Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.12 AVERAGE
4.12 AVERAGE
informative
medium-paced
Brilliant, but incredibly repetitive. Felt like Sandel had already exhausted his arguments 2/3 in.
10/10 do not regret coming back to finish this book after my month hiatus (oops). Some parts are a bit more theoretical and harder to parse through, but I found the arguments highly compelling and the central ideas & reasonings very engaging (the solutions I'm not so sure about, but I don't think the focus is there so I'll let it go). I particularly enjoyed the last two chapters on education (literally my life) and work. Also, very humbling (at the end, perhaps even inspiring) - and it really related and brought to greater clarity ideas I've been mulling over for quite a while.
The following bit contains key/salient points that stood out to me, written for my own reference - thus not particularly coherent and contains "spoilers" (but also this is non-fic so does that even apply?? Does it ruin the suspense of finding out the reasons behind the rise of populism?) - but this is also a book that I feel can't really be as effective if summarised (and thus why it's good).
Key points by chapter:
1. History of Merit: rise of the "Protestant Ethic" (salvation through works), "America is great because America is good"
2. Rhetoric of Rising: rise of hubristic attitudes among those who "succeed" and punitive low esteem among those who "failed", welfare state assessing rather than cushioning responsibility
3. Credentialism: rhetoric of education (equality of opportunity), erosion of the dignity of those without college degrees, technocratic talk of "smart" vs "dumb" policies as a means to overcome partisan ideology but which also alienate those without college degrees and fail to engage with moral issues
4. Success Ethics (most theoretical chapter):
- Meritocracy aligns inequality with ability and presumes people get what they deserve through their own "merit".
- A fundamental question: What if it's not just how meritocracy is a "myth" and we are too far from it cos unequal opportunity; but that meritocracy as an idea itself is fundamentally flawed as a political and moral project?
- Outcome of meritocracy is necessarily inequality; however, moral status of talents are questioned (Do we deserve them? Do we deserve the fact that society prizes them?) and it rewards effort, but does effort necessarily get us anything?
- Discussion of the ideas & limitations of 1) free market liberalisation - we should let rewards fall as they are, acknowledging it as just a measure of how society prices goods using demand and supply (Hayek) and 2) welfare state liberalisation - factors and talents and even effort are arbitrary so necessary for the "successes" to give back (Rawls)
- Economic value =/= moral value (however, in pluralistic society hard to quantify what then has moral value)
- Limitations of 1) distinction between value and merit unhelpful, 2) shift to personal morality may not help
- Welfare state egalitarianism - luck egalitarian policy - then policy shifts towards "are you unfortunate because you're unlucky or because you made bad choices" — 1) severity towards imprudent and 2) casting those who qualify as helpless victims
5. The Sorting Machine: higher education does not help social mobility, creates extreme pressure for those at the top of meritocracy while fuelling continued hubris; higher education should not be the only means of civic and moral education
6. Recognising Work: work as not just economic but social esteem (ability to contribute to common good, value, esteem etc), recognising people not just as consumers but producers (the end of work should not just be for consumerism), starting with affirming the dignity of work (market outcomes don't necessarily correlate with the value of the outcome to the common good, e.g. hedge fund managers v school teachers)
"It is often assumed that the only alternative to equality of opportunity is a stetile, oppressive equality of results. But there is another alternative: a broad equality of condition that enables those that do not achieve great wealth or prestigious positions to live lives of decency and dignity [...] we are not self-made and self-sufficient; finding ourselves in a society that prizes our talents is our good fortune, not our due."
The following bit contains key/salient points that stood out to me, written for my own reference - thus not particularly coherent and contains "spoilers" (but also this is non-fic so does that even apply?? Does it ruin the suspense of finding out the reasons behind the rise of populism?) - but this is also a book that I feel can't really be as effective if summarised (and thus why it's good).
Key points by chapter:
1. History of Merit: rise of the "Protestant Ethic" (salvation through works), "America is great because America is good"
2. Rhetoric of Rising: rise of hubristic attitudes among those who "succeed" and punitive low esteem among those who "failed", welfare state assessing rather than cushioning responsibility
3. Credentialism: rhetoric of education (equality of opportunity), erosion of the dignity of those without college degrees, technocratic talk of "smart" vs "dumb" policies as a means to overcome partisan ideology but which also alienate those without college degrees and fail to engage with moral issues
4. Success Ethics (most theoretical chapter):
- Meritocracy aligns inequality with ability and presumes people get what they deserve through their own "merit".
