The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?
- Downloads：1778
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-08-16 06:55:28
- Update Date：2025-09-07
- Status：finish
- Author：Michael J. Sandel
- ISBN：0374289980
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
A world-famous political philosopher， and the bestselling author of Justice， reveals the driving force behind the resurgence of populism: the tyranny of the meritocracy and the resentments it produces。
Our politics are fraught with rancor and resentment。 Decades of rising inequality and stalled mobility have fueled a populist revolt against elites。 But while the pundits focus on wages and jobs， they are missing a big part of the story: social esteem， and the broader moral dimensions of our current crisis。
In recent decades， mainstream politicians across the aisle--from Reagan to Obama--have offered a rhetoric of rising: everyone should be given an equal chance to get ahead。 But the relentless focus on "equal opportunity" ignores the morally corrosive attitudes that even a fair meritocracy generates。 Among the winners， it generates hubris; among the losers， humiliation。 Meritocratic hubris reflects the tendency of winners to inhale too deeply of their success， to forget the luck and good fortune that helped them on their way。 It diminishes our capacity to see ourselves as sharing a common fate and leaves little room for the solidarity that can arise when we reflect on the contingency of our talents and fortunes。 More than a protest against immigrants， outsourcing， and stagnant wages， the populist complaint is about the tyranny of merit。 And the complaint is justified。
In The Tyranny of Merit， a searing critique of contemporary public discourse， Michael J。 Sandel， "the world's most relevant living philosopher" （Newsweek）， diagnoses our political moment by seeking out its moral underpinnings。 He highlights the hubris a meritocracy fosters among the winners and the indignities it inflicts on those left behind。 And 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。
Our politics are fraught with rancor and resentment。 Decades of rising inequality and stalled mobility have fueled a populist revolt against elites。 But while the pundits focus on wages and jobs， they are missing a big part of the story: social esteem， and the broader moral dimensions of our current crisis。
In recent decades， mainstream politicians across the aisle--from Reagan to Obama--have offered a rhetoric of rising: everyone should be given an equal chance to get ahead。 But the relentless focus on "equal opportunity" ignores the morally corrosive attitudes that even a fair meritocracy generates。 Among the winners， it generates hubris; among the losers， humiliation。 Meritocratic hubris reflects the tendency of winners to inhale too deeply of their success， to forget the luck and good fortune that helped them on their way。 It diminishes our capacity to see ourselves as sharing a common fate and leaves little room for the solidarity that can arise when we reflect on the contingency of our talents and fortunes。 More than a protest against immigrants， outsourcing， and stagnant wages， the populist complaint is about the tyranny of merit。 And the complaint is justified。
In The Tyranny of Merit， a searing critique of contemporary public discourse， Michael J。 Sandel， "the world's most relevant living philosopher" （Newsweek）， diagnoses our political moment by seeking out its moral underpinnings。 He highlights the hubris a meritocracy fosters among the winners and the indignities it inflicts on those left behind。 And 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
Carl
，
If everyone approached complex problems the way Sandel does—I’m talking about process， not position or political leaning—we’d be much better off as a nation。 His disciplined， thoughtful approach impresses me。 When he proposes a new way to approach college admissions， the core of the discussion is four possible objections。 I did a small-sample count and found that “But” was second only to “The” as a first word of a Sandel sentence。 （As a stylist， I am no fan of the regular use of conjunctions to If everyone approached complex problems the way Sandel does—I’m talking about process， not position or political leaning—we’d be much better off as a nation。 His disciplined， thoughtful approach impresses me。 When he proposes a new way to approach college admissions， the core of the discussion is four possible objections。 I did a small-sample count and found that “But” was second only to “The” as a first word of a Sandel sentence。 （As a stylist， I am no fan of the regular use of conjunctions to begin sentences， but I appreciate the argumentative value。）This book seems less convincing than the other two of his I have read—the rightfully popular Justice （2009） and the underappreciated but to my mind even better What Money Can’t But: The Moral Limits of Markets—but I found it equally important。 