The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?
- Downloads：6529
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-09-26 07:51:09
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Michael J. Sandel
- ISBN：0141991178
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
A TLS， GUARDIAN AND NEW STATESMAN BOOK OF THE YEAR 2020
The new bestseller from the acclaimed author of Justice and one of the world's most popular philosophers
"Astute， insightful， and empathetic。。。A crucial book for this moment" Tara Westover， author of Educated
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。
The new bestseller from the acclaimed author of Justice and one of the world's most popular philosophers
"Astute， insightful， and empathetic。。。A crucial book for this moment" Tara Westover， author of Educated
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。
Reviews
Wilte
，
Quotes:Americans have long tolerated inequalities of income and wealth， believing that， whatever one's starting point in life， it is possible to rise from rags to riches。 This faith in the possibility of upward mobility is at the heart of the American dream。The American faith that， with hard work and talent， anyone can rise no longer fits the facts on the ground。 This may explain why the rhetoric of op portunity fails to inspire as it once did。 Mobility can no longer compensate for inequality。th Quotes:Americans have long tolerated inequalities of income and wealth， believing that， whatever one's starting point in life， it is possible to rise from rags to riches。 This faith in the possibility of upward mobility is at the heart of the American dream。The American faith that， with hard work and talent， anyone can rise no longer fits the facts on the ground。 This may explain why the rhetoric of op portunity fails to inspire as it once did。 Mobility can no longer compensate for inequality。the morally unattractive attitudes the meritocratic ethic promotes， among the winners and also among the losers。 Among the winners， it generates hubris; among the losers， humiliation and resent ment。 These moral sentiments are at the heart of the populist uprising against elites。 More than a protest against immigrants and outsourcing， the populist complaint is about the tyranny of merit。 And the complaint is justified。But beyond fairness and productivity， the liberal argument also gestured toward a third， more potent ideal implicit in the case for markets: Enabling people to compete solely on the basis of effort and talent would bring market outcomes into alignment with merit。 In a society where opportunities were truly equal， markets would give people their just deserts。Here then was the link between the rhetoric of rising and the meritocratic ethic: If oppor tunities are truly equal， then not only will people rise as far as their talents and hard work will take them; their success will be their own doing， and they will deserve the rewards that come their way。Americans， more than most， adhere to the belief that hard work brings success， that our destiny is in our hands。 According to global public opinion surveys， most Americans （77 percent） believe that people can succeed if they work hard; only half of Germans think so。 In France and Japan， majorities say hard work is no guarantee of success。 （…）These views about work and self-help have implications for solidarity and the mutual obligations of citizens。 If everyone who works hard can be expected to succeed， then those who fall short have no one to blame but themselves， and it is hard to make the case for helping them。 This is the harsh side of meritocracy。college educated respondents have more bias against less-educated people than they do against other disfavored groups。 The researchers surveyed the at titudes of well-educated Europeans toward a range of people who are typi cally victims of discrimination-Muslims， people of Turkish decent living in Western Europe， people who are poor， obese， blind， and less educated。 They found that the poorly educated were disliked most of all。Kuppens， T。， Spears， R。， Manstead， A。 S。， Spruyt， B。， & Easterbrook， M。 J。 （2018）。 Educationism and the irony of meritocracy: Negative attitudes of higher educated people towards the less educated。 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology， 76， 429-447。https://www。sciencedirect。com/science。。。One of the casualties of meritocracy's triumph may be the loss of broad public support for higher education。 Once widely seen as an engine of op portunity， the university has become， at least for some， a symbol of creden tialist privilege and meritocratic hubris。The rhetoric of rising， with its single-minded focus on education as the answer to inequality， is partly to blame。The technocrat's belief that， if only we could agree on the facts， we could then have a reasoned debate about policy， misconceives the project of political persuasion。As Knight points out， meeting market demand is not necessarily the same thing as making a truly valuable con tribution to society。Natural talents， undeserved though they be， attract praise in meritocratic societies。 This is partly because they are admired for their own sake。 But it is also because they are thought to account for the vast winnings of the successful。the regime of merit exerts its tyranny in two directions at once。 Among those who land on top， it induces anxiety， a de bilitating perfectionism， and a meritocratic hubris that struggles to conceal a fragile self-esteem。 Among those it leaves behind， it imposes a demoral izing， even humiliating sense of failure。the way a society honors and rewards work is central to the way it defines the common good。 （…） What counts as a valuable contribution to the common good， and what do we owe one another as citizens？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。renewing the dignity of work requires that we contend with the moral questions underlying our economic arrangementsEquality of op portunity is a morally necessary corrective to injustice。 But it is a remedial principle， not an adequate ideal for a good society。R。 H。 Tawney， a British economic historian and social critic， argued that equality of opportunity is at best a partial ideal。 "Opportunities to rise，" he wrote， "are not a substitute for a large measure of practical equality， （1931）But a closer reading reveals that the [American] dream [James Truslow] Adams described was not only about moving up; it was about achieving a broad， democratic equality of condition。The meritocratic conviction that people deserve whatever riches the market bestows on their talents makes solidarity an almost impossible project。 。。。more
Krista
，
Riveting and enlightening。 Highly recommended
Peter
，
