The Family Resemblances of Democracy and MeritocracyAmong dominant social and political discourses in the United States, and are both freighted with ideological, political and practical significance (Connolly, 1993). Democracy, arguably in its most ideal sense, champions a presupposed equality of persons, while meritocracy is a justification for social inequality and a venue for social mobility within class societies (Arrow, Bowles, & Durlauf, 2000; Davis & Moore, 1945; Hayes, 2012; McNamee & Miller, 2009; Sen, 2000). In common parlance, they often are used synonymously or in close association with the even more diffuse ideas of equality, fairness, justice, liberty, and so forth. Furthermore, some would argue that democracy and meritocracy are interpenetrating concepts even as democracy broadly refers to by the people, or majority consent, whereas meritocracy can be described as rule by a deserving elite.Conflations between democracy and meritocracy derive from the idealized aspirations for a more just society and the rejection of arbitrary domination by aristocracy or accident of and inheritance. Both democracy and meritocracy speak to the potential ennobling of the person according to one's individual ability, effort and virtue, as well as the collective liberties and protections. Democracy and meritocracy are incomplete projects that, in the absence of critical reflection and practice, can as easily perpetuate social inequality as promote social justice. Within the United States, private and public educational institutions-from preschool through postsecondary-are expected to function as incubators and identifiers of exceptional ability and effort. Within an ideal meritocratic model, academic performance from the earliest years of a child's life should determine exposure to comparatively enhanced intellectual nurturance within a protracted career of preparation for adult leadership and the attendant rewards of upward social mobility, social power, and material wealth (Johnson, 2006; Lareau, 2000; LeMann, 1999; McNamee & Miller, 2009; Willis, 1977, Young, 1958). The circumstances of one's birth with regard to socioeconomic status (SES), ethnicity, and gender are presumably held in abeyance as inborn talent, consistent high performance, and constant competition determine an ever self-correcting and just social order (Ainsworth & Roscigno, 2005; Bourdieu, 1973; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Davis & Moore, 1945; Hayes, 2012; Johnson, 2006; Lareau, 2000; McNamee & Miller, 2009; Willis, 1977, Young, 1958).Incidentally, one would expect that educational outcomes and comparative rates of social mobility across ethnicity, gender, and parental SES and educational attainment would serve as robust indicators of the success of the United States' meritocratic project. In fact, educational attainment has been historically championed as the most likely means for social mobility among African Americans and voluntary ethnic minority immigrant groups. Furthermore, insofar as democracy and meritocracy bear strong ideological family resemblances (Wittgenstein, 1953) as hallmarks of an equitable and just society, one might infer that a meritocracy (largely produced through educational attainment) would result in greater representation of the interests of United States citizens within the democratic political process.This article will review the dominant themes of democracy and meritocracy as ideals, ideologies, practices, and institutions. The shadow or unfinished characteristics of democratic and meritocratic practices will be explored in terms of broad historical and sociological patterns of stratification and the distribution of political and socioeconomic capital. A brief survey of the trends of access to educational opportunities and academic achievement in the United States will provide a sobering example of how uncritical receptions of democratic and meritocratic ideals simultaneously obfuscate and exacerbate the corrosive aspects of social inequality (Bourdieu, 1986; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Golden, 2007; Hayes, 2012; Kozol, 2005; LeMann, 1999; Johnson, 2006; McNamee & Miller, 2009). …