Sandel assesses and explains how what we Americans conceive of as “meritocracy” breeds negatives for both the hubristic “winners” and the humiliated “losers。” Despite some generalizations that I’d love to see addressed in more depth （I assume that he has a lot more to say， but edited himself）， his commentary on elite universities is unstinting and necessary。 （Sandel is a Harvard professor， but Harvard and its peers do not escape his piercing critiques and thought-provoking suggestions to upend their hegemony。） I also like that he is willing to consider both conservative and progressive angles。 （He is at least as polite to Donald Trump as Trump deserves—whatever you think of the former president， he’s not a good example of ideological conservatism。） Most usefully， Sandel does not shy away from proposing actions， instead of merely critiquing what exists。 Are his proposals—on college admissions， taxation， etc。—going to be implemented in our society， effective as （IMO） they may be in promoting the common good？ No， which is a sad reflection on Sandel’s point about how we as a nation have done a poor job holding on to the principles that underpin s healthy democracy， even as we crow to ourselves about our exceptionalism。“Merit” can indeed be both a sound concept and a mess in the implementation。 As the ever-increasing deconstruction of the myth of America shows， it is possible to see the good in parsing apart ideal from reality without trashing the whole。 But that takes intellectual discipline that we need to cultivate much more avidly。 。。。more
George
，
I had not thought deeply about the negative side of a merritt based society。 This book does a good job explaining the issues， but does not offer enough good ideas for solving the issues。
Bryan Tanner
，
SummaryTIL the term meritocracy was originally coined in 1958 by sociologist Michael Dunlop Young as a predicted dystopian future worse than the hereditary hierarchy that it replaced。 This book postulates that Young's vision was correct。 In fact， Young was so annoyed that the term was being used for the opposite of his intention that he wrote this article for The Guardian in 2001， pointedly directed at Tony Blair。The book spends a lot of time looking at the political consequences of this shift t SummaryTIL the term meritocracy was originally coined in 1958 by sociologist Michael Dunlop Young as a predicted dystopian future worse than the hereditary hierarchy that it replaced。 This book postulates that Young's vision was correct。 In fact， Young was so annoyed that the term was being used for the opposite of his intention that he wrote this article for The Guardian in 2001， pointedly directed at Tony Blair。The book spends a lot of time looking at the political consequences of this shift towards the myth of meritocracy。 Sandel expertly lays out where we are currently and how we got here。 Additionally， he offers competing solutions to America's founding fathers' vision of "the American Dream，" primarily revolving around greatness （social productivity， happiness， integrity， etc。） through fairness。 Sandel goes on to suggest several potential changes that would promote the common good:1。 Make entrance into elite Universities by way of lottery。 This would take away the sense of deservedness on the part of those who get in。 This book suggests additional details to make the proposed lottery workable。 Entrance into the lottery would be limited to those prequalified by ability and academic records to assure academic integrity。 Additional suggestions are made for ways of maintaining affirmative action for minorities。 One detail I found interesting was the suggestion that Universities could continue to attract some large donations by publicly auctioning off a select few entrant positions which would help erase any suggestion of intellectual superiority on the part of the beneficiaries。2。 Provide a wage subsidy for low-income workers。 The government would provide a supplementary payment for each hour worked by a low-wage employee based on an hourly wage rate。 The wage subsidy is in a way the opposite of a payroll tax。 Rather than deduct a certain amount from each workers earnings， the government would contribute a certain amount in hopes of enabling low-income workers to make a decent living even if they lack the skills to maintain a substantial market wage。3。 Do away with the payroll tax and replace the lost revenue by taxing consumption， wealth， and financial transactions。 This change would show respect and honor the importance and value of labor。 It would also treat the investment world as deserving of the equivalent of a sin tax。 Currently， capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than labor。 This book says this makes no sense。 Traditionally financial investments are expected to create jobs， but the financial world has evolved into a world of speculation far removed from creating jobs。Meritocracy flatters the “winners” and humiliates the “losers”。 Deaths of despair are a real consequence for those who felt they had failed to contribute to society。 But fortunately， this social experiment seems to have died in 2016 with Brexit and the election of Trump。 From its corpse， society must now craft something new。