A challenging but worthwhile read。 Written in reaction to trump’s rise， but with only one real concrete practical proposal: for the educated class to engage in self-reflection。 This will hopefully lead to humility and a greater sense of community。 I hope the idea percolates through society。My opinion of elite schools evolved while reading this book。 While cloaking themselves as agents of equality， they actually drive inequality what’s changed I’d my expectation that they should act differently。 A challenging but worthwhile read。 Written in reaction to trump’s rise， but with only one real concrete practical proposal: for the educated class to engage in self-reflection。 This will hopefully lead to humility and a greater sense of community。 I hope the idea percolates through society。My opinion of elite schools evolved while reading this book。 While cloaking themselves as agents of equality， they actually drive inequality what’s changed I’d my expectation that they should act differently。 They exist to perpetuate themselves， and playing to society’s economic winners is the best way to do that。 It’s a mistake to expect them to be agents of social change。 。。。more
Namit Hans
，
I cannot emphasize enough why this book is so important。 It addresses many of the questions that I， and maybe others， have been grappling with。 What is merit？ How do you attribute higher importance to some professions over others？ Is equality of opportunity really the ideal we should strive for？ Are we actually doing good by creating a society which honors the winners and looks at anyone who fails to keep up with the demands of the consumerist society as losers？ There are so many questions that I cannot emphasize enough why this book is so important。 It addresses many of the questions that I， and maybe others， have been grappling with。 What is merit？ How do you attribute higher importance to some professions over others？ Is equality of opportunity really the ideal we should strive for？ Are we actually doing good by creating a society which honors the winners and looks at anyone who fails to keep up with the demands of the consumerist society as losers？ There are so many questions that still need to be answered。 But， this book does a great job of making everyone stop and question the ideals that we have been cherishing for the last few decades。 。。。more
Gene Grant
，
Pride and prejudice has been our destruction As the baby boomer of my original family with the most elitist tendencies， this book was an often painful call to reconsider my own pride and prejudice。 My ears burned at times。 Humility is as Ben Franklin noted the most difficult of virtues to attain。 But an essential virtue for the elite if our political polarization is to be tamed and eventually overcome。 Recognizing how little I really merit my fate is the beginning such humility and appreciation Pride and prejudice has been our destruction As the baby boomer of my original family with the most elitist tendencies， this book was an often painful call to reconsider my own pride and prejudice。 My ears burned at times。 Humility is as Ben Franklin noted the most difficult of virtues to attain。 But an essential virtue for the elite if our political polarization is to be tamed and eventually overcome。 Recognizing how little I really merit my fate is the beginning such humility and appreciation of the dignity shared with those less fortunate in life’s lottery！ 。。。more
Alex
，
DNF。 I thought I was the audience for this book， but it was extremely dull。 The author makes the point that the problem with meritocracy is that if the winners deserved to win then the losers deserve to lose， which leads 'losers' to become disenfranchised etc。 It's a very good point but he seemingly just rehashes it ad nauseam。 Got about 170 pages in before I gave up。 DNF。 I thought I was the audience for this book， but it was extremely dull。 The author makes the point that the problem with meritocracy is that if the winners deserved to win then the losers deserve to lose， which leads 'losers' to become disenfranchised etc。 It's a very good point but he seemingly just rehashes it ad nauseam。 Got about 170 pages in before I gave up。 。。。more
Hornthesecond
，
This is an eye opener of a book that I would recommend to anyone interested in fairness and justice， especially anyone confident that a meritocratic system based on educational achievement is the best and/or fairest way to run a state。
Elizabeth
，
The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good？ by Michael J。 Sandelfrom the libraryHardcover and unabridged audio edition of 9 cd'sContents:tIntroduction : getting in -- Winners and losers -- "Great because good" : a brief moral history of merit -- The rhetoric of rising -- Credentialism : the last acceptable prejudice -- Success ethics -- The sorting machine -- Recognizing work -- Conclusion : merit and the common good。https://www。thenation。com/article/soc。。。Everything I don't like abo The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good？ by Michael J。 Sandelfrom the libraryHardcover and unabridged audio edition of 9 cd'sContents:tIntroduction : getting in -- Winners and losers -- "Great because good" : a brief moral history of merit -- The rhetoric of rising -- Credentialism : the last acceptable prejudice -- Success ethics -- The sorting machine -- Recognizing work -- Conclusion : merit and the common good。https://www。thenation。com/article/soc。。。Everything I don't like about this book and it's ridiculous omissions are in this article。 It's fine if you are a white male。 But if like me you are a woman in a gender and sexual orientation minority it leaves out any remedies for us and furthermore attacks our main efforts at securing equality。It doesn't do anything for ethnic and racial minorities either。 In spite of this author's credentials as a liberal， I would go so far as to say its a racist book。 See p 30 where the author suggests we panderto ignorant white men who don't get an education and happen to be the very same demographic that is refusing to get vaccinated。https://jmp。princeton。edu/events/tyra。。。https://lareviewofbooks。org/article/s。。。 。。。more
Nilesh
，
