linked with the action of individuals, and education as a social-cultural process certainly embodies such ideals (Cheng, 1998). This slow, years-long learning process “of polishing, carving, refining, waxing and glazing of self” implies a state of refinement and gentility (Yen, 2005, p. 46). The rite of passage marks the birth of a social self. This version is certainly different from Howlett’s (p. 180), but it could partly explain why most test takers do not rebel against the institution. Of course, how individuals reconcile the social inputs and their individual labor is a theoretical endeavor beyond this review, but this direction of research is worth considering.
The second question is how Howlett would explain Gaokao's (un)success as an institution. He demonstrated how meritocratic ideals evolved from historical times to the modern day, noting their latent continuity. Howlett considers the modern test’s dual function: Its social function allocates young people into university chances, while its cultural function serves a symbol of diligence, persistence, composure, and other desired psychological qualityies. Do these mechanisms, taken together, suggest a contested or resilient social institution? Howlett leans toward the former (p. 226ff), but I am left more impressed by its endurance. With the benefit of hindsight, none of the predictions laid out in the book seem to have fundamentally undermined its social foundation. Since Howlett’s fieldwork, there have been an additional one million students who have undertaken this annual rite of passage, from nine million to over ten million in 2020. Howlett emphasizes the limits of meritocratic ideals, but the institution is never as monolithic as it appears. Different pathways emerged before the exam gradually diffuses the lost and confused students. There must be alternative explanations for this.
This book is comprehensive. It can be read as a thoughtful commentary on the merit-based system and the social fabric within which such a system is embedded. The book touches upon many interesting aspects of contemporary meritocratic ideals, but its answers prove unsatisfactory. The ethical and moral aspects of this meritocratic institution are repeatedly mentioned but never receive any in-depth treatment. Taken as a whole, Howlett’s book is an invigorating attempt to tackle one of the most captivating and consequential ideologies of modern education. The empirical richness and keen observations should engage the reader in a serious conversation about the Chinese meritocratic system, and by extension, those in other cultures.
