You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.12 AVERAGE
4.12 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
So far this book has been exceptionally interesting in its insights if very American focused into the poisoned well that is meritocracy in all aspects of life because of the moral judgements it puts on its participants. It’s an interesting point that is constantly and continually echoed in every chapter to the point of excess I would say at times.
Winners and losers
This chapter primarily focused on the introduction of the ideas of meritocracy using college admissions to ivy leagues as an example. It focused on the morals of front back and side doors and the myth of equality of opportunity and the tyranny that merit operates in our lives. It focuses especially and continuously on the moral judgement that being unsuccessful imparts that if you didn’t succeed then it’s your fault your simply didn’t deserve whatever you were striving to achieve.
Great because good a brief moral history of merit
Demonstrated the link between Christian views of merit providence and salvation in the eyes of god in both catholic and Protestant traditions and how they are linked and informed capitalism, the accumulation of wealth and merit. Specifically how Lutheranism traditionally views good work as a sign of salvation not a source of it but how merit has a tendency to warp views like this.
It further goes on to expand this point to health and wealths links to virtue especially in the context of debates about the affordable care act that if people are obese then they deserve to pay more for their healthcare because they deserve it.
The rhetoric of rising
“As far as their talents will take them “
“Through no fault of their own “
These summarise the message of this chapter as concise political messages of what people do and do not deserve and how modern western politics has focused more and more on attempting to provide equality of opportunity through education not of outcome. Specifically believing in class mobility and people’s ability to rise in a meritocracy. Describes the move towards means tested welfare based on what people deserve and what people merit in the eyes of the system. It shows that centre left parties have proposed more and more that education is the greatest solution to inequality and class mobility. Sets the stage for a broken promise of class mobility to result in populist backlash like 2016. As people generally more and more feel that the American dream is broken.
Credentialism: the last acceptable prejudice
This was by far the most interesting chapter in my opinion so far. It describes how more and more governments are made up almost exclusively of people with college degrees and how that makes them less diverse. It further goes on to make the point that further education does not a moral or trustworthy government make and how some or the most effective, moral and beloved governments of the past were not all highly educated. It continues the argument of merit being a double edged sword that makes the successful feel justified and the unsuccessful stigmatised this time specifically when it comes to further education. It argues that credentialism is one of the highest indicators of political leaning across a broad range of countries and how left parties have generally trended towards being more favoured by elites than working class individuals in the last 20-40 years. The entire chapter is essentially dedicated as an arguement against credentialism and that it is a poison to exclude people from decisions and not have perspectives present that represent the views of all people in a democracy.
The most interesting and salient point was about facts opinions and their place in politics. It showed the divide in opinion between democrats and republicans on climate change and showed that the more highly educated in science in each party were further apart in terms of their views than the less educated. The author used this to illustrate the point that the technocratic elite tendency to believe that given all the facts everyone would come to the same obvious conclusion is simply not true. Differences in opinion are and always will be a part of politics and one side believing that given education and everyone coming around to the smart way of doing this that everyone would agree with them is elitist hubris and not conducive to a shared political space. The chapter argues that this failure of technocratic elites to engage with and take seriously the opinions of the less educated is responsible for the populist backlash and is a blunder that needs to be seriously considered and addressed to allow for a reimagining of a politics of common good.
Success ethics
Focuses on decoupling value from merit and different views of how that can be done. Either by just acknowledging they are different, redistributing some of the wealth earned by the luckiest to the less lucky or by decoupling them entirely and further denigrating the notion of economic value to chance location and timing.
The egalitarian view that justice and the system should be based on what people would agree to before each person knew their station is an interesting idea if far too ideal to be used in practice.
The point I think I will take most away from this chapter is the decoupling of merit/talent and value is difficult in a capitalistic society. Inherently individuals in the system will feel like they deserve what they have accrued or produced despite the advantages they may have enjoyed on the way. Trying to normalise for luck or talent or smarts by so doing contributes to the moral judgements that are put onto each group.
