You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.12 AVERAGE
4.12 AVERAGE
“There but for the grace of god, the accident of birth, the mystery of fate, go I.”
A powerful deliberation on the way we think about what we deserve.
This book challenges several related, but misguided assumptions embedded in one of the more dominant strains of the American Dream, and loosely related to something akin to providentialism:
1. That people largely get what they deserve in terms of their success (that if someone studies hard or works hard the success they get is earned and right).
2. That the free market ends up paying people what they deserve (the idea that software developers get paid more because they are more valuable to society than, say, a neighborhood barber who makes a tenth of what the developer might).
3. That a fair society is synonymous with a meritocratic society, and that we should be aiming towards the ideal of a true meritocracy as our guiding star.
Each of these assumptions may feel benign on their surface, and that’s part of why they continue to stick. Sandel breaks down how over the last 40 years we’ve shifted economically and culturally towards upper-education sorting systems and globally-shifted jobs continuing to advantage the elite. He makes compelling arguments about how these factors and the above assumptions have undermined our solidarity with one another, reduced the dignity of life for many, and set up a neo-aristocracy that allows the privileged to pass on privilege under the guise of earned success.
Towards the end, Sandel proposes a few interesting policy ideas and encourages us to think more deeply about reaching “equality of condition” or a “practical equality” as opposed to “equality of opportunity” situated inside of a meritocracy. Then he sings once more his usual refrain, something roughly to the effect of, “We need more deliberate, democratic discourse about what we want to honor as a society. We will not agree, of course,” he acknowledges, “but we will not reach a world where we provide for the common good without having more of this sort of discourse.”
I thought the section in chapter 2 discussing the Biblical roots of our western meritocracy and how they continue to manifest in the prosperity gospel and America generally to be rather powerful. I had forgotten St. Augustine was so aligned with Martin Luther in their rejection of merit and embrace of grace. Christianity seems to have, in large part, reversed course again...
The sections on Obama’s susceptibility to technocrats and his comments in line with the rhetoric of rising were also elucidating—not in that they throw shade on the best president I’ve ever had, but that they show how even our best president largely subscribes to the ideal of a meritocracy.
The most tender notes of this philosophical composition are heard when Sandel address that dark side of a true meritocracy (which it should be reiterated, America today is NOT): What happens to those who, even with roughly equal opportunities, do not succeed? Meritocracy does not solve for unequal conditions, rather it justifies them. Sandel, like John Rawls before him, asks us to consider how we build a society that allows for dignity in life even if you don’t succeed by dint of hard work or a brain/body that is highly valued by your time and space's particular markets?
Took a lot of notes here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19pN-mDBJa3tbfg1pSqvz3ajIGI8doWzDNEdHOgbZqeE/edit?usp=sharing
A powerful deliberation on the way we think about what we deserve.
This book challenges several related, but misguided assumptions embedded in one of the more dominant strains of the American Dream, and loosely related to something akin to providentialism:
1. That people largely get what they deserve in terms of their success (that if someone studies hard or works hard the success they get is earned and right).
2. That the free market ends up paying people what they deserve (the idea that software developers get paid more because they are more valuable to society than, say, a neighborhood barber who makes a tenth of what the developer might).
3. That a fair society is synonymous with a meritocratic society, and that we should be aiming towards the ideal of a true meritocracy as our guiding star.
Each of these assumptions may feel benign on their surface, and that’s part of why they continue to stick. Sandel breaks down how over the last 40 years we’ve shifted economically and culturally towards upper-education sorting systems and globally-shifted jobs continuing to advantage the elite. He makes compelling arguments about how these factors and the above assumptions have undermined our solidarity with one another, reduced the dignity of life for many, and set up a neo-aristocracy that allows the privileged to pass on privilege under the guise of earned success.
