The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?
- Downloads：5621
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-08-01 06:54:01
- Update Date：2025-09-07
- Status：finish
- Author：Michael J. Sandel
- ISBN：0241407605
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
These are dangerous times for democracy。 We live in an age of winners and losers， where the odds are stacked in favour of the already fortunate。 Stalled social mobility and entrenched inequality give the lie to the promise that "you can make it if you try"。 And the consequence is a brew of anger and frustration that has fuelled populist protest， with the triumph of Brexit and election of Donald Trump。
Michael J。 Sandel argues that to overcome the polarized politics of our time， we must rethink the attitudes toward success and failure that have accompanied globalisation and rising inequality。 Sandel highlights the hubris a meritocracy generates among the winners and the harsh judgement it imposes on those left behind。 He offers an alternative way of thinking about success - more attentive to the role of luck in human affairs， more conducive to an ethic of humility， and more hospitable to a politics of the common good。
Michael J。 Sandel argues that to overcome the polarized politics of our time， we must rethink the attitudes toward success and failure that have accompanied globalisation and rising inequality。 Sandel highlights the hubris a meritocracy generates among the winners and the harsh judgement it imposes on those left behind。 He offers an alternative way of thinking about success - more attentive to the role of luck in human affairs， more conducive to an ethic of humility， and more hospitable to a politics of the common good。
Reviews
Yejin Oh
，
This book could have been half the length and then be another of those succinct masterpieces by Dr。 Sandel。 Honestly though， I would gladly listen to his perceptive running commentary on our society for hours， so no loss。 "Mericotratic hubris" is a powerful， sage concept that sheds light on some of the most well-hidden premises of socioeconomic and political divide that ails our society。 This book could have been half the length and then be another of those succinct masterpieces by Dr。 Sandel。 Honestly though， I would gladly listen to his perceptive running commentary on our society for hours， so no loss。 "Mericotratic hubris" is a powerful， sage concept that sheds light on some of the most well-hidden premises of socioeconomic and political divide that ails our society。 。。。more
Hannah Vollebergh
，
Dit boek is een van de beste dat ik heb gelezen binnen de filosofie。 Sandel beschrijft hoe ongelijkheid （in westerse landen） de afgelopen decennia zo gigantisch is gegroeid。 Hij doet dat aan de hand van een analyse van de meritocratie zoals wij die kennen; zolang je maar hard genoeg je best doet en je talenten gebruikt， kom je er wel。 Sandel beschrijft hoe dit idee ongelijkheid versterkt。 Het zorgt niet alleen voor een （te） hoge prestatie druk bij de 'gifted'， maar ook dat de mensen die niet de Dit boek is een van de beste dat ik heb gelezen binnen de filosofie。 Sandel beschrijft hoe ongelijkheid （in westerse landen） de afgelopen decennia zo gigantisch is gegroeid。 Hij doet dat aan de hand van een analyse van de meritocratie zoals wij die kennen; zolang je maar hard genoeg je best doet en je talenten gebruikt， kom je er wel。 Sandel beschrijft hoe dit idee ongelijkheid versterkt。 Het zorgt niet alleen voor een （te） hoge prestatie druk bij de 'gifted'， maar ook dat de mensen die niet de talenten hebben die in onze maatschappij worden beloond， zich ondergewaardeerd voelen。 Een belangrijke voedingsbodem voor populisme。 。。。more
Sophie
，
A really insightful read that really clarified and unified the intersections of society， economics， and politics。 I don't completely agree with all the points but I feel Sandel gave a really interesting take on the current state while weaving in historical elements。 It was really accessible too， compared to other academic books。 Would re-read and re-visit again and might take some notes :）） A really insightful read that really clarified and unified the intersections of society， economics， and politics。 I don't completely agree with all the points but I feel Sandel gave a really interesting take on the current state while weaving in historical elements。 It was really accessible too， compared to other academic books。 Would re-read and re-visit again and might take some notes :）） 。。。more
Roberto Garza
，
Sin duda， saber que las condiciones del terreno de la vida no son iguales， que unos las tienen y otros no， permite identificar que no es mérito sino simplemente un privilegio。
Varunkumar
，