The common good / conclusion
Ultimately reinforced some of the beliefs I already had of dignity in work that finance does not contribute to the common good as much as is claimed and the wbsence of belief in one’s own meaning purpose and part in a wider society is poison to a common goal of equality of condition. Neither being equality of opportunity or results but guaranteeing that all people have access to good meaningful well paying work that garner respect from others and contribute to a more full and whole society.
Winners and losers
This chapter primarily focused on the introduction of the ideas of meritocracy using college admissions to ivy leagues as an example. It focused on the morals of front back and side doors and the myth of equality of opportunity and the tyranny that merit operates in our lives. It focuses especially and continuously on the moral judgement that being unsuccessful imparts that if you didn’t succeed then it’s your fault your simply didn’t deserve whatever you were striving to achieve.
Great because good a brief moral history of merit
Demonstrated the link between Christian views of merit providence and salvation in the eyes of god in both catholic and Protestant traditions and how they are linked and informed capitalism, the accumulation of wealth and merit. Specifically how Lutheranism traditionally views good work as a sign of salvation not a source of it but how merit has a tendency to warp views like this.
It further goes on to expand this point to health and wealths links to virtue especially in the context of debates about the affordable care act that if people are obese then they deserve to pay more for their healthcare because they deserve it.
The rhetoric of rising
“As far as their talents will take them “
“Through no fault of their own “
These summarise the message of this chapter as concise political messages of what people do and do not deserve and how modern western politics has focused more and more on attempting to provide equality of opportunity through education not of outcome. Specifically believing in class mobility and people’s ability to rise in a meritocracy. Describes the move towards means tested welfare based on what people deserve and what people merit in the eyes of the system. It shows that centre left parties have proposed more and more that education is the greatest solution to inequality and class mobility. Sets the stage for a broken promise of class mobility to result in populist backlash like 2016. As people generally more and more feel that the American dream is broken.
Credentialism: the last acceptable prejudice
This was by far the most interesting chapter in my opinion so far. It describes how more and more governments are made up almost exclusively of people with college degrees and how that makes them less diverse. It further goes on to make the point that further education does not a moral or trustworthy government make and how some or the most effective, moral and beloved governments of the past were not all highly educated. It continues the argument of merit being a double edged sword that makes the successful feel justified and the unsuccessful stigmatised this time specifically when it comes to further education. It argues that credentialism is one of the highest indicators of political leaning across a broad range of countries and how left parties have generally trended towards being more favoured by elites than working class individuals in the last 20-40 years. The entire chapter is essentially dedicated as an arguement against credentialism and that it is a poison to exclude people from decisions and not have perspectives present that represent the views of all people in a democracy.
The most interesting and salient point was about facts opinions and their place in politics. It showed the divide in opinion between democrats and republicans on climate change and showed that the more highly educated in science in each party were further apart in terms of their views than the less educated. The author used this to illustrate the point that the technocratic elite tendency to believe that given all the facts everyone would come to the same obvious conclusion is simply not true. Differences in opinion are and always will be a part of politics and one side believing that given education and everyone coming around to the smart way of doing this that everyone would agree with them is elitist hubris and not conducive to a shared political space. The chapter argues that this failure of technocratic elites to engage with and take seriously the opinions of the less educated is responsible for the populist backlash and is a blunder that needs to be seriously considered and addressed to allow for a reimagining of a politics of common good.
Success ethics
Focuses on decoupling value from merit and different views of how that can be done. Either by just acknowledging they are different, redistributing some of the wealth earned by the luckiest to the less lucky or by decoupling them entirely and further denigrating the notion of economic value to chance location and timing.
The egalitarian view that justice and the system should be based on what people would agree to before each person knew their station is an interesting idea if far too ideal to be used in practice.
The point I think I will take most away from this chapter is the decoupling of merit/talent and value is difficult in a capitalistic society. Inherently individuals in the system will feel like they deserve what they have accrued or produced despite the advantages they may have enjoyed on the way. Trying to normalise for luck or talent or smarts by so doing contributes to the moral judgements that are put onto each group.