Towards the end, Sandel proposes a few interesting policy ideas and encourages us to think more deeply about reaching “equality of condition” or a “practical equality” as opposed to “equality of opportunity” situated inside of a meritocracy. Then he sings once more his usual refrain, something roughly to the effect of, “We need more deliberate, democratic discourse about what we want to honor as a society. We will not agree, of course,” he acknowledges, “but we will not reach a world where we provide for the common good without having more of this sort of discourse.”
I thought the section in chapter 2 discussing the Biblical roots of our western meritocracy and how they continue to manifest in the prosperity gospel and America generally to be rather powerful. I had forgotten St. Augustine was so aligned with Martin Luther in their rejection of merit and embrace of grace. Christianity seems to have, in large part, reversed course again...
The sections on Obama’s susceptibility to technocrats and his comments in line with the rhetoric of rising were also elucidating—not in that they throw shade on the best president I’ve ever had, but that they show how even our best president largely subscribes to the ideal of a meritocracy.
The most tender notes of this philosophical composition are heard when Sandel address that dark side of a true meritocracy (which it should be reiterated, America today is NOT): What happens to those who, even with roughly equal opportunities, do not succeed? Meritocracy does not solve for unequal conditions, rather it justifies them. Sandel, like John Rawls before him, asks us to consider how we build a society that allows for dignity in life even if you don’t succeed by dint of hard work or a brain/body that is highly valued by your time and space's particular markets?
Took a lot of notes here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19pN-mDBJa3tbfg1pSqvz3ajIGI8doWzDNEdHOgbZqeE/edit?usp=sharing
The concept and conclusions of the book are interesting but the amount of repetition threw me off a bit.
I always had this idea in my mind that rewarding people based on merit isn't actually fair. Sandel just came and wrote a whole book about it and I loved it.
The book starts with how faulty our system is in terms of choosing people based on Merit. Not all skilled or hard-working people have the same chance to succeed. The second part of the book discusses how even if we managed to live in an ideal world, where chances would be equal, meritocracy would basically reward the people with the best genetics. The final third of the book tries to find solutions to this problem and how to address it in a realistic way.
The book is written by Michael Sandel, the author of probably the best non-fiction book I have read; Justice. This feels like another idea to add to that but expanded into a full book. You will not find the same breadth of topics here as in Justice, but it's also not a long read.
The book starts with how faulty our system is in terms of choosing people based on Merit. Not all skilled or hard-working people have the same chance to succeed. The second part of the book discusses how even if we managed to live in an ideal world, where chances would be equal, meritocracy would basically reward the people with the best genetics. The final third of the book tries to find solutions to this problem and how to address it in a realistic way.
The book is written by Michael Sandel, the author of probably the best non-fiction book I have read; Justice. This feels like another idea to add to that but expanded into a full book. You will not find the same breadth of topics here as in Justice, but it's also not a long read.
informative
reflective
medium-paced
Sandel presents a compelling argument about the problematic nature of meritocracy and the often-unjust moral judgments made about highly successful individuals. With the current state of the world and the actions of certain wealthy and unsuccessful individuals exacerbating global issues, the book's central points are particularly relevant.
In The Tyranny of Merit, Sandel strongly critiques meritocracy, technocracy, neoliberalism, credentialism, rugged individualism (the discourse of autonomy and self-reliance), free-markets and late-stage capitalism, and the modern Western aristocracy. Which, to be entirely honest, is pretty great. But frankly, it’s pretty easy to point out these problems at this point. Still, he ably links these all together into a web of issues that result in political factionalism, aggrievement politics, the rise of right-wings populism, the visible failures of a corporatized brand of “progressivism”, and the inability of modern political systems to address the growing disillusionment of the working-class. It’s a pretty good take down of the systems that have entrenched and reinforced an increasingly entitled and out of touch class of political and economic elites.