The central idea of the book is that the system of meritocracy - which causes winners to belive that they won because of their own talents， thus breeding hubris， and likewise in losers breeding despair - leads to loss of solidarity in society as winners lose empathy for those located at the lower levels， thinking they deserve to be there because "they did not try or learn enough"。 They discount the fact that often， a person fails now because of their personal attributes， but because of events be The central idea of the book is that the system of meritocracy - which causes winners to belive that they won because of their own talents， thus breeding hubris， and likewise in losers breeding despair - leads to loss of solidarity in society as winners lose empathy for those located at the lower levels， thinking they deserve to be there because "they did not try or learn enough"。 They discount the fact that often， a person fails now because of their personal attributes， but because of events beyond their control。 Likewise they forget that their success too is result of several fortuitous events that favoured them without they having any role in their occurence。 This leads to a broken society。While author does try to make a case， meritocracy has an innate attraction of being seen as a just system by society as it exists today。 No other system exists which can find a wide acceptability and the author also fails to provide any suggestion on that part except his suggestion to prioritise "equality of condition" - which sounds like a communist idea - instead of equality of opportunity。While I understand the problems author is trying to point towards， I fail to see any solution in the book or based on my understanding of political sciences。 Democracy and the society it exists in are both not perfect。 They both， however， in my opinion are least bad implementable options which people can agree upon。 。。。more
BlackOxford
，
The Politics of HumiliationAnyone familiar with differential calculus can recognise the fundamental logical problem of attributing responsibility for results （pay for performance; test scores; organisation success; etc） to an individual。 The contribution of any one factor （person） to a total can only be assessed when all other factors （social background， level of education， genetic composition， ethnicity， etc。） are held constant。 So for example， in the question of performance pay， one must be ab The Politics of HumiliationAnyone familiar with differential calculus can recognise the fundamental logical problem of attributing responsibility for results （pay for performance; test scores; organisation success; etc） to an individual。 The contribution of any one factor （person） to a total can only be assessed when all other factors （social background， level of education， genetic composition， ethnicity， etc。） are held constant。 So for example， in the question of performance pay， one must be able to discern the relative importance to the salesman’s ‘numbers’ in the context of the entire organisation from the receptionists， secretaries， and researchers， to the scientists， production staff， and managers。 Holding these things constant is obviously an impossible task。 Nevertheless we （those blessed for our contributions） seem bent on the idea of assigning personal responsibility for what happens in life。 At least when we consider those less well off （and sometimes those better off） than ourselves。 We deserve （at least） all that we have。 They deserve （and more） exactly what they lack。 The psychology and sociology of the meritocracy is pervasive。 And the economic， political， and social effects that should have become obvious through masses of academic research over decades have surfaced most acutely in the election of Trump and his takeover of the Republican Party。 Hillary Clinton was right - Trump’s followers are indeed the losers in the meritocratic façade。 What she didn’t get is that they want to be winners。Michael Sandel recognises the psychological， social， economic， and political effects of our commitment to merit。 But his primary concern is the morality of a merit-based society not its practical consequences。 What interests me most about his approach is his identification of Christianity as the source of our effective deification of merit and the main obstacle to our overcoming its tragedies。 I think he is justified in doing this; and his brief history of relevant theology is insightful。 But I think he is wrong about his inference that personal merit is a Judaeo-Christian idea。 Merit is indeed something that appears in Hebrew Scriptures and traditions， but like many other aspects of Judaism， Christianity transformed this idea into something quite unrecognisable in the matrix culture。The most obvious transformation in Christianity is the notion of personal salvation。 In the Hebrew Scriptures， it is Israel， a corporate body not individuals as such， from whom YHWH demands obedience。 The individuals mentioned are always tropes for the larger society。 Everyone in Israel shares both divine favour and punishment。 Early medieval Judaism did develop the idea of the Zachuth Avot， the Merits of the Fathers， through which the ‘goodness’ of Israel’s founders was considered somehow available to all Jews in mitigation of their faults。 I suspect that this was in response to the emerging Christian doctrine of the infinite merit achieved by Jesus through his death。 But the difference in the two is crucial。 The Zachuth is an inter-generational assistance to avoid and atone for fault; Christ’s merit， being infinite， is a complete expiation of fault。Enter the man， Paul of Tarsus， whose interpretation of what he was told about Jesus is keyed precisely on the idea of the infinitely meritorious death of Christ。 If this death wipes out the need for God to punish those who transgress （in later ages called the Atonement Theory）， then the only thing necessary to assure one’s eternal salvation is the acceptance of this ‘fact’ as a matter of unshakeable belief。 