Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.12 AVERAGE
4.12 AVERAGE
One of my new favorites. It puts into words a lot of ideas that have been at the back of my mind but that people never really address in normal political conversations about equality.
The argument against meritocracy is fairly new to me, and I admit to being among the target audience of this book who assumed that such a system, if applied fairly and effectively, would be an unadulterated good thing. The case made by Sandel and others has convinced me otherwise, but I'm afraid the proposed alternatives seem unclear, undesirable, or both.
To begin with, I'm on board with the fact the distinction between qualities we have control over and those that we don't is largely artificial - the abilities we have that result in us "meriting" success are dependent on many factors that are not our doing. I would in fact go further and say that no one actually "deserves" anything that happens, good or bad, and every outcome is ultimately the result of chance. But at some point we have to attribute some individual responsibility to people in order to have a functional society, even if we know it's a convenient fiction.
Anyway... this is basically a well-written book, but it's significantly repetitive, especially in the first two thirds or so. The sentiment that "The more we view ourselves as self-made and self-sufficient, the less likely we are to care for the fate of those less fortunate than ourselves" (p. 59) is paraphrased on multiple occasions. Likewise the recitation of the history of market-based policies of Thatcher and Reagan, then subsequently Blair and Clinton (p. 20, p. 63).
Sandel also has a tendency to overanalyze the phrases used by politicians - while superficially interesting, the focus on language is perhaps not as insightful as he seems to think it is. Counting the number of times that Kennedy or Obama used particular terminology is more an evaluation of persuasive speechwriting than meaningful philosophy. For example, the phrase "the right side of history" is criticized and ultimately dismissed by saying that "the tyrant Bashar al-Assad survived a brutal civil war, and in this sense was on the right side of history. But this does not mean that his regime is morally defensible." (p. 53). No, of course not. The phrase obviously represents not only the speaker's belief about their views being moral but also their optimism that what is moral will win out in the end. If it doesn't turn out that way, it could still be that they were correct about the former belief but wrong about the latter.
Sandel also offers an extended criticism of the (primarily US) educational system, and there is undoubtedly some validity to the critique. However, he seems to flirt with outright disparagement of education, and that seems entirely wrong to me. Sure, one can be smart without being well-educated, and it's certainly wrong to consider the less educated to be less worthy or even less capable. However, more education at least doesn't hurt, whether one was smart to begin with or not. As to the criticism that elites "consider low educational achievement to represent a failure of individual effort", again I would say this is strictly valid, since there is technically no such thing as free will, and thus no one is actually responsible for anything. But we have to draw the line somewhere on what we hold people responsible for, and educational attainment is at least somewhat under a person's control, compared to, say, skin color, or economic status.
In keeping with the thinly veiled disparagement of education, Sandel criticizes the "egalitarian liberals" who "valorize 'the smart' and denigrate 'the dumb'" (p. 151) - as if this is somehow wrong. Sorry, but it's absolutely correct to "valorize the smart", unless we want to be governed by idiots. Of course we can refrain from denigrating the dumb, for reasons of basic decency, but let's not go so far as to valorize stupidity. For example, much is made of the fact that "Working-class men without a college degree voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump" in 2016 - this is a valid point, similar to the observations made by others, including Andrew Yang. However, even if the less educated had legitimate grievances against liberals and their policies, voting for a selfish, irrational, bullying clown who doesn't actually care about their concerns is an objectively stupid thing to do - and being economically disadvantaged by globalization is no excuse for being obnoxious jerks toward the rest of us.
As far as Sandel's suggested solutions, some points are certainly worth exploring, for example, introducing a "lottery of the qualified" (p 184) for college admissions rather than rewarding "legacy" applicants or wealthy donors or using arbitrary criteria to fill the limited spots. And it's absolutely true that becoming a "plumber or electrician or dental hygienist should be respected as a valuable contribution to the common good, not regarded as a consolation prize for those who lack the SAT scores or financial means to make it to the Ivy League." (p. 191) Suggestions for updated tax policies (p. 219) are also promising.