Thematic ExampleThe rise of one of baseball's first black all-stars， Hank Aaron， does not enforce the idea that a meritocratic society is a just one， in which everyone has the opportunity to rise as far as their talent and hard work will take them。 The morale of Henry Aaron's story is not that we should love meritocracy， but that we should despise a system of moral injustice that can only be escaped by hitting home runs。ReviewI used to be a fan of the following Meritocratic slogans， which had been drilled into me by politicians my entire life （40 years）: "Go to college。 Equip yourself to compete and win in a global economy。 What you earn depends on what you can learn。 Our fate is in our hands。 We can make it if we try。"While I don't see our democracy voting against our individual interests in favor of egalitarian ideals （e。g。， special sales tax on unhealthy comfort foods like sugary sodas）， especially in light of Utah's general attitude toward mask-wearing while combating the spread of COVID-19。 Regardless， it's something worth fighting for。 。。。more
Michael Veselik
，
This book fundamentally altered the way I think about how our system recognizes achievement and ascribes value to academic and career successes。 I love the chapter that focused on Rawls and Keynes and their opposition to a meritocracy。 Well worth a read！
Aleksandar
，
Feels a bit repetitive at times， but overall an amazing read。 Gives insights into why it's so important to have a discussion about justice and moral desert before easily accepting merit or markets self fulfilling definitions。 I would have liked to see more concrete examples flowing from the philosophical principals but I guess this is left as an exercise to the reader。 Feels a bit repetitive at times， but overall an amazing read。 Gives insights into why it's so important to have a discussion about justice and moral desert before easily accepting merit or markets self fulfilling definitions。 I would have liked to see more concrete examples flowing from the philosophical principals but I guess this is left as an exercise to the reader。 。。。more
Charley
，
I really liked the first few chapters。 They connected Sandel's theories to current events and made for interesting illustrations to his points。 I think that his idea of meritocracy and why it's holding people back is fascinating and worth exploring more， however this book is incredibly repetitive。 I was bored to tears by this book and even by skimming through it I felt like I was reading the same thing over and over again。 After reading half of the book， leaving it on the shelf for months， picki I really liked the first few chapters。 They connected Sandel's theories to current events and made for interesting illustrations to his points。 I think that his idea of meritocracy and why it's holding people back is fascinating and worth exploring more， however this book is incredibly repetitive。 I was bored to tears by this book and even by skimming through it I felt like I was reading the same thing over and over again。 After reading half of the book， leaving it on the shelf for months， picking it back up only to be bored yet again by it's repetitiveness I have decided to leave it at this。 A shame！ 。。。more
Patrick Cook
，
A challenging book （I'm from the meritocratic background and bought into it unthinkingly and totally） but a masterful one that combines a lot of analysis that we've read since 2016 with unusual clarity intellectual rigor。 I am not 100% convinced by the solutions Sandel suggests， but it's a book I'd recommend to anyone in our society。 A challenging book （I'm from the meritocratic background and bought into it unthinkingly and totally） but a masterful one that combines a lot of analysis that we've read since 2016 with unusual clarity intellectual rigor。 I am not 100% convinced by the solutions Sandel suggests， but it's a book I'd recommend to anyone in our society。 。。。more
Maria Victoria
，
Fantástico
Laura Martínez
，
Un argumentario interesante más allá de la estafa del sistema meritocrático que Sandel liga con el creciente descontento ciudadano y las crisis democráticas。
James
，
Like many good books， this one challenged my thinking。 It did not necessarily change my mind， but at least nudged my world view。The underlying thesis is that “meritocracy” is not the fuel of the American dream， but rather a pernicious dogma that encourages hubris in the successful， and humiliation in those who fail to advance。The book makes a strong case in highlighting the problem， but is a short on solutions。 This is definitely an interesting read in a world increasingly defined by populist mo Like many good books， this one challenged my thinking。 It did not necessarily change my mind， but at least nudged my world view。The underlying thesis is that “meritocracy” is not the fuel of the American dream， but rather a pernicious dogma that encourages hubris in the successful， and humiliation in those who fail to advance。The book makes a strong case in highlighting the problem， but is a short on solutions。 This is definitely an interesting read in a world increasingly defined by populist movements revolting against the perceived “elites。” 。。。more