The Tyranny of Merit has its heart in the right place but not necessarily or not always the head。The first thing the book gets entirely right， although perhaps to its consternation with no disagreement from anyone anywhere， is that the world is not a fair place。 In many fields that people claim those with merits win are full of winners who happen to be at the right place at the right time or， much worse， with the winners emerging on top using unacceptable methods。 Not only that those with merits The Tyranny of Merit has its heart in the right place but not necessarily or not always the head。The first thing the book gets entirely right， although perhaps to its consternation with no disagreement from anyone anywhere， is that the world is not a fair place。 In many fields that people claim those with merits win are full of winners who happen to be at the right place at the right time or， much worse， with the winners emerging on top using unacceptable methods。 Not only that those with merits do not always win， but many who have the merits - as the book wonderfully shows - acquire their merits due to chance factors。 For example， some people are born with the right talents or background that help them be good at certain things。 In a way， these are people with merits because they are lucky。As important as the above points are， they are incontrovertible even in the eyes of extreme libertarians， conservatives， free-market proponents， capitalists， or others of similar ilk。 When reduced to the extent the author tries to bear down on in the book， everything - including one's tendency to persevere or work hard - is due to some or the other chance factors in one's gene or environment。 Even if one stops before completely ruling out free will along these lines， it is easy to claim that nature plays a huge role in anyone's success， if not all the role。 The second point the book gets right is that those who are unlucky are punished excessively in our unequal world。 We live in a world of insidious inequality that is getting worse and turning more entrenched。 Our world's winners are racing away with more share of the world's riches and resources while the rest face ever diminishing prospects of breaking the rut。The book throws no new light on inequality， even if its moral viewpoint that the unlucky， often branded as the ones without merit， do not need to be so disenfranchised is compassionately and convincingly well made。 The solutions offered - through consumption-， wealth-， and financial transaction taxes - are neither original nor substantive。 The wage subsidy arguments - mentioned in the briefest possible ways - are utopian in the way they are discussed。 Any real-life practitioner would be able to elaborate why a minimum basic income will be far more practical than trying to decide the extent of subsidies for thousands of diverse types of jobs based on their arbitrarily decided societal value。 Plus， a minimum income - not touched upon - will be moralistically more compatible with the chance factor arguments discussed by the author than having everyone disagreeing with everyone on which jobs are more or less important compared to the other and the extent of their importance/unimportance。Simply put， in one fell swoop， the author discussed dismantling the market economy from all walks of life using examples of its failures but providing no objective evidence of how the scantily discussed， throwaway， proposed solutions would be better overall。 One cannot destroy every human creation or societal construct by simply pointing to weaknesses。 Far more， carefully prepared details must be offered on proposed alternatives than what the author does， especially when what one proposes involves something as radical as removing price signals。 The biggest issue with the book is how the author， who tries to be all-inclusive in providing the moral or philosophical base for his humanistic arguments， is wilfully blind to the role played by one's luck in where she is born。 The author's inclusiveness is limited to those who have lagged in America。 When the author abandons his philosophical musings and turns to politics， his rationale almost shifts zero-sum with little regard for those far poorer foreigners who lose out when the US turns more inward to protect its poor。 There is nothing wrong with one taking a limited view in one's desire to reduce inequality only within a well-defined group of any kind， but such people should not try to theorize so much as the author does about the sacrifices more privileged must make for the less fortunate。 The least unfortunate of the world are not the poorest of the richest countries。The author is also wrong in dissing merit to the extent he does。 Let's suppose there is a parallel world where tennis and sports have the meritocratically abused， elevated levels that the author sees so specifically in our society's math/science and education。 Another author authoring a book on that society's inequality rightly starts by making the points on how the winners are luckier rather than being entirely on merit given that some of their natural gifts are just chance factors while a lot of their expensive training is due to their parents' affordability。 After rightly discussing the role of chance and correctly criticizing excessive prizes for winners versus the pittance for those behind or nothing for the folks unable to play tennis， the same author begins making political points in his book。 Suppose he starts elaborating on a recent populist leader's success by endorsing the need to keep outside players out of the nation's tournaments to ensure that it is the best way to have citizens retain higher winnings and feel less unhappy。 From there， while continuously mouthing those best sportspeople are more watchable and have more viewership， he begins discussing why sports competitions should have winners based on a lottery！The logic， of course， would begin from the arguments that there is little that separate the top players， as is clearly evidenced in the fact that not the same player wins all the time。 The author also points at the top performers' anxieties in staying at the top while the rest's frustrations at their inability to win as other reasons why such competitions should be banned at every level， starting from schools。Returning to our world and the book， the lottery-based college admissions or arguments against exams are similar suggestions。 The author's radical idea of making life more a lottery than it is as a solution is simply ridiculous。 He may claim that he is suggesting this only for some walks of life， like in university admissions， but such wonkiness， if implemented， will have others suggesting doing away with all exams and using lottery in job selections， parental care， sports， or even politics。 Once a society brays for an authority based on some philosophers' musing to roll the dice and pick winners arbitrarily as a way of life， a cultural revolution to obliterate any signs of individuality cannot be far away。In the section on credentialism， the author bemoans how some implicitly or explicitly brag their better fortunes （in the form of university degrees or educational certificates in the author's examples） to the chagrin of others around。 Once again， the example is not much different from winners pumping fists on a sports field or displaying their awards on their mantels。 