This is uniquely Pauline not Abrahamic。 Thus begins the persistent struggle in Christianity to explain the problematic relation Faith/Works。 Sandel traces this struggle （with the help of folk like Max Weber） in its various manifestations - Grace/Effort; Providence/Just Deserts; Luck/Character - and shows how its resolution in modern culture is a self-confirming doctrine of Whiggish smugness。 Success is a mark of both hard work and divine favour。 The meritocracy， in other words， is an institutional embodiment of Christianity。 It serves to unite the diverse sects into a greater whole that includes even the most ardent atheists。Isn’t it interesting that the Trump followers are the most conservative （that is to say， authoritarian， racist， misogynistic， as well as Christian） in the population？ Despite their tendency toward violence， they really don’t want a revolution。 Their ideal is merely to impose the same kind of humiliation which they have been subject to on the current social winners。 They don’t want respect; they want revenge。 But ultimately they are trapped in the same doubts about respectability/worth/significance as are their more successful compatriots。 Meritocracy makes us all losers。 But unless the consequences of Pauline Christianity and its secular residue are owned up to， we’re likely to just keep digging that hole deeper。 。。。more
Bharath ayyappa
，
Beautiful book to understand fallacy of merit。
Jon
，
A very repetitious analysis of our present society with recurring mention of how and why Donald Trump managed to get elected。 The book analyzes “meritocracy” which has become such an ideal in the last sixty years that it isn't questioned by either liberals or conservatives。 The latter stoutly maintain that those that have risen to the top did so by hard work and their own merit， and they therefore deserve what they have and shouldn't have it taxed away。 The former don't question the assumptions。 A very repetitious analysis of our present society with recurring mention of how and why Donald Trump managed to get elected。 The book analyzes “meritocracy” which has become such an ideal in the last sixty years that it isn't questioned by either liberals or conservatives。 The latter stoutly maintain that those that have risen to the top did so by hard work and their own merit， and they therefore deserve what they have and shouldn't have it taxed away。 The former don't question the assumptions。 They only say we need to make adjustments in order to level the playing field and give everyone the chance to rise regardless of anything except their talent and hard work。 Both generate self-satisfaction and unwarranted pride （hubris） in the winners， and resentment and despair among the losers。 Sandel questions all the assumptions behind these views convincingly and at length。 The book would make six good New Yorker articles， all making the same point but approached from different ways。 There were many surprising statistics， from the number of highly pressured college students who commit suicide to the increasing frequency with which presidents have used the phrase “you deserve” starting with Reagan。 （JFK apparently never used the phrase。 Reagan used it more than his five predecessors combined。 Clinton twice as much as Reagan， and Obama three times as much。） And it's not as though the meritocracy has been especially good for the country: the best and the brightest brought us Vietnam， Iraq， Afghanistan， and the worst financial crisis of modern times。 Along with the failure to prosecute any of the financial malefactors。“Four decades of market-driven globalization has brought inequalities of income and wealth so pronounced that they lead us into separate ways of life。 Those who are affluent and those of modest means rarely encounter one another in the course of the day。 We live and work and shop and play in different places; our children go to different schools。 And when the meritocratic sorting machine （colleges and universities） has done its work， those on top find it hard to resist the thought that they deserve their success and that those on the bottom deserve their place as well。 This feeds a politics so poisonous and a partisanship so intense that many now regard marriage across party lines as more troubling than marrying outside the faith。”Unfortunately， as far as I can tell， Sandel has only three suggestions for improvement: 1） after the applicants who clearly are not qualified are weeded out， the remainder should be admitted to colleges and universities simply by lottery; 2） there should be a wage subsidy for low income workers to get them to the level where they can support a family with dignity （the idea was suggested by an advisor to Mitt Romney）; and 3） there should be a tax on high-volume financial transactions on Wall Street。 This seems like very small potatoes to me， but at least it's a start。 He also calls for a political rhetoric which refrains from talking about “deplorables” and fighting the bad guys on the other side， but instead talks about the common good and the high value of any work that helps improve the lives of our fellow citizens。 。。。more
Matheus Freitas
，