Jannik Faierson
，
I always thought a perfect meritocracy was something worth striving for。 I find competition exciting and as long as you're on the winning side （in terms of economics or education） everything is good， right？ Reading Sandel， however， has changed my mind。 He cleverly combines theoretical critique with political observations from the past 60 years。 The heart of his argument concerns the ethics of success that modern policies creates。 By emphasizing the role of higher education as the only way of acq I always thought a perfect meritocracy was something worth striving for。 I find competition exciting and as long as you're on the winning side （in terms of economics or education） everything is good， right？ Reading Sandel， however， has changed my mind。 He cleverly combines theoretical critique with political observations from the past 60 years。 The heart of his argument concerns the ethics of success that modern policies creates。 By emphasizing the role of higher education as the only way of acquiring economic and social esteem， it justifies credentialism as prejudice。 Thus， democratic societies are divided into winners and losers。 Further， the idea of merit fosters "hubris and humiliation" by ignoring circumstances and chance and fully embracing desert。 Consequently， it disempowers most citizens， hollows democratic discourse， and generates resentment against "technocratic elites"。 Sandel's book sounds very much like a long lecture。 This has advantages and downsides。 Mainly， he frequently uses key phrases such as "rhetoric or rising"， "populist backlash"， "hubris and humiliation" and "dignity of work"。 In a lecture， repetition leads to remembering and Sandel certainly achieves this aim in his book as well。 However， 200+ pages seems a bit too long for perpetuating a handful of ideas all over again。 Nonetheless， his main argument （as stated above） is very clear and developed further by several chapters。 Sandel unravels the role of college by looking at stressful admissions and its outcomes。 He elaborates on the role of work in modern society and questions the paradigm of "makers and takers"。 And finally， he also presents the main streams in 20th-century liberalism， i。e。 Hayek and Rawls， which surprisingly both openly reject merit as the leading principle in politics。 Yet， Sandel plausibly shows why the rule of merit has been so attractive to modern policymakers （foremost democrats in the US） as a way of addressing rising inequality。 Unfortunately， the negative characteristics mentioned above make the rule of merit in modern times an unjust rule- a tyranny。 Together with Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents "The Tyranny of Merit" offers a shockingly clear view on the current state of the US especially and the Western civilization as a whole。 Both authors offer comprehensive theories summed up in a single word: caste and meritocracy。 Both demonstrate with countless evidence why their concepts work and how they have arisen。 Finally， both explain recent political earthquakes， especially Trump and Brexit， within a theoretical framework。 Identifying the problem and explaining it within a bigger perspective is the first step to finding solutions。 So what can we do now？ To diminish the tyranny of merit and establish a more generous public life Sandel offers several ideas。1。 Create institutionalized gamblings: For example make a list of suitable candidates in college， job and public office admissions and let the fate decide。 Thus， you can foster humility and stress the role of luck in life。 2。 Restore the dignity of work by reversing taxation: Why is income taxed so harshly and not financial transactions for instance？3。 Make democracy truly representative and bring people from different spectrums together。 Why not creating public places to share and discuss opinions similar to ancient Greece？What are we waiting for？ We have addressed the problems and found out the reasons。 Now it's time to change it。 。。。more
Humzah Yazdani
，
If you can only read one book this year， make sure it is this！
Dylan Arkowitz
，
Incredibly enlightening but overly repetitive。
Sid Groeneman
，
It's not popular to be against meritocracy， the dominant ideological perspective of both the political left and right。 But Michael Sandel， professor of political theory at Harvard， makes a strong case that in today's world admissions to college， hiring job applicants， and other actions based on supposed merit is not serving us well as a society and nation。 （The same applies beyond the U。S。 to other industrialized Western countries。） According to Sandel， the main source of today's polarization be It's not popular to be against meritocracy， the dominant ideological perspective of both the political left and right。 But Michael Sandel， professor of political theory at Harvard， makes a strong case that in today's world admissions to college， hiring job applicants， and other actions based on supposed merit is not serving us well as a society and nation。 （The same applies beyond the U。S。 to other industrialized Western countries。） According to Sandel， the main source of today's polarization between the highly educated and those without a college degree is not income inequality or racism。 Rather， it is the devaluation of ordinary labor （work not requiring a 4-year college degree） and resulting （1） hubris of elites and the disdain directed at physical laborers together with （2） the humiliation and demoralization felt by the those whose blue-collar work is no longer respected。 The meritocratic perspective holds that all who work hard and play by the rules can make it。 This implies that those who aren't making it have no one to blame but themselves， and the successful deserve their rewards because they made it via their own efforts。 The populist backlash reflects much more than the unequal economic benefits of globalization。Sandel contends that meritocracy is a harmful myth。 Opportunities are not equal。 Beneficiaries are lucky to have been born into the right families， to have benefitted from influential networks， and to have been endowed with skills and talents prized at this particular time and place。 In the latter regard， he maintains that market-oriented valuation is not the only， and probably not the best， arbiter of societal worth。 Moreover， even if true meritocracy WERE a reality--if everyone truly had an equal chance of rising--the winners would still exhibit hubris and the losers would continue to be denigrated and feel humiliation。Sandel comes down hard on universities （and our education system generally） as functioning as "sorting machines" that reward those who make it through college， especially at the elite schools， leaving behind the majority of Americans not as fortunate。 The system that "promises mobility on the basis of merit 。。。 entrenches privilege and promotes attitudes towards success corrosive of the commonality democracy requires。" He acknowledges the enormous stress experienced by students forced to navigate their way through the pressure cooker system of elite college admissions and， if admitted， face further cut-throat competition to excel。Despite his compelling attack of meritocracy， Sandel doesn't advocate eliminating merit entirely as an evaluative criterion; rather， recommending that its validity be tempered by the valid criticisms outlined。 In the end， he offers several partial policy solutions: （1） Setting a threshold level of qualification for college admission and using a lottery to select those who are admitted; （2） Helping restore the dignity of ALL kinds of work， in part by funding admission to programs leading to jobs not requiring a Batchelor's degree， rather than focusing exclusively on promoting higher education。Because meritocracy is so deeply embedded in our thinking and our institutions， it will be a heavy lift to produce a widespread transformation away from it。 The critique Sandel offers， however， is definitely worthy of serious attention for spotlighting its defects。 。。。more
Mehrsa
，
I think the book is worth reading because Sandel is incredibly thoughtful about the issues （I won't say smart because he doesn't like that word）。 I think the central point here is right and has been laid out in several other books like Markovitz's Meritocracy trap and Oren Cass's Once and Future Worker。 Meritocracy， as Sandel names it， is just a new way for elites to accumulate power and it is demeaning to workers who are "losers" in meritocracy。 College admissions is the primary example of this I think the book is worth reading because Sandel is incredibly thoughtful about the issues （I won't say smart because he doesn't like that word）。 I think the central point here is right and has been laid out in several other books like Markovitz's Meritocracy trap and Oren Cass's Once and Future Worker。 Meritocracy， as Sandel names it， is just a new way for elites to accumulate power and it is demeaning to workers who are "losers" in meritocracy。 College admissions is the primary example of this messed up system of meritocracy and Sandel and some of the others have deep knowledge of this as they are professors at Harvard or Yale。 I agree with the specific point， but the way Sandel defines the meritocracy is incredibly narrow--it's as though a 4 year education means Harvard or nothing--he proposes trade school as an option。 But there are a hundred ways of being educated at college that does not include the Ivy league and the types of meritocratic harms he highlights。 I think the simple solution would be to not let the ivy league keep accumulating billions in donations to amass massive endowments， which they can then use to be even more selective and also more rich。 Just flatten out the difference between Harvard and Suny Albany--don't remove it， of course， but make it a little less vast。 I also get annoyed at professors of philosophy who spend their lives thinking about big ideas who are like --you should go learn a trade。 And of course， when he talks about the working class that is resentful of the meritocratic elites， it's only the white working class he talks about。 