So Sandel does a nice job of sticking it to those in power and explaining how everyone is to blame. Cool. But that sort of begs the question: Does he offer solutions to ameliorate these growing disparities? And the answer is… kind of? He has some interesting ideas like reimagining tax systems that focus less on consumer or income taxes and aim more for taxes on things that contribute less to the real economy and social good—like a financial transaction tax. The pretty standard “obvious if you think about it even a little bit” sort of wealth redistribution ideas. He also suggests that, “We need to rethink the role of universities as arbiters of opportunity,” which, as someone who works in higher education, I couldn’t possibly agree with more. Some of his other ideas, though, don’t seem as though they would actually fix problems. For instance, he suggests admission to elite universities (like Harvard) could be by lottery for qualified students—and discusses ways that the lottery could be gamed in order to preserve issues related to diversity or other institutional concerns (like luring in wealthy donors). And this just seems… unrealistic? Like, it’s obvious that these schools don’t have objective or open admission criteria that grant equitable access to all potential students now and that they are really just self-replicating systems of privilege—but I’m not convinced that introducing an even more random luck element is the fix higher ed needs. But I also don’t have any alternative solutions, so.
Besides his not-quite-fixes, another critique of the book is Sandel’s consistent both-sidesism. He’s not wrong that the center-left abandoned class loyalties and enabled neoliberal capitalist exploitation for their own power while adopting and expanding Reagan and Thatcher’s brand of meritorious individualism and entrenching technocracy and credentialism as part of their platforms in Western democracies. And he’s not wrong that the center-right has drifted further and further right, shifting the Overton window and enabling the rise of strongman politics and neofascism the world over. But. There is a weird amount of blame that he places on the political aristocracy for driving the disaffected working class toward far right populism because they feel as though they’re being made fun of or looked down on by the elitist credentialed intelligentsia. Look, I don’t want to defend the political and economic powers that be. Sure, maybe white, uncredentialed, working-class males in America voted for Trump because they have been accused of being unintelligent or racist or whatever over the decades by the Clintons and Obamas of the world and they’re just leaning into it. Or… maybe Trump represents their beliefs? Maybe Trump empowers the ideas they hold that have been informed by the contexts of their cultural and historical pasts and socioeconomic present (along with being informed by concerted efforts from corporate interests, dark money, and propaganda networks)?
I’m just saying, let people have some agency and maybe stop making apologies for disaffected white folks? Center-left politicians (if we even want to call them that) in America and Canada and the UK and on and on have a number of sins that we can (and should!) critique without necessarily laying the blame for the rise of populism on the right at their feet. Are both sides to blame for the state of the world and the stagnation of the working-class over the last 40 years? Yes. Of course. But are they equally to blame for the world as we see it today? No. And we don’t have to try to blunt our critiques of contemporary “progressivism” with the tired “right wing populism is the fault of the elitist lefties, actually!” argument. The establishment left has problems enough as it is and the adoption of merit discourse is one of them.
But at the end of the day, Sandel is throwing enough shade at everyone that it’s obvious that every political persuasion has to bear some of the responsibility for all of the inequities he’s discussing. From an American perspective, lobbing volleys at Reagan, the Bushes, the Clintons, Obama, and Trump is oddly satisfying. And he does make some attempts at recommending how Western societies may consider course correcting 40 (400?) years of political trauma… but they’re largely pie in the sky ideas. Even the good ones. Sandel might just as well have said, “burn it all down and try again!” Which, fair enough. Climate change may do that for us anyway.
But I think the real value here is in recognizing the dangers of the discourse of merit and to try and work to intentionally change that conversation. Sandel seems to argue that it is not enough to fight for equality of opportunity, but that we must recognize that the end goal should be equality of condition—and that this requires not just a redistribution of wealth, but a redistribution of esteem. An escape from the emphasis on self-reliance and bootstraps and a focus on civic virtue and community. And maybe that’s enough?
At the very least, it’s a well-written and engaging book that gives the reader something to think about.
So. I really liked it, even with all of its problems. I’d recommend giving this one a read.
