Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.12 AVERAGE
4.12 AVERAGE
challenging
informative
medium-paced
Thought provoking and well written
Finds an issue that the clear solution to would be socialism/communism…. But instead backtracks and offers no real explanation of what it means by “dignity in work” and a systematic approach
I made it just over 50% of the way through this book before deciding to move on from it.
I started reading this with the intention of gaining a vocabulary to talk about why diverse and equal opportunity hiring and promotion practices are important in my workplace, but so far the book has been focused on a more macro level about the recent history and rising tensions around inequality in the US and UK, the death of the American dream, and how generational wealth and privilege undermines the idea of a true meritocracy.
All of those ideas are interesting, but I haven't really learned any new insights here if you have been following the news. There's lots of recounting of Trump's presidential run, Brexit, the college admission scandals, etc.
Perhaps it gets more into analysis later, but I have too many other books in my backlog to bother sucking with it to find out.
I started reading this with the intention of gaining a vocabulary to talk about why diverse and equal opportunity hiring and promotion practices are important in my workplace, but so far the book has been focused on a more macro level about the recent history and rising tensions around inequality in the US and UK, the death of the American dream, and how generational wealth and privilege undermines the idea of a true meritocracy.
All of those ideas are interesting, but I haven't really learned any new insights here if you have been following the news. There's lots of recounting of Trump's presidential run, Brexit, the college admission scandals, etc.
Perhaps it gets more into analysis later, but I have too many other books in my backlog to bother sucking with it to find out.
Eventually, it seems inevitable that the ongoing critique of all traditional systems of hierarchy and power in our society will arrive at the basic point of Sandel's book: that the fundamental "legitimate" justification of inequality in our society - namely meritocracy - not only historically *hasn't* been "truly" meritocratic (a point with which the left would already agree) but that its very conceptual existence is at best absurd and at worst illegitimate. In The Tyranny of Merit, Sandel wonders why - with so much emphasis on making sure that all the "barriers" to "true" meritocracy are torn down (race, gender, class etc.) we don't realize that meritocracy itself is the problem - that the idea that anyone can rise according to his or her own merits will always, inevitably, and by its very nature, leave those who, for whatever, reason, cannot or do not "rise to their full potential" in a position of inferiority which they will naturally internalize to be their own fault (not "smart" enough, didn't work "hard" enough etc). Mobilizing a somewhat questionable neo-Weberian intellectual history that links this tendency back to Calvinism (and insists this is both extremely American and also part of the Western world in ways that are never clearly articulated), Sandel argues that modern liberals have become the forefront of "educated elitism" in a global age. All problems essentially resolvable through "education" and "smart technology," the "ignorant" and "uneducated" who look warily at the reign of credentialed experts become perhaps the only remaining group who are fair game for mockery (Florida Man!). His view of the 2016 election, and similar "confounding" defeats of the "enlightened" in Europe seems very simplistic (and almost totally leaves out racism and sexism which surely cannot be so easily dismissed here), yet surely it is true that much of Trump's win in 2016 can be explained by a widespread resentment by the non-college-educated of their new overlords. As Sandel says at one point in the book, in a way that really does remind me of the Trump voters I've met here, " For them, the rhetoric of rising [touted by Clinton] was more insulting than inspiring. This is not because they rejected meritocratic beliefs. To the contrary: They embraced meritocracy, but believed it described the way things already worked. They did not see it as an unfinished project requiring further government action to dismantle barriers to achievement. This is partly because they feared such intervention would favor ethnic and racial minorities, thus violating rather than vindicating meritocracy as they saw it. But it is also because, having worked hard to achieve a modicum of success, they had accepted the harsh verdict of the market in their own case, and were invested in it, morally and psychologically."
As I guess a meritocrat myself, it's with some ambivalence that I contemplate Sandel's call to end this elitism based on education in favor of a nebulous restoration of the "dignity of work." I'm not certain in our age of advanced mechanization and probable oncoming human obscolence in the face of AI, that this is really a possibility. I'm also not certain what society would look like in its place, and Sandel's quasi-nostalgia for the reign of aristocracy doesn't really sound great (but at least, he says, their social inferiors didn't feel personal responsibility for their inferiority!). As I see it, the truth is that agricultural/industrial society relies on hierarchy. Meritocracy was a convenient compromise hated the in the Enlightenment. Can we find something to replace it that does not replicated the even more absurd legitimations of the past?
So much of Sandel's argument focuses on what he's seen in his college classrooms - students who always see themselves of "deserving" their place even as they (sometimes) have battled structural forces inclined to keep them down. But I'm wondering why Sandel, whose words certainly take on added weight because he teaches at Harvard, might consider stepping aside an teaching at a community college. This is not merely an ad hominem argument, but rather a deep question - if he did teach a 5-5 or a 6-6 teaching load, would he have the leisure to write this book? I'm guessing probably not. So in very concrete ways I think the book itself is the product of complicity in this system and could not be written without it.
As I guess a meritocrat myself, it's with some ambivalence that I contemplate Sandel's call to end this elitism based on education in favor of a nebulous restoration of the "dignity of work." I'm not certain in our age of advanced mechanization and probable oncoming human obscolence in the face of AI, that this is really a possibility. I'm also not certain what society would look like in its place, and Sandel's quasi-nostalgia for the reign of aristocracy doesn't really sound great (but at least, he says, their social inferiors didn't feel personal responsibility for their inferiority!). As I see it, the truth is that agricultural/industrial society relies on hierarchy. Meritocracy was a convenient compromise hated the in the Enlightenment. Can we find something to replace it that does not replicated the even more absurd legitimations of the past?
So much of Sandel's argument focuses on what he's seen in his college classrooms - students who always see themselves of "deserving" their place even as they (sometimes) have battled structural forces inclined to keep them down. But I'm wondering why Sandel, whose words certainly take on added weight because he teaches at Harvard, might consider stepping aside an teaching at a community college. This is not merely an ad hominem argument, but rather a deep question - if he did teach a 5-5 or a 6-6 teaching load, would he have the leisure to write this book? I'm guessing probably not. So in very concrete ways I think the book itself is the product of complicity in this system and could not be written without it.
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Exceedingly tedious and dull. This could have been shortened into about 50 pages. A couple of main important points, and discard the rest.
While Sandel presents a pressing and little-discussed aspect of the American dream, he does so in as many words as possible. This book is fascinating and important, but it could have been condensed into a much briefer essay.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Great book which touches on actionable ways to combat populism and get people back into a common society project. Especially good for people in a university bubble.
reflective
fast-paced
informative
slow-paced