If every life activity's losers' feelings are used as a yardstick to dictate how everyone should behave， the resultant， joy-banning， totalitarian state will be more mechanistically socialistic than most left-leaning economists have ever asked for。 Humans create contests out of everything。 From games of stones， chariots to beauty contests and money or computer games， we heave on emotions generated by them。 One can list chance factors involved to any winner of any of these games while beseeching humility or the need to make the game fairer or asking for more just rewards， but to ask for a larger role of chance is a step in the backward direction。So yes， the author should be credited to make the point that our societies need to spend far more time on those who are falling behind。 We need to reduce the winners' winnings substantially and lift the rewards of the rest through more distributive policies。 We must ensure that everyone knows that all who win have a lot to owe to Lady Luck。 We must turn more decent and humane towards those who are not lucky rather than implicitly accept that the unfortunate must deserve what befell on them somehow。 The author is not universal enough in applying his first principal-based humanitarian arguments， and his economic solutions do not follow the Hegelian self-actualization that he wants to help everyone achieve by making life a bigger game of dice。 。。。more
Bram Peeters
，
This is a book I'd advise to anyone who cares about social structures， equality/equity， and education as a way to provide opportunities for all。 It's providing a lot of arguments to re-consider the merit of the "all will be fair if people are allowed to use their talents and are fully rewarded for it" hymn。 Yes， you deserve to benefit from using the talents that happen to be rewarded in society， you should have the opportunities to develop them， but what happens with those who don't 'deserve'， a This is a book I'd advise to anyone who cares about social structures， equality/equity， and education as a way to provide opportunities for all。 It's providing a lot of arguments to re-consider the merit of the "all will be fair if people are allowed to use their talents and are fully rewarded for it" hymn。 Yes， you deserve to benefit from using the talents that happen to be rewarded in society， you should have the opportunities to develop them， but what happens with those who don't 'deserve'， and what may true 'equal opportunities' look like。。。 Very solid， structured arguing， easy to read， thought-provoking and also just very good at making the case why the concept of merit isn't necessarily the best way to get to proper common good。 My only problem with the book is purely one of context - it's very US focused， and even though that probably covers the excesses of the merit approach and is reasonably transferable to some European mechanisms， it still reads like a book you need to read whilst you're sipping your well deserved coffee in Silicon Valley （or a craft beer for that matter）。 。。。more
Zainab
，
I stumbled upon Michael's work while scrolling through YouTube。 The title read: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do？ The series could not really reach any conclusion on 'what's the right thing to do' because， you see， justice is complex， situational， and difficult。 But as Michael says， we must not stop questioning because of the fear of skepticism。In The Tyranny of Merit， Michael has decided to reach a conclusion， and that too， a really simple one。 That a good society （I kept reading it as a j I stumbled upon Michael's work while scrolling through YouTube。 The title read: Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do？ The series could not really reach any conclusion on 'what's the right thing to do' because， you see， justice is complex， situational， and difficult。 But as Michael says， we must not stop questioning because of the fear of skepticism。In The Tyranny of Merit， Michael has decided to reach a conclusion， and that too， a really simple one。 That a good society （I kept reading it as a just society） should ideally aspire for equality of condition， not equality of opportunity， because:-without equality of condition， equality of opportunity through a 'meritocratic system' is a hollow promise that is never fulfilled; -merit is an illusion that breeds conceit among the already affluent who are looking for ways to justify their ascribed status;-meritocracy alienates the already marginalized; -the meritocratic system is too individualistic; -a society that depends on the success of scattered and detached individuals and hopes it would miraculously work out for the common good is no goodAnd finally， because merit does not mean fairness。 While fairness is compassionate and forgiving and encouraging， merit is cold and demanding and discouraging。 I'd choose fairness over merit any day。 Note: I wanted to give it four stars initially because I 'wanted' it to be as engaging as Michael's video lectures。 Then I remembered that I just claimed that I'd choose fairness over merit any day。 Today's just another day。 。。。more
Frank Artusa
，
I’ve been a fan of Sandel ever since binge watching his series of lectures on Justice through YouTube （I also forced my kids to watch it！）。 I read his book Justice twice， considering it one of the best books for the layman’s introduction to ethics and how it applies to modern day issues。 With The Tyranny of Merit he adopts a similar style， free of jargon and abstract philosophical ideas， to bring to the forefront some of the insidious aspects of a meritocratic system of government。 He goes over I’ve been a fan of Sandel ever since binge watching his series of lectures on Justice through YouTube （I also forced my kids to watch it！）。 I read his book Justice twice， considering it one of the best books for the layman’s introduction to ethics and how it applies to modern day issues。 With The Tyranny of Merit he adopts a similar style， free of jargon and abstract philosophical ideas， to bring to the forefront some of the insidious aspects of a meritocratic system of government。 He goes over the historical evolution of the meritocracy， it’s cousin the deceptively alluring technocracy， the failure of the Obama administration to reign in the meritocratic winners that caused the financial sector’s meltdown in 2008， the psychological toxicity manifesting in hubris among the elite and humiliation among those left behind， and the ultimate outcome; the present day’s populist uprising。He also devotes a significant amount of time breaking down the failures of the university selection process， even levying criticism at his employer， Harvard。 He upended my belief that a university education is absolutely mandatory for success as well as to promote good citizenship。Sandel is a master at peeling back the layers to tap into the bedrock of why and how governmental and economic systems behave the way they do， and in this case， a meritocracy which leads to massive inequality， resentment， and disenfranchisement among a growing portion of the population。 。。。more