Good information， not so good options for a better outcome。 I would understand and appreciate more if his approach was just to show the data and leave the resolutions to the reader， but instead he gave me some half-ass options。And the author likes to repeat himself。 Not in an emphatic way， but you know when you're talking with your friends about a serious subject and you spend all you have in a couple of minutes and to not let the conversation end you keep bringing previous points you've already Good information， not so good options for a better outcome。 I would understand and appreciate more if his approach was just to show the data and leave the resolutions to the reader， but instead he gave me some half-ass options。And the author likes to repeat himself。 Not in an emphatic way， but you know when you're talking with your friends about a serious subject and you spend all you have in a couple of minutes and to not let the conversation end you keep bringing previous points you've already said？ Yeah。。。 This way。 。。。more
Adair Tompkins
，
I’ll probably write a real review of this after I’ve digested it more， but I’ll just say now that I’ve read a few societal criticism books by current western academics & they are comfortable now admitting the faults of the neoliberal status quo， but never seek to propose any concrete framework for disrupting it。 I find it odd that a book titled as such， a book that allocated space to discuss the shortcomings of smith， keynes， and Hayek， that seeks to discuss the state of the “common good，” is st I’ll probably write a real review of this after I’ve digested it more， but I’ll just say now that I’ve read a few societal criticism books by current western academics & they are comfortable now admitting the faults of the neoliberal status quo， but never seek to propose any concrete framework for disrupting it。 I find it odd that a book titled as such， a book that allocated space to discuss the shortcomings of smith， keynes， and Hayek， that seeks to discuss the state of the “common good，” is still terrified to employ any of marx’s ideas。 The elite university is now a neoliberal factory that produces burned out， immature elitists who are drawn into overpaid extractive industries like finance， Sandel admits， but he does not call for the abolition of the university or its admittance process altogether， just suggests it needs to be changed。 We need cheaper， public higher education and trade schools for more workers to be able to thrive under a globalized economy， but he does not propose that global capitalism may be exploitative regardless of these measures。 We have lost touch with the dignity of work， he says， but his solution is higher minimum wages and increased social safety nets， not workers’ ownership of their own labor。 Removing societal barriers that allow everyone to perform to the best of their abilities has become a failed project， ultimately resulting in deeply entrenched class privilege and higher inequality， but marx’s belief that “from each according to his ability， to each according to his needs，” is never mentioned or discussed。 The ivory tower idea industry is capable of shedding light upon the shortcomings of capitalist society， but refuses to recognize its root causes， or propose structural solutions。 Why would they do this anyway？ How would it even benefit them， especially when considering how little regard Marxist academics are given in their field？ What about being revolutionary is marketable or publishable？ This book begins to explain Where We Went Wrong， but stops just short of developing a daring praxis。 。。。more
Sean Cho
，
Clear as day。 We have mostly experienced and witnessed the points Sandel makes。
Vanessa
，
There were a lot of things about this book I liked， and equally， a lot of things I disliked。 The conflation between individuals of a working class background with whites， I found confounding。 Sandel asserts that due to market driven globalization that commenced in the 80s， these individuals， aided by the meritocratic ideals of value， felt left behind。 He argues that this phenomenon can largely explain the populist backlash we're currently living through and their blaming of minorities for their There were a lot of things about this book I liked， and equally， a lot of things I disliked。 The conflation between individuals of a working class background with whites， I found confounding。 Sandel asserts that due to market driven globalization that commenced in the 80s， these individuals， aided by the meritocratic ideals of value， felt left behind。 He argues that this phenomenon can largely explain the populist backlash we're currently living through and their blaming of minorities for their discontents。 I thought that this ignored the historical record and the persistent politics of resentment that occurred from this group before the advent of the neoliberal order。 I think this book suffered from a largely race neutral analysis in general。 I did however find his analysis of merit valuable。 The various factors one should and must consider in perceiving their good fortune has the ability to create a politics of humility that would help quell the tyranny of merit。 。。。more
Shu
，
