We argue about the merits and we don’t even agree on the meaning of the word

The discussion triggered by the new denomination of the Ministry of Education, which today includes the word “merit”, shows no sign of subsiding, because it must have evidently touched a raw nerve. And so, even in my social bubble, even when we talk about something else, it re-emerges, through various connections with the topic under discussion from time to time, and invariably generates division, even when there is no reason for it.

Now, since I’m a bit tired of arguing as if one were in disagreement even when evidently such disagreement is unfounded, I wondered if a friend of mine from the Marches is right. My friend Paolo believes that, in 90 percent of cases, divisive arguments arise from the fact that they didn’t make sure they defined the topic well: that is, the disagreement would arise above all from a difference in the attribution of semantic meaning to some ambiguous termwhich, understood differently by the interlocutors, would appeal for each of them to different values ​​and meanings, generating a sterile dispute.

Following your advice, I will therefore try to give a more limited word to the overused word of merit, to illustrate at least two different meanings, and I hope to prevent some further, viscous discussion within my small community of readers. Let’s see, therefore, starting from the etymology of the word itself, according to my beloved Etymological Vocabulary of the Italian Language by Ottorino Pianigiani.

Merit is a Latin word that derives from an ancient Greek root, common to the words in that language μερὶς, or part, portion, and also μεριζω, or divide, divide, distribute, and various terms derived from these; this meaning and the corresponding Greek words are in fact found in many sources, up to the writings of archaic Christianity. Subsequently there was a shift in meaning: Pianigiani explains how the Latin word meritus, derived from the indicated Greek, corresponds to a reward to be distributed; this is because in general a prize, and especially a war booty, was divided among the winners, so the original meaning of “divided into parts” par excellence meant the prize that had to be divided. Subsequently, a further semantic passage took place, because, as the excellent Pianigiani always informs us, we wanted to signify with merit not only the prize to be shared, the reward, but also everything that makes them worthy of praise, of gratitude, and also of blame or punishment. And this is the current meaning, linked to a judgment about the way in which one acted to achieve a result, which can be considered appreciable or not.

To remain in the original sense often linked to the spoils of war, a soldier who in the First World War had to face 20 opponents with the bayonet, exposing himself to enemy fire, would probably have been considered more deserving than an aviator who had faced as many, dropping a bomb on their trench; the former could have been decorated for merit. In the example given, that is, it is not the result of the action that identifies the merit, but the fact that, despite the difficulties, one has managed to achieve it; and the merit is rewarded, because the exceptional circumstance consists precisely in having overcome those adversities in order to be able to carry out the task that was set for oneself.

When, on the other hand, we judge a person we want to perform a certain task, we are interested in proof that he is able to carry it out in circumstances that are generally not exceptional: to make our society work well, we look for good doctors, politicians, teachers, judges , journalists, engineers, machinists, printers and so on, i.e. we are looking for people who have the skills to carry out a task that we intend to assign them. We are not looking for heroes, but gifted people; and that’s enough, including the cases in which we look for those who show the maximum capacity, that is, obtain the maximum possible result. A priori, that is, we select above all and rightly for capabilities, without asking ourselves where they come from; and this is the basis why, as a social group, we can function at our best, together with the fact that, since we are interested in having the widest possible group of capable people from whom to select, we must make sure during the training of future citizens to fill at most the initial disadvantages for those who show commitment and will.

In the cases indicated, we are not looking for merit, but precisely the result, often even the best result obtained, as useful for society as a whole, and this distinction must be kept in mind. There may be great skill without merit; for our purposes, we are mainly interested in selecting the first, but we must agree on the meaning of the second, before arguing only for the semantic confusion. And if instead we wanted to look for merit, we should remember the bayonet assaults of the First World War: our evaluation cannot go beyond the way in which a result was achieved, and, to quote the excellent Pianigiani, whether that is worthy of praise, gratitude, or even blame or punishment.