Iris
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 能力主義は正義ではない。この本を読んで、頑張ったのに報われなかったとか、評価されなかったなどという泣き言を言う自分を恥ずかしく思いました。能力主義は平等で、正しい努力した者に富を分配する仕組みだと考えていたが、その前提から既に不平等の連鎖は始まっている。貧しく生まれた者に、開かれている機会は残酷なまでに狭い。ショッキングな統計がいくつも紹介されている。例えばコロナ感染した貧困層は、富裕層の何倍であるとか、貧困層からアイビーリーグに入学する生徒数は、入学者全体の数%だとか、アメリカでの絶望死は年々増加していて、その数は大学卒業学位がある人々とない人々で3倍位違うとか。宗教、人種、所得、あらゆる事で我々は違う。しかし各階層の人々が、何かを共有することで理解し合える。そのためには共通の空間や公共の場で出会うことが必要。その前提として、自分の成功は偶然の産物だと認識することが必須だと著者は説いています。成功は神の恩寵、出自の偶然、運命の神秘、そのいずれかだと捉えることで、謙虚さを身に纏い、能力主義の過ちから逃れることができる。正直この本は私にはとても難しくて、さっくり読める本ではなかった。しか 能力主義は正義ではない。この本を読んで、頑張ったのに報われなかったとか、評価されなかったなどという泣き言を言う自分を恥ずかしく思いました。能力主義は平等で、正しい努力した者に富を分配する仕組みだと考えていたが、その前提から既に不平等の連鎖は始まっている。貧しく生まれた者に、開かれている機会は残酷なまでに狭い。ショッキングな統計がいくつも紹介されている。例えばコロナ感染した貧困層は、富裕層の何倍であるとか、貧困層からアイビーリーグに入学する生徒数は、入学者全体の数%だとか、アメリカでの絶望死は年々増加していて、その数は大学卒業学位がある人々とない人々で3倍位違うとか。宗教、人種、所得、あらゆる事で我々は違う。しかし各階層の人々が、何かを共有することで理解し合える。そのためには共通の空間や公共の場で出会うことが必要。その前提として、自分の成功は偶然の産物だと認識することが必須だと著者は説いています。成功は神の恩寵、出自の偶然、運命の神秘、そのいずれかだと捉えることで、謙虚さを身に纏い、能力主義の過ちから逃れることができる。正直この本は私にはとても難しくて、さっくり読める本ではなかった。しかし興味深いデータと考察で、まさにページターナーな本でした。 。。。more
Alek
，
What is the common good， you ask？ It's simple。 It's things Sandel likes。 The more he likes them the more commonly good they are， e。g。: teachers， frontline workers， etc。 What is not the common good？ Things he doesn't like or， even worse， understand， e。g。: financial markets。 He argues that meritocracy is not necessarily bad， but people liking meritocracy is bad。。。 because that just makes the unsuccessful feel even worse。 That's one of his core arguments。 Maybe rewarding success is making the rich What is the common good， you ask？ It's simple。 It's things Sandel likes。 The more he likes them the more commonly good they are， e。g。: teachers， frontline workers， etc。 What is not the common good？ Things he doesn't like or， even worse， understand， e。g。: financial markets。 He argues that meritocracy is not necessarily bad， but people liking meritocracy is bad。。。 because that just makes the unsuccessful feel even worse。 That's one of his core arguments。 Maybe rewarding success is making the rich get richer， but it might also result in the abundant world we've built today， a trade-off I will gladly take any idea if it means I feel a bit bad that my own personal （ir）responsibility has resulted in my （lack of） success。Another thing that is badly argued in this book is social mobility。 In the past， a person's success was heavily influenced by their birth。 If they were born to a rich or aristocratic family， then they most likely stayed in that socioeconomic class， and similarly for the poor。 However， in the 20th century this was wildly upturned， as people from all walks of life have had a chance at unimaginable success。 Yet even more recently， in the U。S。 at least， this social mobility might be falling。 He ardently argues how this is detrimental to society， when e。g。 many people born in the bottom 20% of income/wealth stay there。 But what if a lot of those people deservedly stay there？ Let's think about whether capacity for success can be conferred from parents to children。 It doesn't have to be genetic like inheriting smart or hard working genes。 It could be purely cultural， e。g。 through teaching sound financial advice or good discipline etc。 To paint one example， if hard work pays off， and you become successful through it， you will make awfully sure you instill this ethic in your child， which results in industriousness becoming a highly heritable trait。Now， what do you think this will do to social mobility measures？ It will show up as some kind of perpetuation of privilege， even thought it is not （unless the mere knowledge that hard work pays off counts as privilege）。 Even if you wanted to combat this， can you？ Should you？ What are you going to do， have a state mandated child raising concentration camp to make everyone equally industrious？ Pretty disappointed in the book overall， though it had one interesting argument。 There are definitely places and position for which there are exorbitantly many qualified candidates， an example of which is applicants to the most selective schools。 Most of the applicants are more than qualified and would probably thrive in these schools， so he proposes a lottery。 Let there be a cutoff for the unqualified， and a lottery among the rest。 This will teach humility because luck being part of your admission is much more evident now。 In some countries （e。g。 Ireland） this has been tried as a way of governing （called sortition） though possibly for different reasons。Skip this book and read his other work on justice and markets for a slightly better argued position more becoming of a Harvard professor。 。。。more
Erik Drenth
，
The Tyrrany of Merit is wat mij betreft een van de belangrijke politieke boeken van het jaar。 Een uitstekende analyse die voorbij de angst voor en veroordeling van hedendaags rechts populisme gaat， en uitlegt welke mechanismen ervoor zorgen dat er een groeiende kloof in de samenleving ontstaat。 Die kloof gaat vooral over de kloof tussen hoog- en laagopgeleiden。
Ruta Mankeviciene
，
It's my first book on this topic and by this author。 While reading it， I felt as if I was in a classroom listening to a lecture by profesor Sandel - it's a good feeling to be a student again。 I did enjoy his reasoning on ethics and morale not only in politics but societal composition in general， made me reflect on my own believes。 It was a good read to challenge/contemplate on some modern day truths （？）。 It's my first book on this topic and by this author。 While reading it， I felt as if I was in a classroom listening to a lecture by profesor Sandel - it's a good feeling to be a student again。 I did enjoy his reasoning on ethics and morale not only in politics but societal composition in general， made me reflect on my own believes。 It was a good read to challenge/contemplate on some modern day truths （？）。 。。。more
Pete Stimpson
，