He does this very explicitly and I thought irresponsibly when he was talking about the Deaton/Case research on Deaths of Despair。 Sandel uses that as a major example of the tyrrany of Merit， but he leaves out their major finding which is that the deaths of despair are happening to white people。 It is not as though all working people are resentful against college-educated people--it's a specific subset。 Sandel joins a chorus of other people saying that we should not make these men feel bad because they have become "strangers in their own land" （here he quotes Hotschild's work）。 To the extent he talks at all about race， it's to criticize Obama as a typical believer in the meritocracy （which is a fair critique） or he talks about the immigrant kids who get into Harvard。 But there are a whole bunch of other people-immigrants among them--who do not aim for harvard but just some sort of 4 year degree and their seeking education and college admissions is their primary path to work。 And a whole bunch of these people do not resent college professors or Harvard grads。 I think there is a major problem here--that problem is that the gap between graduating from Harvard and not going to college has become way too large。 Not just in culture or elite credentials， but in just the pursuit of happiness and liberty。 And yes， the ideology of merit has been used to justify the gap。 But so have other things--like free market capitalism， etc。 Anyway， by all means Sandel should try to get Harvard to give away seats through lottery and to let more kids in， but for the rest of us， some of us are fine not going to harvard but we just don't want to live in a country where not going to college means that you can't make a living wage。 There's more I can say here， but I will stop because it was an interesting argument and when Sandel gets into the philosophy part， it's very very good。 。。。more
Yuni Amir
，
An eye opener to the reality of our current society。 The market is flooded with books telling good statistics on how much human has progressed， but the current society structure isn’t reflective of the progress。Revisit how we define success。 Revisit how we value success。“Breaking down barriers is a good thing。 No one should be held back by poverty or prejudice。 But a good society cannot be premised only on the promise of escape”。
Corey Astill
，
His conclusions are predictably Rawlsian。 But major credit for coming from the Left and still admitting the crux of the problem: talent and intellect is not distributed evenly; many people just won't stack up relative to what facilitates people getting ahead。 His conclusions are predictably Rawlsian。 But major credit for coming from the Left and still admitting the crux of the problem: talent and intellect is not distributed evenly; many people just won't stack up relative to what facilitates people getting ahead。 。。。more
Janus
，
Muy buen libro， nos muestra como el mérito lo han distorsionado y ahora es algo que se utiliza incluso para castigar o justificar inequidades y discriminación。
Mario
，
An interesting argument that a meritocracy may demoralize， more than an aristocracy， those at the bottom。 Short on data， and with selected examples， but a compelling thesis。
Doug
，
Five stars。。。 but only 'cause I can't give it six。 Five stars。。。 but only 'cause I can't give it six。 。。。more
Albina Galiullina
，
Can’t agree more with anti-merit arguments of Prof Sandel。In addition to discussions about discrimination based on merit， the book gives theological and historical reviews in different countries。 This helps to understand the values， logic and believes of different cultures in a deeper way than “people in Sweden are mostly Protestants， that’s why they tend to save”。
Renee
，
Great arguments。 Great explanations。 Though speaks in a rather repetitive manner。 Keep repeating。 No resolutions composed。 Only clear distinction of current issues in democracy。
Fanglin
，
Enlightening read--made me realize how deeply many of us believed in meritocracy and the moral problems of meritocracy。 Main points: we need to rethink the role of higher education as the sorting machine， dignity of work， and the meaning of successKey insights for me: - successes in today's meritocracy not entirely our own， but dependent on many factors beyond our control- credentialism reflects our bias and is a form of discrimination- what the market rewards do not always reflect the contribut Enlightening read--made me realize how deeply many of us believed in meritocracy and the moral problems of meritocracy。 Main points: we need to rethink the role of higher education as the sorting machine， dignity of work， and the meaning of successKey insights for me: - successes in today's meritocracy not entirely our own， but dependent on many factors beyond our control- credentialism reflects our bias and is a form of discrimination- what the market rewards do not always reflect the contribution to the common good （e。g。 finance sector） 。。。more
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
，