Having spent my youth in China where meritocratic sorting is not only extensively practiced but also universally glorified， much of the hubristic thinking around success and the resulting social divide described in this book isn’t foreign to me。 I agree with the problem statement， but not the proposed solution， because the ideas of making education opportunity lottery-driven， providing a wage subsidy， and moving tax burden away from workers were implemented in China （some as early as in the 80s） Having spent my youth in China where meritocratic sorting is not only extensively practiced but also universally glorified， much of the hubristic thinking around success and the resulting social divide described in this book isn’t foreign to me。 I agree with the problem statement， but not the proposed solution， because the ideas of making education opportunity lottery-driven， providing a wage subsidy， and moving tax burden away from workers were implemented in China （some as early as in the 80s） with little to no effect in turning societal attitudes。I wish Prof。 Sandel went beyond the Protestant Reformation’s rebuke against merit and delved deeper into the implication of providential gift for those who’re given more and divine grace for those who’re bestowed less。 The remedy for greed and bitterness doesn’t lie in policy designs but heart changes。 。。。more
jude
，
philosophically and morally illuminating， if a bit textually repetitive in the first few chapters trying to repeat — over and over again — the flaws of meritocracy that could have kept itself to only one chapter， this book nevertheless serves a scathing critique on the hyper-individualistic， success-driven， meritocratic， globalist system that seeks to alienate us from our bonds to our community， our identities， and each other。there's also this very interesting anecdote of the author trying to re philosophically and morally illuminating， if a bit textually repetitive in the first few chapters trying to repeat — over and over again — the flaws of meritocracy that could have kept itself to only one chapter， this book nevertheless serves a scathing critique on the hyper-individualistic， success-driven， meritocratic， globalist system that seeks to alienate us from our bonds to our community， our identities， and each other。there's also this very interesting anecdote of the author trying to reveal to his students that they — harvard students as they are — did not get in 'merely' because they worked hard but had a plethora of factors behind their admission to the elite university。 the reactions he outlines are glorious but the most telling one has a student insist on forming a quasi-noble lie about the strength of the american dream。 it's better for people to believe in it because it gives them hope。 sandel doesn't really elaborate more on this， but it's a very clear action of upper-class elite interest looking after their own。 of course a harvard student would like the noble lie to persist; they actively benefit from the noble lie！quite unfortunately， however， sandel doesn't go far enough in fully correcting the mistakes of meritocracy。 he makes concessions for elite universities to allow their preferential treatment for children of alumni。 this is beyond incomprehensible to me: first， for the matter of still allowing for hereditary inheritance of merit; and second， for the continued existence of 'elite colleges' in his ideal world。 i think an equality of condition — which is what he ultimately recommends as the solution for the tyranny of merit — would need also do away with the whole idea of 'elitism' in terms of education in the first place， but maybe that's just me。 there are other shortcomings in his solutions — which， i must also mention， are fleeting and short in comparison to the time it took for him to diagnose the problem， a common tendency of philosophers everywhere （and i say this as a student of philosophy） — but this is perhaps the most egregious。 。。。more
Geoffrey Bateman
，
Thoughtful critique， philosophically speaking， of meritocracy， and near the end， some helpful ways of thinking about the dignity of work and the common good。 Sandel sometimes seems blind to issues of race， or perhaps universalizing the nature of problems too much from a white perspective。 But still， always worth reading。
Spencer Fancutt
，
A thought-provoking and persuasive take on， well， the tyranny of meritocracy。One gets the feeling that about 50 pages could have dispensed with if he didn't keep repeating his main thesis， but the thesis is a good one。 A meritocracy creates hubris in the 'winners' who are entitled to their takings， and humiliation and resentment in the 'losers' who have noone but themselves to blame for ther inability to 'make it'。 This is our currently accepted model of society at the moment and has been for at A thought-provoking and persuasive take on， well， the tyranny of meritocracy。One gets the feeling that about 50 pages could have dispensed with if he didn't keep repeating his main thesis， but the thesis is a good one。 A meritocracy creates hubris in the 'winners' who are entitled to their takings， and humiliation and resentment in the 'losers' who have noone but themselves to blame for ther inability to 'make it'。 This is our currently accepted model of society at the moment and has been for at lest 30 years， but it is a flawed model and some of its fruits have been an astronomical increase in the rich/poor divide， and the backlash of populism that brought us Trump and Brexit。