‘Allocating jobs and opportunities according to merit does not reduce inequality; it reconfigures inequality to align with ability。 But this reconfiguration creates a presumption that people get what they deserve。 And this presumption deepens the gap between rich and poor。’Taking on inequality from a slightly different angle， Sandel diagnoses two crucial contributing factors - the technocratic way of conceiving public good i。e。 using GDP as a proxy for common good and the meritocratic way we hav ‘Allocating jobs and opportunities according to merit does not reduce inequality; it reconfigures inequality to align with ability。 But this reconfiguration creates a presumption that people get what they deserve。 And this presumption deepens the gap between rich and poor。’Taking on inequality from a slightly different angle， Sandel diagnoses two crucial contributing factors - the technocratic way of conceiving public good i。e。 using GDP as a proxy for common good and the meritocratic way we have of defining winners and losers， arguing that it harms both in different ways。 In addition， he touches on the shortcomings of equality of opportunity as a solution to inequality （not arguing that it isn’t important） and produces a withering critique of decades of rhetoric aIong the lines of ‘you can make it if you try’ from the right， left and centre alike。It’s light on detail about how to solve these issues but I think that’s part of the point – technocratic solutions can only go some of the way。 Our failure is in not addressing the challenge of creating a society with dignity in all work and social cohesion。 Only with the grace to know that few ‘make it on their own’ and the humility to recognise that everyone does and must play a role will we begin to get there。 Very readable， constantly engaging and always focused on the what it takes to make a good life for everyone， we need more Michael Sandels。 。。。more
Lance Eaton
，
In general， Sandel's book is a powerful examination of the ways merit and the U。S。 （and world at large） purports to be a meritocracy。 It's a damning critique in where the concept of merit and meritocracy come from （a mixture of Horatio Alger and also a satire by Michael Young in the mid-20th century）。 The crux of his argument is that any society that invokes the ideas of meritocracy means that any time people do not succeed， the inevitable message is that they did not try hard enough and that is In general， Sandel's book is a powerful examination of the ways merit and the U。S。 （and world at large） purports to be a meritocracy。 It's a damning critique in where the concept of merit and meritocracy come from （a mixture of Horatio Alger and also a satire by Michael Young in the mid-20th century）。 The crux of his argument is that any society that invokes the ideas of meritocracy means that any time people do not succeed， the inevitable message is that they did not try hard enough and that is why they themselves are failures。 That message has a crippling effect on people because it is often not true and ignores the fact that a capitalist system such as ours is structured on the inequality of resources and advancement。 To unquestioningly present merit as the centerstone of society has contributed to much of the division and political anger in recent populist movements （on the left and the right）。 Sandel's explanation of the limits and problems of merit and meritocracy is important for many to realize and valuable for the most successful people to remember as they consider their choices and their understanding of other people's choices。 However， Sandel flounders a bit in my view in that while discussing the ways the merit-discourse exists in modern culture is the "real" reason for the rise of Trump and the extremist and marginalizing behavior by many of his followers。 While elites （though he never really defines this） and higher education （and the structures that over-value it compared to other post-secondary training） are problems， Sandel gives too much credence to them and barely anything to the roles that media， particularly right-wing media have also pushed anti-intellectual agendas for decades and the lingering effect that has。 This limitation comes through in Sandel's work by his repeated mentions of how Trump won the 2016 election， confusing the election outcome with the actual number of votes that Trump did get （fewer than Clinton， and much less when considering the entire voting population--that's less than 1/4 of the US citizenry）。 He also fails to acknowledge how the left has also worked to undermine meritocracy with the idea but rather blames them for failing to care or invest in dismantling ideas of meritocracy。 For example， he ignores the push for liveable wages such as the advancement of $15 an hour as a minimum wage。 In that way， his argument feels limited in terms of how he applies political analysis without genuine consideration of media analysis。 However， the book should still be read and considered by many。 。。。more
Ted
，
The Goodreads scoring system has its limitations。 How does one rate a book that is at times repetitive， that can be frustratingly shallow， and that ultimately fails to make a real effort to outline a response to the problem it purports to diagnose， but that one found readable and worthy of the time spent engaging with it， if only to reject the author’s arguments？ Four stars （“really liked it”） seems inappropriate。 I didn’t “really like it，” largely because it didn’t really do what it set out to The Goodreads scoring system has its limitations。 How does one rate a book that is at times repetitive， that can be frustratingly shallow， and that ultimately fails to make a real effort to outline a response to the problem it purports to diagnose， but that one found readable and worthy of the time spent engaging with it， if only to reject the author’s arguments？ Four stars （“really liked it”） seems inappropriate。 I didn’t “really like it，” largely because it didn’t really do what it set out to do。 Mr。 Sandel lays out the problem fairly well: “meritocracy” （at least as we seem to conceive of it） lays a trap—those who make it through the process that sifts young people through premier colleges and universities， and on to prestigious and remunerative occupations inevitably come to think （because society tells them） that they “deserve” their success。 This leads to hubris on the part of those who have succeeded by society’s measure—a contempt for those who lack a college degree， who live away from the major metropolitan centers， who speak with certain accents， who eat at Denny’s: “the deplorables” （as Ms。 Clinton put it）; those who cling to their guns and their religion （Mr。 Obama）; or the “47%” （Mr。 Romney）。 And there is a corollary problem: those who don’t make it to the pinnacles of prestige， and especially those who are left out of an increasingly technologically driven world （and its accompanying technocracy） not only fall behind economically， but are viewed with contempt by those who have navigated the system to their advantage。 Contempt breeds resentment。 Resentment breeds contempt。 And this creates a kind of positive feedback loop， generating increasing polarization in our politics， and in our society as a whole。 