However, toward the end of the book there is excessive focus on restoring the so-called "dignity of work", and going down this path is the wrong approach, in my opinion. I'm becoming more and more convinced that work is a prime example of making a virtue of necessity, and is not something to be valued for its own sake. Sandel refers to the arguments of Hegel and Durkheim in asserting that "work, at its best, is a socially integrating activity, an arena of recognition, a way of honoring our obligation to contribute to the common good." (p. 211) But if the "dignity of work" assumes that the work contributes to the common good, it has to be something that legitimately makes the world a better place. So the criticism of casino magnates and increasing the speed of financial transactions is entirely valid. But nostalgia for occupations such as farming or factory work that no longer scale in the global economy is not. No one "deserves" to have to work at all, and yet most of us must, many in mind-numbing or literally back-breaking occupations with low pay and little chance to rise out of poverty. There is no dignity here - if we want to seriously separate a person's worth from what they can contribute by their labor - which we absolutely should - we need to build a system that frees people from the necessity of work altogether, not make silly efforts to imbue such torture with "dignity".
Sandel's concluding goal is a good one: "a broad equality of condition that enables those who do not achieve great wealth or prestigious positions to live lives of decency and dignity" - but the ideas for exactly how to accomplish this are lacking here.
To begin with, I'm on board with the fact the distinction between qualities we have control over and those that we don't is largely artificial - the abilities we have that result in us "meriting" success are dependent on many factors that are not our doing. I would in fact go further and say that no one actually "deserves" anything that happens, good or bad, and every outcome is ultimately the result of chance. But at some point we have to attribute some individual responsibility to people in order to have a functional society, even if we know it's a convenient fiction.
Anyway... this is basically a well-written book, but it's significantly repetitive, especially in the first two thirds or so. The sentiment that "The more we view ourselves as self-made and self-sufficient, the less likely we are to care for the fate of those less fortunate than ourselves" (p. 59) is paraphrased on multiple occasions. Likewise the recitation of the history of market-based policies of Thatcher and Reagan, then subsequently Blair and Clinton (p. 20, p. 63).
Sandel also has a tendency to overanalyze the phrases used by politicians - while superficially interesting, the focus on language is perhaps not as insightful as he seems to think it is. Counting the number of times that Kennedy or Obama used particular terminology is more an evaluation of persuasive speechwriting than meaningful philosophy. For example, the phrase "the right side of history" is criticized and ultimately dismissed by saying that "the tyrant Bashar al-Assad survived a brutal civil war, and in this sense was on the right side of history. But this does not mean that his regime is morally defensible." (p. 53). No, of course not. The phrase obviously represents not only the speaker's belief about their views being moral but also their optimism that what is moral will win out in the end. If it doesn't turn out that way, it could still be that they were correct about the former belief but wrong about the latter.
Sandel also offers an extended criticism of the (primarily US) educational system, and there is undoubtedly some validity to the critique. However, he seems to flirt with outright disparagement of education, and that seems entirely wrong to me. Sure, one can be smart without being well-educated, and it's certainly wrong to consider the less educated to be less worthy or even less capable. However, more education at least doesn't hurt, whether one was smart to begin with or not. As to the criticism that elites "consider low educational achievement to represent a failure of individual effort", again I would say this is strictly valid, since there is technically no such thing as free will, and thus no one is actually responsible for anything. But we have to draw the line somewhere on what we hold people responsible for, and educational attainment is at least somewhat under a person's control, compared to, say, skin color, or economic status.
In keeping with the thinly veiled disparagement of education, Sandel criticizes the "egalitarian liberals" who "valorize 'the smart' and denigrate 'the dumb'" (p. 151) - as if this is somehow wrong. Sorry, but it's absolutely correct to "valorize the smart", unless we want to be governed by idiots. Of course we can refrain from denigrating the dumb, for reasons of basic decency, but let's not go so far as to valorize stupidity. For example, much is made of the fact that "Working-class men without a college degree voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump" in 2016 - this is a valid point, similar to the observations made by others, including Andrew Yang. However, even if the less educated had legitimate grievances against liberals and their policies, voting for a selfish, irrational, bullying clown who doesn't actually care about their concerns is an objectively stupid thing to do - and being economically disadvantaged by globalization is no excuse for being obnoxious jerks toward the rest of us.
As far as Sandel's suggested solutions, some points are certainly worth exploring, for example, introducing a "lottery of the qualified" (p 184) for college admissions rather than rewarding "legacy" applicants or wealthy donors or using arbitrary criteria to fill the limited spots. And it's absolutely true that becoming a "plumber or electrician or dental hygienist should be respected as a valuable contribution to the common good, not regarded as a consolation prize for those who lack the SAT scores or financial means to make it to the Ivy League." (p. 191) Suggestions for updated tax policies (p. 219) are also promising.