When the book seems to progress in spirals through the first two-thirds， with thinkers like Michael Young being introduced for the first time at least twice and arguments being restated and paraphrased， it gets a little frustrating， and perhaps the chapters are intended to be taken as stand-alone lessons or papers， but it doesn't seem to be the case。There were also a few eyebrow-raising moments， such as when Sandel tries to make a case for high stakes pressure for university admissions resulting in miserable， anxious， depressed high schoolers being a consequence of societies with high levels of income inequality。 This may be true， but he uses Japan （a country with a lower wealth gap） as a example of the opposite。 This is hard to square with my experience， and also the highest teen suicide rate in the OECD。He also tells us that the fact that college kids use more drugs and drink more than other kids of the same age， is evidence of the incredible pressure and emotional stress placed on them by the need to achieve。 lol。These things aside， his overall argument is coherent and necessary。 One can't help feeling that if his suggestions were adopted， we would lessen at least some of the ills and injustices of modern life。 At the same time， I doubt his message will find its way into American mainstream politics anytime soon， enthralled as both sides of the spectrum are with a meritocratic vision of the American dream that ignores the reality of the current social situation。 。。。more
Natividad Medina Daza
，
Gran reflexión aunque esperaba un análisis global de la meritocracia， el autor se limita a lo que suele ocurrir en las universidades de élite americanas。 Puedo resumir sin temor a revelar algo inesperado que implantando el sistema que fuere los beneficiados siempre serán quienes ostentan el poder y el dinero。
Jo-Ann Leake
，
Highly recommended in order to understand the deep divisions in modern social， economic and political life。 Though the content is difficult to process emotionally at times， Sandel offers his outlook in a highly compassionate manner， and offers solutions to implement to heal the breaks。 He breaks through the mythology of merit and achievement to offer a more realistic， multifaceted explanation for improving one's situation in life， and he dispels the notion that America offers a level playing fie Highly recommended in order to understand the deep divisions in modern social， economic and political life。 Though the content is difficult to process emotionally at times， Sandel offers his outlook in a highly compassionate manner， and offers solutions to implement to heal the breaks。 He breaks through the mythology of merit and achievement to offer a more realistic， multifaceted explanation for improving one's situation in life， and he dispels the notion that America offers a level playing field to all who want to try。 。。。more
Diz
，
Sandel critiques the concept of meritocracy in this book and describes how it damages society。 Both the left and the right promote meritocracy in different forms。 On the left， meritocracy comes in a form that focuses on education。 In this form， those who get educated deserve to reap the rewards in society。 In particular， the left promotes going to university （a prestigious one if possible） and encourages graduate study or developing a high level of expertise in one's field。 While education is ce Sandel critiques the concept of meritocracy in this book and describes how it damages society。 Both the left and the right promote meritocracy in different forms。 On the left， meritocracy comes in a form that focuses on education。 In this form， those who get educated deserve to reap the rewards in society。 In particular， the left promotes going to university （a prestigious one if possible） and encourages graduate study or developing a high level of expertise in one's field。 While education is certainly a positive thing， the unspoken reverse of this idea is that those who are less fortunate are too dumb and uneducated to improve their situation because they failed to educate themselves。 In other words， it is the fault of the unfortunate for not pursuing higher education。 This is a corrosive attitude for building a democratic society as 2/3 of the U。S。 population do not have a university degree。 As a result， elites who follow this form of meritocracy may feel that experts should make more decisions， which devalues the voices of the less educated as participants in the democratic process。 Additionally， this form of meritocracy devalues work that doesn't require a university degree， which is ironic considering what types of work were deemed essential in the recent COVID-19 pandemic。On the right， meritocracy comes in a form that focuses on material wealth。 This is connected to the ideas of the Protestant work ethic and more recently to prosperity gospel。 In its non-religious version， this form of meritocracy promotes the idea that wealth comes to those who work hard， so they deserve the wealth that they have。 In its religious form， wealth is a sign of divine blessing and is thus the will of God。 The unspoken part of this form of meritocracy is that the unfortunate either did not work hard enough or have somehow displeased God。 This puts the unfortunate in a hopeless position as there are many of them that work harder than the more fortunate， or they may actually be more religious than the rich around them。 When working or believing harder doesn't work for them， it's very demoralizing。Towards the end of the book， Sandel provides a few solutions。 The one that he seems most interested in is eliminating payroll tax and replacing it with a tax on financial transactions。 By doing this， the penalty on doing productive work is decreased and the penalty on doing non-productive work is increased。 Something to think about。 。。。more