The common good / conclusion
Ultimately reinforced some of the beliefs I already had of dignity in work that finance does not contribute to the common good as much as is claimed and the wbsence of belief in one’s own meaning purpose and part in a wider society is poison to a common goal of equality of condition. Neither being equality of opportunity or results but guaranteeing that all people have access to good meaningful well paying work that garner respect from others and contribute to a more full and whole society.
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
After reading this I have seen “meritocracy” all over the place. I appreciate this book for teaching me about this subject.
In The Tyranny of Merit, Michael Sandel tries diagnose causes behind the discontent and divisiveness we are seeing in Western societies today. For Sandel, it isn't just "an animus against immigrants and racial and ethnic minorities", or "anxiety in the face of globalisation and technological change". Rather, it is a protest against the elites in society and their rhetoric of meritocracy; this rhetoric is seen as self-serving as it positions the elites as deserving of their success, while the less successful are left "disrespected and disempowered" or at best pitied, for their comparative lack of effort and talent. He notes:
"Those who, by dint of effort and talent, prevail in a competitive meritocracy are indebted in ways the competition obscures. As the meritocracy intensifies, the striving so absorbs us that our indebtedness recedes from view. In this way, even a fair meritocracy, one without cheating or bribery or special privileges for the wealthy, induces a mistaken impression - that we have made it on our own. The years of strenuous effort demanded of applicants to elite universities almost forces them to believe that their success is their own doing, and that if they fall short, they have no one to blame but themselves. This is…corrosive of civic sensibilities. For the more we think of ourselves as self-made and self-sufficient, the harder it is to learn gratitude and humility. And without these sentiments, it is hard to care for the common good."
Sandel argues that this middle class anger has not only economic roots, but moral and cultural ones as well. Who is valued in society? Who is able to participate as a full member of society, to be seen to have something valuable to offer to the community, as having the capacity and capability to participate in public discourse? Increasingly, only those with academic credentials and relevant technical and professional expertise. Not the blue collared workers and certainly not the involuntary unemployed.
The meritocratic ethic undermines the sense of solidarity amongst citizens, by drawing a line between the winners and losers. "Among the winners, it generates hubris; amongst the losers, humiliation and resentment". It has "reconfigured the terms of social recognition…by elevat[ing] the prestige of the credentialed, professional classes and depreciat[ing] the contributions of most workers, eroding their social standing and esteem." Hence the term "the tyranny of merit", which leads to "the politics of humiliation".
Related to this, Sandel argues that the meritocratic ethic has "narrowed the civic project", by having us think of the common good mainly in economic terms and boosting GDP, rather than about "cultivating solidarity or deepening the bonds of citizenship". Indeed, rarely do we hear in our political discourse these days lofty ideals about values, citizenship, duty, patriotism and fellowship. Instead we talk about progress, opportunities for all, growth and mobility.
Coupled with the rhetoric of meritocracy is the "rhetoric of rising" - the promise that so long as you work hard, you will rise as far as your talents and aspirations will take you. But what if this is a false promise? What if this rhetoric is "less a promise than a taunt"? That if you were stuck at the bottom, it was because you were less than (rather than the system being rigged against you)? Sandel notes that American higher education is case in point, comparing it to "an elevator in a building that most people enter on the top floor", where "most colleges and universities do less to expand opportunity than to consolidate privilege". Even if a society were successful in promoting mobility for most of its citizens, Sandel points out that it still has a duty "to find ways to enable those who do not rise to flourish in place, and to see themselves as members of a common project".
Sandel, as always, has a thought provoking central thesis and writes accessibly. But I found The Tyranny of Merit to be quite repetitive. It was the same argument presented with slightly different slants in each chapter. The most compelling chapter for me (beyond the opening chapter where Sandel sets out his thesis) was chapter 6 on The Sorting Machine where Sandel lays out some concrete proposals on how to reform American higher education. I also found the contrasting concepts of "distributive justice" and "contributive justice" that Sandel introduced in Chapter 7 on Recognising Work intriguing. Distributive justice focusses on providing "a fairer access to the fruits of economic growth", emphasising our identities as consumers and our access to goods and services. Contributive justice, on the other hand, focusses on our role as producers and creating fairer access to renumeration and recognition (esteem) for our work. As a society, Sandel argues, we must pay attention not only to the well-being of consumers, but to the well-being of producers as well.