In fact， at one point （early in the book）， Sandel seems almost approving of the aristocratic regime of late 19th and early 20th century Britain， in which those at the peak of society knew that they were damn lucky， and at least gave lip service to the ideals of noblesse oblige， and those less fortunate could avoid resentment， because they knew that luck played a role in one’s lot in life， and， well， what the hell could you do？[Sandel does not quite go there， which is well， because for most of history， aristocrats appear to have tended to think that they deserved their position because they were in fact better—I don’t see much of the humility for which Sandel advocates in the great figures of The Iliad， for example。 The Homeric concept of arete seems to imply an excellence that is based on a cultivation of innate gifts—and if you don’t have those gifts， well， you just weren’t favored by the gods。]Sandel’s analysis of the situation， however， is hampered by an often risible misunderstanding of history and religion。 Perhaps that is a risk that someone who is on the faculty of Harvard runs。 But it is somewhat ironic that a member of the Harvard faculty （an institution that was founded with the purpose of educating members of the clergy） should have such a shallow understanding of Christianity。 He spends a great deal of time arguing for the proposition that the Bible articulates an understanding that worldly “success” is an indicator of the favor of God （forgetting the numerous counter-examples—how is it that a religion centered on a destitute iterant preacher who was crucified as a common criminal is necessarily aligned with a vision of worldly success as an indicator of God’s favor？）。 Perhaps he would do well to consider the possibility that the “Prosperity Gospel” is in fact a corruption of Christianity （as are most versions of Protestantism）—not an exemplar。This is especially important because， if part of the problem is the hubris of the successful （as Sandel argues）， then it just may be that the development of a religious sentiment focused on gratitude and service to others may be the most effective cure。 But that is not something that government， or politics， can really manage to put into effect—that comes from somewhere else。Which brings us to the most frustrating part of Sandel’s argument—he barely even bothers to articulate a solution （or even an approach to a solution）。 He cites some handsome rhetoric from the late Robert F。 Kennedy （and， given Sandel’s age， one might be excused for suspecting that he drank the Kennedy Kool-Aid for once and for all in that wretched spring and summer of 1968， and never got over it）。 But Sandel forgets that RFK was a politician， and politicians will inevitably disappoint those who place too much hope in them。 There are hints in Sandel’s argument of a potentially workable solution， but he never ends up going there， in part because he is， after all， a member of the very elites whose existence he decries。 So， no serious discussion of the role that religious sentiment might play as an antidote to hubris。 No thought that one problem might be that we are too big， too diverse， that it is incredibly difficult （one might even say impossible） to articulate a vision of the common good that applies equally across a country that spans a continent and encompasses a third of a billion individuals。 Worth reading？ Absolutely。 Ultimately convincing？ Absolutely not。 。。。more
Gemma Van Der Kamp
，
De Nederlandse vertaling is minder dan het Engelse origineel - meer herhaling。 Ik zou dus de Engelse versie lezen。
Michael Perez
，
A really great philosophy book about how meritocracies and technocracies， while with many upsides， can be condescending to those without degrees， power， or a voice。 There's a lot to break down here， with each chapter chock full of different insightful examples。 I think there's a lot to analyze here， and this book does a good job of breaking down how populism on both sides of the political aisle came to rise today。 I'd highly recommend this， regardless of your political persuasion， if you want to A really great philosophy book about how meritocracies and technocracies， while with many upsides， can be condescending to those without degrees， power， or a voice。 There's a lot to break down here， with each chapter chock full of different insightful examples。 I think there's a lot to analyze here， and this book does a good job of breaking down how populism on both sides of the political aisle came to rise today。 I'd highly recommend this， regardless of your political persuasion， if you want to learn about some philosophy and politics。 Sandel is an extremely smart writer。 。。。more
Adam
，
Inequality。 While racism， sexism and other -isms have contributed to such， Sandel's astute observation that our divisions are reinforced through the sorting of people into classes （à la Aldous Huxley's Brave New World）， enacted through a well-established meritocratic system， can be a game changer for how we approach work， the reshuffling of our collegiate system， and our contributions to the common good。5 stars。 Detailed and thorough， several of its tenets forced me to examine my own perspective Inequality。 While racism， sexism and other -isms have contributed to such， Sandel's astute observation that our divisions are reinforced through the sorting of people into classes （à la Aldous Huxley's Brave New World）， enacted through a well-established meritocratic system， can be a game changer for how we approach work， the reshuffling of our collegiate system， and our contributions to the common good。5 stars。 Detailed and thorough， several of its tenets forced me to examine my own perspective of the various meritocratic impulses and behaviours enacted within my own life。 Recommended。 。。。more
Pete Munsey
，
Sander examines the extremes to which meritocracy has evolved and makes a case that it has divided the country between those who’ve “made it” and those who haven’t。 Or more specifically， those who have attained a college degree and the cultural power that comes with it in a meritocracy。 and those who have not。 He has several specific recommendations on how counter balance this but the one thing he did not mention is teaching humility。 He highlights the lack of humility many convey but a policy p Sander examines the extremes to which meritocracy has evolved and makes a case that it has divided the country between those who’ve “made it” and those who haven’t。 Or more specifically， those who have attained a college degree and the cultural power that comes with it in a meritocracy。 and those who have not。 He has several specific recommendations on how counter balance this but the one thing he did not mention is teaching humility。 He highlights the lack of humility many convey but a policy prescription should include teaching our kids humility and perspective。 We did not earn much of what we have。 It is through luck of being born here， at this time in history， to these parents who had the means to give me a great education， etc， that I have had doors open for me。 Talent and drive play a part， but dumb luck got me to the point where talent and drive mattered。 。。。more
