Take a photo of a barcode or cover
branch_c 's review for:
The Tyranny of Merit: Can We Find the Common Good?
by Michael J. Sandel
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.