- A fundamental question: What if it's not just how meritocracy is a "myth" and we are too far from it cos unequal opportunity; but that meritocracy as an idea itself is fundamentally flawed as a political and moral project?
- Outcome of meritocracy is necessarily inequality; however, moral status of talents are questioned (Do we deserve them? Do we deserve the fact that society prizes them?) and it rewards effort, but does effort necessarily get us anything?
- Discussion of the ideas & limitations of 1) free market liberalisation - we should let rewards fall as they are, acknowledging it as just a measure of how society prices goods using demand and supply (Hayek) and 2) welfare state liberalisation - factors and talents and even effort are arbitrary so necessary for the "successes" to give back (Rawls)
- Economic value =/= moral value (however, in pluralistic society hard to quantify what then has moral value)
- Limitations of 1) distinction between value and merit unhelpful, 2) shift to personal morality may not help
- Welfare state egalitarianism - luck egalitarian policy - then policy shifts towards "are you unfortunate because you're unlucky or because you made bad choices" — 1) severity towards imprudent and 2) casting those who qualify as helpless victims
5. The Sorting Machine: higher education does not help social mobility, creates extreme pressure for those at the top of meritocracy while fuelling continued hubris; higher education should not be the only means of civic and moral education
6. Recognising Work: work as not just economic but social esteem (ability to contribute to common good, value, esteem etc), recognising people not just as consumers but producers (the end of work should not just be for consumerism), starting with affirming the dignity of work (market outcomes don't necessarily correlate with the value of the outcome to the common good, e.g. hedge fund managers v school teachers)
"It is often assumed that the only alternative to equality of opportunity is a stetile, oppressive equality of results. But there is another alternative: a broad equality of condition that enables those that do not achieve great wealth or prestigious positions to live lives of decency and dignity [...] we are not self-made and self-sufficient; finding ourselves in a society that prizes our talents is our good fortune, not our due."
Excellent, very good book. Will try come with a more in-depth review later.
Our reliance on conceptions of meritocracy warps important aspects of our shared, civic lives including, most importantly, education and work. So goes the analysis of Michael Sandel in his entirely readable and consistently engaging new book “The Tyranny of Merit”. In short, Sandel’s argument is this: our current reliance on merit encourages the “winners” to insist their station in life is entirely the result of their own hard work and abilities as it simultaneously demeans the choices and contributions of the “losers”. All sides (ok, it’s really only both sides) of the political divide come under intense scrutiny from Sandel. Whether it’s the Left’s reliance on education as a way up with its unhealthy focus on achievement and selectivity, or the Right’s insistence on the perfection of markets to always allocate appropriately and efficiently, Sandel is an equal opportunity critic.
I have appreciated the clarity with which Sandel presents ideas of political and moral philosophy since I first encountered his writing with the book “Justice: What’s The Right Thing to Do” and then, a few years later, “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets”. In many ways, “The Tyranny of Merit” is the third leg of a trilogy that takes the fundamental moral concepts laid out in “Justice” along with the specific economic considerations of “What Money Can’t Buy” to offer an insightful diagnosis of the economic, political, and moral fog in which we wander around in 2020. Along with being an extension of his own work, “The Tyranny of Merit” fits in nicely with other recent contributions critiquing our pursuit of merit, most notably “The Merit Myth” by Carnevale, Schmidt, and Strohl and “The Meritocracy Trap” by Daniel Markovits. Highly recommended.
I have appreciated the clarity with which Sandel presents ideas of political and moral philosophy since I first encountered his writing with the book “Justice: What’s The Right Thing to Do” and then, a few years later, “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets”. In many ways, “The Tyranny of Merit” is the third leg of a trilogy that takes the fundamental moral concepts laid out in “Justice” along with the specific economic considerations of “What Money Can’t Buy” to offer an insightful diagnosis of the economic, political, and moral fog in which we wander around in 2020. Along with being an extension of his own work, “The Tyranny of Merit” fits in nicely with other recent contributions critiquing our pursuit of merit, most notably “The Merit Myth” by Carnevale, Schmidt, and Strohl and “The Meritocracy Trap” by Daniel Markovits. Highly recommended.
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
informative
slow-paced
challenging
reflective
slow-paced