Book Review: The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? by Michael J. Sandel
“…it didn’t seem to me to solve the dilemma it kept tossing from hand to hand for hour after hour: If meritocracy isn’t so great, and aristocracy not so great either, then what?! …Sandel also argued that one way to valorize work rightly would be to legally curtail the money markets, the complex financial instruments that can net millions for the right bettors without actually doing much of anything to invest in business or produce any goods and services of value.” - Mark Ward
Related at TGC: What Christians Should Think About Meritocracy
- 1 view
My comment at Mark’s site…
Thanks for this thoughtful review! I’m intrigued and puzzled. “Meritocracy” must not mean what I think it means, because it was, in my view, an argument against the Trump nomination. He had not merited consideration for that job. …Is it possible that Sandel has confused poor implementation of meritocracy (misidentifying ‘merit’) with the idea of meritocracy itself? I’m inclined to think that meritocracy works great or works badly depending on what the society sees as “merit.”
Maybe Sandel includes a working definition you can excerpt for me? But it sounds like I should make the time to read this one as well as ‘Justice.’
After some more thought, and a closer look at Mark’s review, I really think Sandel is working from a special sense of “meritocracy,” which sounds to me like the wrong name for this dynamic. The references to how people get into Harvard, for example.
So, the idea seems to be “rule by very wealthy” (meritocracy) vs. “rule by inheritance”? (aristocracy). But that would mean we need another word. “Rule by those who genuinely have proven merit in relevant ways.” Being rich isn’t “merit” in most cases; that’s plutocracy, not meritocracy.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
If we had anything even close to a “meritocracy,” we would have far more lower-income students in our Ivies, and no-to-few political dynasties.
We’re not a “plutocracy,” because just having money in our society doesn’t translate immediately into political power, no matter how much of it you have.
We’re not exactly an aristocracy either, but we’re probably closer to that than the others.
We’re currently an oligarchy; I think that’s beyond dispute.
How are we an oligarchy?
The term usually means rule by a small committee.
I’ll have to read the book but I don’t think it’s about national structures, more about socio-political dominance in general—hence the bits about elite schools.
We still have the rule of law in the U.S., which makes us a republic as far as political structure goes. The laws themselves establish a great deal of representative democracy, so… democratic republic. But there are social dynamics that shape who actually makes it to the level of congressman or senator or presidential candidate, and these could be described as resembling aristocracy, plutocracy, meritocracy, etc. So I’m thinking that’s probably what the author is talking about. We are ruled by representatives, but how do those representatives rise? They do tend to be very wealthy people, and we increasingly as a culture seem to identify fame itself as some kind of indicator of superiority… so we quote actors opining about political philosophy and athletes making pronouncements about social justice, etc., as though their views had more value than any random person at the supermarket.
… is there a word for “rule by celebrities”?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]Oligarchy = rule by a small group of people, distinct in some way from the larger population.How are we an oligarchy?
The term usually means rule by a small committee.
I’ll have to read the book but I don’t think it’s about national structures, more about socio-political dominance in general—hence the bits about elite schools.
We still have the rule of law in the U.S., which makes us a republic as far as political structure goes. The laws themselves establish a great deal of representative democracy, so… democratic republic. But there are social dynamics that shape who actually makes it to the level of congressman or senator or presidential candidate, and these could be described as resembling aristocracy, plutocracy, meritocracy, etc. So I’m thinking that’s probably what the author is talking about. We are ruled by representatives, but how do those representatives rise? They do tend to be very wealthy people, and we increasingly as a culture seem to identify fame itself as some kind of indicator of superiority… so we quote actors opining about political philosophy and athletes making pronouncements about social justice, etc., as though their views had more value than any random person at the supermarket.
… is there a word for “rule by celebrities”?
Naturally we’re still a Republic with rule of law. (The two forms aren’t even mutually exclusive.)
However, our leaders are increasingly drawn from a global/national elite that shares similar educational background, culture, and values.
In that sense, I somewhat hyperbolically argued that we are an oligarchy.
I see now.
I tend to see that sort of oligarchy as a good thing. Populism and egalitarianism seem mostly leftist ideas to me… liberté, égalité, fraternité. I see a lot of problems blamed on elitism that would only be/are made worse when taken away from the elites. To me, the problem isn’t that they are elites but that they aren’t the right sort of elites.
I don’t think handing power to the completely unproven is a good alternative at all.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]I see now.
I tend to see that sort of oligarchy as a good thing. Populism and egalitarianism seem mostly leftist ideas to me… liberté, égalité, fraternité. I see a lot of problems blamed on elitism that would only be/are made worse when taken away from the elites. To me, the problem isn’t that they are elites but that they aren’t the right sort of elites.
I don’t think handing power to the completely unproven is a good alternative at all.
Certainly there was some advantage to it. Esp. when they were largely WASPs with a Christian heritage and a strong sense of noblesse oblige (think the Bushes).
The problem is, of course, that that elite had a very different set of values and priorities from the one that’s starting to emerge, and a different set of goals for the nation.
Discussion