Advait
，
A society that enables people to rise， and that celebrates rising， pronounces a harsh verdict on those who fail to do so。 A page-turning work of philosophy that articulates the demerits of meritocracy and argues for reinstating the "common good" and dignity of work for all。 Especially liked Sandel's clear-eyed progression， and grounding in specifics of the current political moment with stats on education and work in the U。S。 and U。K。 He also introduces relevant concepts as needed （credentialism， A society that enables people to rise， and that celebrates rising， pronounces a harsh verdict on those who fail to do so。 A page-turning work of philosophy that articulates the demerits of meritocracy and argues for reinstating the "common good" and dignity of work for all。 Especially liked Sandel's clear-eyed progression， and grounding in specifics of the current political moment with stats on education and work in the U。S。 and U。K。 He also introduces relevant concepts as needed （credentialism， liberal egalitarianism etc。） without getting stuck in jargon or pseudo-scientific BS that hounds so much of contemporary philosophy。 Sandel's own credentials as a political philosopher at Harvard U。 is also a timely reminder of the very real role of premier academics in setting aright the moral compass of the world of work with overall framework， questioning the frames of political buckets and rhetorical holes AND offering practical solutions （lottery vs。 SAT scores for academic selections， taxes on the speculative finance industry etc。）。 。。。more
Summer Kartchner Olsen
，
Definitely recommend this one for rethinking the way the world works and alternate ways we might want it to work。
עדית （Edith）
，
Mostly skimmed the second half because the chapters got repetitious。 The argument boils down to two things， 1） a meritocracy will also lead to inequalities， and 2） the inequalities in the wake of a meritocratic system stings more， as the “winners” get smug that their spoils are their just deserts， and the “losers” feel extra humiliated。 These lend the outcomes a moral judgment that somehow the poor were to blame for their plight， that welfare should only be for those who “deserved” it， the cult Mostly skimmed the second half because the chapters got repetitious。 The argument boils down to two things， 1） a meritocracy will also lead to inequalities， and 2） the inequalities in the wake of a meritocratic system stings more， as the “winners” get smug that their spoils are their just deserts， and the “losers” feel extra humiliated。 These lend the outcomes a moral judgment that somehow the poor were to blame for their plight， that welfare should only be for those who “deserved” it， the cult of personal responsibility， all of which creates resentment and divisions in society。 Meritocracy isn’t wrong and is probably more “fair” than hereditary aristocracies， but talent and upbringing are also dependent upon one’s luck。 The author argues for us to reconsider the idea that just because the market rewards one job with $$$ does not mean that it provides a service that has value to society， and the idea the wealthy “deserve” all their wealth and shouldn’t have to pay taxes/can buy a yacht if they choose， is problematic from the “just desert” argument， which smacks of moral condemnation that has its roots in the Protestant Reformation and early capitalism。 。。。more
Arlene Whitlock
，
Meritocracy doesn’t work so well in a democracy contends Sandel。 He is a political philosopher at Harvard。 In a nutshell， a meritocracy divides and rewards those who are on top， even if being on top is contrived and dishonest， and punishes those who happen to be on the bottom。 I don’t think this is a book about party lines or the rich or the poor。 It is what is the result of maintaining a meritocracy， like college cheating scandals。 It also devalues the dignity of work， and makes the poor resent Meritocracy doesn’t work so well in a democracy contends Sandel。 He is a political philosopher at Harvard。 In a nutshell， a meritocracy divides and rewards those who are on top， even if being on top is contrived and dishonest， and punishes those who happen to be on the bottom。 I don’t think this is a book about party lines or the rich or the poor。 It is what is the result of maintaining a meritocracy， like college cheating scandals。 It also devalues the dignity of work， and makes the poor resentful。 I like that a philosopher is discussing this and not a politician。 Being a philosopher， a good one at least， requires one to observe and contend with all angles， not as good and bad， but the nature of the human condition（culture， religion， history ， etc。）。 Yes， the book makes the future bleak if we continue in pushing meritocracy， but it also lays out some alternatives。 The alternatives do not point fingers， but observes how a society can work with rich and poor。 。。。more
