Sort of. “Merit” is more a measure of those groups’ definitions of success. Calling it a meritocracy overly simplifies the circumstances for that success, often reinforcing the power relationships.
So, how does one tease apart what is meant by the original definition of merit, let's call it 'accomplishment', from these subjective definitions of success? Or is that even possible?
> So, how does one tease apart what is meant by the original definition of merit, let's call it 'accomplishment', from these subjective definitions of success? Or is that even possible?
You can't. Merit -- including "success" or "accomplishment" -- is always a subjective value judgement. Even if there is an objective measure, the evaluation of the measure as something meaningful to measure (i.e., that the measure is one of merit or success) is a subjective value judgement.
We're talking about software development here. Writing code that works, and implementing features that make it to the website/product are easily quantifiable metrics (someone who contributes a lot of good code is judged as more worthy).
Nothing is an achievement or thing of merit outside of the judgement of some individual or set of individuals. Merit/achievement isn't something that exists independently.
And the dominant group in society is, pretty much by definition, the one whose judgement is most influential.
