You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by dg12357262
The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? by Michael J. Sandel
4.0
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.