However, toward the end of the book there is excessive focus on restoring the so-called "dignity of work", and going down this path is the wrong approach, in my opinion. I'm becoming more and more convinced that work is a prime example of making a virtue of necessity, and is not something to be valued for its own sake. Sandel refers to the arguments of Hegel and Durkheim in asserting that "work, at its best, is a socially integrating activity, an arena of recognition, a way of honoring our obligation to contribute to the common good." (p. 211) But if the "dignity of work" assumes that the work contributes to the common good, it has to be something that legitimately makes the world a better place. So the criticism of casino magnates and increasing the speed of financial transactions is entirely valid. But nostalgia for occupations such as farming or factory work that no longer scale in the global economy is not. No one "deserves" to have to work at all, and yet most of us must, many in mind-numbing or literally back-breaking occupations with low pay and little chance to rise out of poverty. There is no dignity here - if we want to seriously separate a person's worth from what they can contribute by their labor - which we absolutely should - we need to build a system that frees people from the necessity of work altogether, not make silly efforts to imbue such torture with "dignity".
Sandel's concluding goal is a good one: "a broad equality of condition that enables those who do not achieve great wealth or prestigious positions to live lives of decency and dignity" - but the ideas for exactly how to accomplish this are lacking here.
Some excellent arguments to reflect upon and the entirety of the content was thought provoking.
My new metric for a book: how many pages should it have been? This was some 270 pages but should've been 40. In fact, listening to one of Sandel's many interviews will do you more good than reading this.
Pros:
- The basic premise is important and worthy of an excursion.
- I agree with most of the descriptive claims of the book - as most would
- Some of the stats are interesting
Cons:
- EXTREMELY repetitive. I've read some phrases so many times I wanted to put the book down every time I read them anew ("to the best of their ability")
- I really, really don't understand how politicians' usage of words can be so central to your argument that you regurgitate Obama's and Trump's word counts ad nauseum. Sure, they tell you "something" but really? The prescriptive - or solutions-oriented- section of this book was about 30 pages. I believe the same amount of pages to have been wasted on "Obama had used the phrase 100 times over his career" references.
- Tons of US-based statistics, which are notoriously deceptive. You could elicit an entirely different set of responses on any political issue based merely on how you ask the question. Statistics can be useful. However, for a philosophy professor of his rank, I'd have expected an argument built on more than a few statistics and ramblings about word counts with the occasional mention of theory (e.g. Rawls).
- In general, VERY US-centered. Sure, it's the author's area of expertise I presume but apart from a few exceptions, all stats were taken from US sources, all politicians' quotes (and most thinkers') were US American.
- This is just a description of the world, really. A 180-page description. No analysis, barely any synthesis, and very, very few prescriptions. Surprisingly, there's very little philosophical exploration as well.
In summary, this whole book reminds me of my undergrad professor explaining to me how a bachelor's thesis differs from a master's thesis. A bachelor thesis merely needs to describe, accurately. A master's thesis needs to do more than that. To me, this is a bachelor's thesis. A master's thesis at best and certainly nothing worthy of a Ph.D.
Pros:
- The basic premise is important and worthy of an excursion.
- I agree with most of the descriptive claims of the book - as most would
- Some of the stats are interesting
Cons:
- EXTREMELY repetitive. I've read some phrases so many times I wanted to put the book down every time I read them anew ("to the best of their ability")
- I really, really don't understand how politicians' usage of words can be so central to your argument that you regurgitate Obama's and Trump's word counts ad nauseum. Sure, they tell you "something" but really? The prescriptive - or solutions-oriented- section of this book was about 30 pages. I believe the same amount of pages to have been wasted on "Obama had used the phrase 100 times over his career" references.
- Tons of US-based statistics, which are notoriously deceptive. You could elicit an entirely different set of responses on any political issue based merely on how you ask the question. Statistics can be useful. However, for a philosophy professor of his rank, I'd have expected an argument built on more than a few statistics and ramblings about word counts with the occasional mention of theory (e.g. Rawls).
- In general, VERY US-centered. Sure, it's the author's area of expertise I presume but apart from a few exceptions, all stats were taken from US sources, all politicians' quotes (and most thinkers') were US American.
- This is just a description of the world, really. A 180-page description. No analysis, barely any synthesis, and very, very few prescriptions. Surprisingly, there's very little philosophical exploration as well.
In summary, this whole book reminds me of my undergrad professor explaining to me how a bachelor's thesis differs from a master's thesis. A bachelor thesis merely needs to describe, accurately. A master's thesis needs to do more than that. To me, this is a bachelor's thesis. A master's thesis at best and certainly nothing worthy of a Ph.D.