Khetha
，
A thoughtful and thought-provoking book about what we value and what we dishonour in society。 Obviously geared to an American/western audience particularly around its discussions on higher education。 Nevertheless one can see many of the trends identified in the book creeping up here as well。 If you have ever been in a policy debate about anything， this book will make you ask the question have or do things have to be this way？
Julia
，
lazy
Ciaran Monaghan
，
I particularly enjoyed this at the start but my interest waned somewhat， perhaps as I was listening on audio。 Sandel does a really good job of explaining the issues with meritocracy， but it still took me some time to understand why it was fundamentally wrong， even if the system could be perfected。 But I was convinced when he eventually explained how meritocracy accepts inequality， even if it is based on ability。 I also liked the simplicity of some of his solutions， such as the lottery for univer I particularly enjoyed this at the start but my interest waned somewhat， perhaps as I was listening on audio。 Sandel does a really good job of explaining the issues with meritocracy， but it still took me some time to understand why it was fundamentally wrong， even if the system could be perfected。 But I was convinced when he eventually explained how meritocracy accepts inequality， even if it is based on ability。 I also liked the simplicity of some of his solutions， such as the lottery for university places， but it does seem like a distant hope。 。。。more
Shane
，
Sander develops an interesting an important thesis about the dangers meritocracy poses to all of us。 Not just questioning whether we are failing to truly be meritocratic （we are）， but also identifying the harms to society and individuals meritocratic thinking brings。 This is a really important questioning of a predominant philosophy in our society with wide ranging policy consequences。 His critique falls on liberals and conservatives alike。 While I accept his premise and want to think further ab Sander develops an interesting an important thesis about the dangers meritocracy poses to all of us。 Not just questioning whether we are failing to truly be meritocratic （we are）， but also identifying the harms to society and individuals meritocratic thinking brings。 This is a really important questioning of a predominant philosophy in our society with wide ranging policy consequences。 His critique falls on liberals and conservatives alike。 While I accept his premise and want to think further about its consequences， the book has some issues。 While he cites evidence for his claims， there is often only a loose connection between his evidence and his claim。 There are consistently many alternative explanations or causal routes for the relationships he claims。 He rarely acknowledges these。 The book is also incredibly repetitive。 I would love to read and assign the New Yorker length article version of this thesis that wasn’t so repetitive。 。。。more
Sabrina
，
3。5 starsThis was an eye-opening and thought-provoking book that investigates whether the Western world can really be considered a "meritocracy，" and whether this societal structure has even been beneficial for those who live within it。 While I'm not someone who typically enjoys more heavy political philosophy texts such as this one， Sandel's work here is accessible enough for the everyday person without a background in this field to understand。 I found the book repetitive at points however- he 3。5 starsThis was an eye-opening and thought-provoking book that investigates whether the Western world can really be considered a "meritocracy，" and whether this societal structure has even been beneficial for those who live within it。 While I'm not someone who typically enjoys more heavy political philosophy texts such as this one， Sandel's work here is accessible enough for the everyday person without a background in this field to understand。 I found the book repetitive at points however- he drove the point repeatedly to the point of exhaustion that it is those who are at the "top" who have a moral condescension and look down on those below them， and that this creates a dangerous acrimony。 The book also could have benefited from more concrete examples to illustrate some of Sandel's more esoteric concepts （I particularly liked when he brought in Breaking Bad， for example） and I also would have appreciated a more thorough consideration of his policy proposal that we introduce a lottery system to Ivy League and competitive higher education institutions。All this being said， as an Oxbridge graduate myself I enjoyed reading this book and confronting the fact that likely much of my own success can actually be attributed to luck and privilege。 While this isn't the kind of popsci book I'd recommend to just anyone， for those who want to seriously interrogate the world we live in and think long and hard about it， it's one I would readily suggest。 。。。more
Rodrigo Estefan
，
Crítica contemporânea sobre os ideais meritocráticos valorizados pela sociedaode。 Faz com reflitamos sobre em qual sociedade devemos viver。
Fawwaz
，