So Sandel does a nice job of sticking it to those in power and explaining how everyone is to blame. Cool. But that sort of begs the question: Does he offer solutions to ameliorate these growing disparities? And the answer is… kind of? He has some interesting ideas like reimagining tax systems that focus less on consumer or income taxes and aim more for taxes on things that contribute less to the real economy and social good—like a financial transaction tax. The pretty standard “obvious if you think about it even a little bit” sort of wealth redistribution ideas. He also suggests that, “We need to rethink the role of universities as arbiters of opportunity,” which, as someone who works in higher education, I couldn’t possibly agree with more. Some of his other ideas, though, don’t seem as though they would actually fix problems. For instance, he suggests admission to elite universities (like Harvard) could be by lottery for qualified students—and discusses ways that the lottery could be gamed in order to preserve issues related to diversity or other institutional concerns (like luring in wealthy donors). And this just seems… unrealistic? Like, it’s obvious that these schools don’t have objective or open admission criteria that grant equitable access to all potential students now and that they are really just self-replicating systems of privilege—but I’m not convinced that introducing an even more random luck element is the fix higher ed needs. But I also don’t have any alternative solutions, so.
Besides his not-quite-fixes, another critique of the book is Sandel’s consistent both-sidesism. He’s not wrong that the center-left abandoned class loyalties and enabled neoliberal capitalist exploitation for their own power while adopting and expanding Reagan and Thatcher’s brand of meritorious individualism and entrenching technocracy and credentialism as part of their platforms in Western democracies. And he’s not wrong that the center-right has drifted further and further right, shifting the Overton window and enabling the rise of strongman politics and neofascism the world over. But. There is a weird amount of blame that he places on the political aristocracy for driving the disaffected working class toward far right populism because they feel as though they’re being made fun of or looked down on by the elitist credentialed intelligentsia. Look, I don’t want to defend the political and economic powers that be. Sure, maybe white, uncredentialed, working-class males in America voted for Trump because they have been accused of being unintelligent or racist or whatever over the decades by the Clintons and Obamas of the world and they’re just leaning into it. Or… maybe Trump represents their beliefs? Maybe Trump empowers the ideas they hold that have been informed by the contexts of their cultural and historical pasts and socioeconomic present (along with being informed by concerted efforts from corporate interests, dark money, and propaganda networks)?
I’m just saying, let people have some agency and maybe stop making apologies for disaffected white folks? Center-left politicians (if we even want to call them that) in America and Canada and the UK and on and on have a number of sins that we can (and should!) critique without necessarily laying the blame for the rise of populism on the right at their feet. Are both sides to blame for the state of the world and the stagnation of the working-class over the last 40 years? Yes. Of course. But are they equally to blame for the world as we see it today? No. And we don’t have to try to blunt our critiques of contemporary “progressivism” with the tired “right wing populism is the fault of the elitist lefties, actually!” argument. The establishment left has problems enough as it is and the adoption of merit discourse is one of them.
But at the end of the day, Sandel is throwing enough shade at everyone that it’s obvious that every political persuasion has to bear some of the responsibility for all of the inequities he’s discussing. From an American perspective, lobbing volleys at Reagan, the Bushes, the Clintons, Obama, and Trump is oddly satisfying. And he does make some attempts at recommending how Western societies may consider course correcting 40 (400?) years of political trauma… but they’re largely pie in the sky ideas. Even the good ones. Sandel might just as well have said, “burn it all down and try again!” Which, fair enough. Climate change may do that for us anyway.
But I think the real value here is in recognizing the dangers of the discourse of merit and to try and work to intentionally change that conversation. Sandel seems to argue that it is not enough to fight for equality of opportunity, but that we must recognize that the end goal should be equality of condition—and that this requires not just a redistribution of wealth, but a redistribution of esteem. An escape from the emphasis on self-reliance and bootstraps and a focus on civic virtue and community. And maybe that’s enough?
At the very least, it’s a well-written and engaging book that gives the reader something to think about.
So. I really liked it, even with all of its problems. I’d recommend giving this one a read.
informative
medium-paced
informative
slow-paced
Didn't get through it before it was due.
dark
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
relaxing
sad
medium-paced