TW: suicide
Goed boek. Ik heb er veel van geleerd, maar het heeft voor mij ook gewoon dingen bevestigd. Belangrijkste daarvan is begrijpen waarom mensen uit de werkende klasse (extreem-)rechts stemmen. Het bevestigde voor mij dat we meer waardering moeten leren hebben voor niet alleen zorgmedewerkers, docenten, en andere vitale beroepen, maar ook voor loonwerkers, hoveniers, winkelmedewerkers, en andere mensen die tot de onderlaag van de samenleving behoren als het gaat om salaris. Het is tegenwoordig zo dat je mening er minder toe doet als je niet op het hbo of de uni hebt gezeten. Dat leidt tot wanhoop, wat in veel gevallen zelfs kan leiden tot zelfmoord, zowel in directe zin of als gevolg van drugsmisbruik. Daarom moeten we staan voor een samenleving waar waardevolle beroepen waardering krijgen (zoals in de zorg, onderwijs, bouw, plantaardige landbouw etc) en niet-waardevolle beroepen dat niet krijgen (zoals bankier, investeerder, flitshandelaar of bitcoinminer). Dat zou nog eens mooi zijn!
Goed boek. Ik heb er veel van geleerd, maar het heeft voor mij ook gewoon dingen bevestigd. Belangrijkste daarvan is begrijpen waarom mensen uit de werkende klasse (extreem-)rechts stemmen. Het bevestigde voor mij dat we meer waardering moeten leren hebben voor niet alleen zorgmedewerkers, docenten, en andere vitale beroepen, maar ook voor loonwerkers, hoveniers, winkelmedewerkers, en andere mensen die tot de onderlaag van de samenleving behoren als het gaat om salaris. Het is tegenwoordig zo dat je mening er minder toe doet als je niet op het hbo of de uni hebt gezeten. Dat leidt tot wanhoop, wat in veel gevallen zelfs kan leiden tot zelfmoord, zowel in directe zin of als gevolg van drugsmisbruik. Daarom moeten we staan voor een samenleving waar waardevolle beroepen waardering krijgen (zoals in de zorg, onderwijs, bouw, plantaardige landbouw etc) en niet-waardevolle beroepen dat niet krijgen (zoals bankier, investeerder, flitshandelaar of bitcoinminer). Dat zou nog eens mooi zijn!
One of the most thought provoking books I've read all year. I feel bad for some of the other books that I read around the same time as this one, because they have just been overshadowed by this one.
Where to start... why is it that in both the UK and US, it used to be (in the 70s and 80s) that those who were more highly educated tended to vote Conservative and Republican... but then this evened out around the millennium and now has completed reversed, with those with higher education degrees overwhelmingly supporting Democrats and Labour? Why is it that those from less-educated backgrounds are turning more and more to right-wing populist parties around the world?
The Tyranny of Merit beautifully asks not just whether a meritocracy is possible to achieve, but even whether we'd want that at all. In an autocracy, there is no social mobility, but at least people don't believe that they 'deserve' to be where they are by anything they have done. Whereas, in a meritocracy those on the 'bottom' have both the double misfortune of not having access to success, but also having no one to blame but themselves for their lack of it.
There were chapters in the book that completely changed how I think about the importance of higher education - and how it's far from always being a force for good in the world - and how this in itself has become more and more of a political issue.
Just so many interesting thoughts and reflections following this book. 100% recommend to anyone interesting in sociology, politics, education. I'll definitely read again in the future.
Where to start... why is it that in both the UK and US, it used to be (in the 70s and 80s) that those who were more highly educated tended to vote Conservative and Republican... but then this evened out around the millennium and now has completed reversed, with those with higher education degrees overwhelmingly supporting Democrats and Labour? Why is it that those from less-educated backgrounds are turning more and more to right-wing populist parties around the world?
The Tyranny of Merit beautifully asks not just whether a meritocracy is possible to achieve, but even whether we'd want that at all. In an autocracy, there is no social mobility, but at least people don't believe that they 'deserve' to be where they are by anything they have done. Whereas, in a meritocracy those on the 'bottom' have both the double misfortune of not having access to success, but also having no one to blame but themselves for their lack of it.
There were chapters in the book that completely changed how I think about the importance of higher education - and how it's far from always being a force for good in the world - and how this in itself has become more and more of a political issue.
Just so many interesting thoughts and reflections following this book. 100% recommend to anyone interesting in sociology, politics, education. I'll definitely read again in the future.
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
informative
slow-paced