Hal Tyler
，
I don’t ever think I’m going to feel like writing a fully fleshed review of this book， but I will say these things:Michael J Sandel writes about the workings of a partially aristocratic meritocracy from Mount Olympus。 He himself is a white philosopher teaching at Harvard University， and therefore one of the first voices the public are liable to listen to in the effort to level the playing field， so to speak。 Sandel argues for something that resembles social/luck-based egalitarianism and I can de I don’t ever think I’m going to feel like writing a fully fleshed review of this book， but I will say these things:Michael J Sandel writes about the workings of a partially aristocratic meritocracy from Mount Olympus。 He himself is a white philosopher teaching at Harvard University， and therefore one of the first voices the public are liable to listen to in the effort to level the playing field， so to speak。 Sandel argues for something that resembles social/luck-based egalitarianism and I can definitely agree with some of his philosophies。 The feeling of being unheard and dismissed， disrespected and condescended to was a symptom of a wounded America that led to the Trump election after Obama’s eight years。 Such feelings shouldn’t be so easily written off as ignorant， ignoring the data or on the wrong side of history， simply for not having the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions。 Somewhere on the other side of this argument， Sandel asks us the reader to think about those who aren’t born particularly talented， or those who don’t have talents of value to society， and their subsequent right to exist and participate within that society。He also repeatedly asks one of my favorite philosophical questions of all: what do we owe to each other？ 。。。more
Chris Brady
，
In keeping with Sandel's use of chance， I rolled the dice to decide the number of stars for this book。 Good fortune！ In keeping with Sandel's use of chance， I rolled the dice to decide the number of stars for this book。 Good fortune！ 。。。more
David
，
A very carefully argued book。 It's a convincing book and captures the zeitgeist。 The keytake away: neither the rich nor the poor "deserve" their respective lots in life， as the meritocratic worldview insists。 It results in unmerited hubris in the one case and unwarranted self-loathing in the other。 As strong as the book is in its dressing-down of meritocracy， however， it exhibits flaws in framing and exposition。 Sandel takes aim squarely at the "liberal" elite who are associated with higher educ A very carefully argued book。 It's a convincing book and captures the zeitgeist。 The keytake away: neither the rich nor the poor "deserve" their respective lots in life， as the meritocratic worldview insists。 It results in unmerited hubris in the one case and unwarranted self-loathing in the other。 As strong as the book is in its dressing-down of meritocracy， however， it exhibits flaws in framing and exposition。 Sandel takes aim squarely at the "liberal" elite who are associated with higher education and the gate-keeping role it plays in the meritocratic order。 So far， so good。 Unfortunately， he fails to sufficiently take to task the economic elite， or the "Merchant Right" as Piketty calls it。 There are too many places in Tyranny where Sandel points to the liberal elite when he could or should be pointing to the economic elite。 And this isn't just keeping score， though this factors into tone in a significant way。 As complicit as higher education certainly is in the meritocracy， our neoliberal elite （Sandel mentions the term a few times） are at least as complicit as well and Sandel fails to adequately integrate the economic and cultural spheres in his exposition。 It's strange that Sandel would miss this。 Piketty's analysis， which splits the elite into two fractions--Merchant Right and Brahmin Left， one economic and the other cultural--predates Sandel's book by over a year in Capital and Ideology （2019） and even earlier in journal publications， I believe。 What accounts for this？ Hard to say。 Sandel published previously about the limits of markets and so perhaps he thought it was time to aim his polemic at liberals （custodians of culture and higher ed？）。 To compensate for this skewness I would recommend reading the Piketty chapters in Capital and Ideology that deal with the Merchant Right and Brahmin Left。 If time is a problem， then check out the book review "What comes after Meritocracy" in The Nation， which highlights the same misstep by Sandel。In the end， I think The Tyranny of Merit is a must-read book。 The problem we face achieves philosophical clarity under Sandel's steady and patient gaze。 。。。more
Stephanie
，
Negative stars， not only because I vehemently disagree with it， but also because the book is badly written。 There’s lots to be said， but all I will put here is that for me， the complete disregard for the fact that merit is increasingly ignored in all manner of selection / appointment process （especially at universities） undermined the book from about page 2 right through to the very end。
Sarah Cavar
，
Oh， man。 What a master class in white， male mediocrity。 This is a book about how， evidently， white supremacy is not largely responsible for trump’s rise， but rather， white men being sad for reasons Totally Unrelated To People Of Colors’ Success。 If your resistance to meritocracy is primarily in order to re-enfranchise already-powerful white guys who are finally， finally facing the reality that the floor-level standards to which they’ve been previously held will no longer cut it， your resistance Oh， man。 What a master class in white， male mediocrity。 This is a book about how， evidently， white supremacy is not largely responsible for trump’s rise， but rather， white men being sad for reasons Totally Unrelated To People Of Colors’ Success。 If your resistance to meritocracy is primarily in order to re-enfranchise already-powerful white guys who are finally， finally facing the reality that the floor-level standards to which they’ve been previously held will no longer cut it， your resistance to meritocracy is resistance to marginalized peoples’ success。 You hate the success of those with the most skill because that is finally beginning to mean that white men are failing， are being exposed as complacent。 Do better。 。。。more
Miguel Torres Magro
，
A portray of the danger of confusing morality by merit in a world ruled by the desires of the market。
Diana Thorburn
，