Three stars.
"Those who, by dint of effort and talent, prevail in a competitive meritocracy are indebted in ways the competition obscures. As the meritocracy intensifies, the striving so absorbs us that our indebtedness recedes from view. In this way, even a fair meritocracy, one without cheating or bribery or special privileges for the wealthy, induces a mistaken impression - that we have made it on our own. The years of strenuous effort demanded of applicants to elite universities almost forces them to believe that their success is their own doing, and that if they fall short, they have no one to blame but themselves. This is…corrosive of civic sensibilities. For the more we think of ourselves as self-made and self-sufficient, the harder it is to learn gratitude and humility. And without these sentiments, it is hard to care for the common good."
Sandel argues that this middle class anger has not only economic roots, but moral and cultural ones as well. Who is valued in society? Who is able to participate as a full member of society, to be seen to have something valuable to offer to the community, as having the capacity and capability to participate in public discourse? Increasingly, only those with academic credentials and relevant technical and professional expertise. Not the blue collared workers and certainly not the involuntary unemployed.
The meritocratic ethic undermines the sense of solidarity amongst citizens, by drawing a line between the winners and losers. "Among the winners, it generates hubris; amongst the losers, humiliation and resentment". It has "reconfigured the terms of social recognition…by elevat[ing] the prestige of the credentialed, professional classes and depreciat[ing] the contributions of most workers, eroding their social standing and esteem." Hence the term "the tyranny of merit", which leads to "the politics of humiliation".
Related to this, Sandel argues that the meritocratic ethic has "narrowed the civic project", by having us think of the common good mainly in economic terms and boosting GDP, rather than about "cultivating solidarity or deepening the bonds of citizenship". Indeed, rarely do we hear in our political discourse these days lofty ideals about values, citizenship, duty, patriotism and fellowship. Instead we talk about progress, opportunities for all, growth and mobility.
Coupled with the rhetoric of meritocracy is the "rhetoric of rising" - the promise that so long as you work hard, you will rise as far as your talents and aspirations will take you. But what if this is a false promise? What if this rhetoric is "less a promise than a taunt"? That if you were stuck at the bottom, it was because you were less than (rather than the system being rigged against you)? Sandel notes that American higher education is case in point, comparing it to "an elevator in a building that most people enter on the top floor", where "most colleges and universities do less to expand opportunity than to consolidate privilege". Even if a society were successful in promoting mobility for most of its citizens, Sandel points out that it still has a duty "to find ways to enable those who do not rise to flourish in place, and to see themselves as members of a common project".
Sandel, as always, has a thought provoking central thesis and writes accessibly. But I found The Tyranny of Merit to be quite repetitive. It was the same argument presented with slightly different slants in each chapter. The most compelling chapter for me (beyond the opening chapter where Sandel sets out his thesis) was chapter 6 on The Sorting Machine where Sandel lays out some concrete proposals on how to reform American higher education. I also found the contrasting concepts of "distributive justice" and "contributive justice" that Sandel introduced in Chapter 7 on Recognising Work intriguing. Distributive justice focusses on providing "a fairer access to the fruits of economic growth", emphasising our identities as consumers and our access to goods and services. Contributive justice, on the other hand, focusses on our role as producers and creating fairer access to renumeration and recognition (esteem) for our work. As a society, Sandel argues, we must pay attention not only to the well-being of consumers, but to the well-being of producers as well.
Three stars.
medium-paced
some good points but logic is occasionally flawed and extremely repetitive, with the same point mentioned every 10 pages or so before elaborating further on the same idea
Impressive and thought provoking! Learning quite a bit after finishing this book.
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
informative
medium-paced
this was an interesting perspective on our social constructs in the US. some of the authors points i disagreed with and some also made me stop and think and consider a different outcome to the we have created today. i recommend listening to the audiobook for this one