The Tyranny of Merit by Michael J. Sandel
“Deserve”. “Earned it”. “Self-made”. We hear these phrases awfully lot these days. Actually I’m not sure about other people, but at least I do.
According to Google Ngram, the use of the phrase “you deserve” more than tripled since 1970, and the invocations of deservingness were explicitly related to meritocratic thinking. Meritocracy – a political system in which economic resources are distributed to people based on their effort, talent, and achievement. Sounds extremely fair, doesn’t it? What could possibly go wrong with a political and social structure that allow citizens to achieve prestige and wealth as far as their hard work and talent will take them? In fact, meritocracy is precisely the core of the American Dream.
If you wonder what is the answer to that question, The Tyranny of Merit is your book.
The Tyranny of Merit is essentially Sandel’s response to Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. The author illustrated that we live in a dangerous time for democracy; in an age of winners and losers, where the odds are stacked against the already fortunate. Stalled social mobility and entrenched inequality made the American rhetoric of rising that "you can make it if you try" rings hollow. The consequence is a brew of frustration and resentment that has fueled populist protest and extreme Pasokification, and led to deep distrust of both government and our fellow citizens--leaving us morally unprepared to face the profound challenges of our time.
For the longest time, the US fetishized meritocracy, they believe the principle of meritocracy is correct, and as long as the society can perfect equality of opportunity, they will be able to reach the American Dream.
However, Sandel explained that the problem with meritocracy lies with the principle, not with our failure to live up to it. It wasn’t just a matter of the practice falls short of the ideal. It is doubtful that even a perfect meritocracy would be satisfying, either morally or politically. The book highlighted two deficiencies of meritocracy practiced in the US and Europe.
First problem: Morally, meritocracy is contradicting. Central to the case for the meritocratic ethic is the idea that we do not deserve to be held back or rewarded based on factors beyond our control (age, class, race etc…). But is being born with or lack of certain talents, or born into wealthy/poor families within our own control? If not, it is hard to see why those who rise thanks to their unearned talents and wealth deserve greater rewards than those who may be equally hardworking but less endowed with the gifts a market society happens to prize. Those who celebrate the meritocratic ideal and make it the center of their political project overlooked this moral question. Okay, don’t get me wrong. The author is not some doo-doo evangelist trying to create a utopia where everything is “fair”, he is merely stating that, if it is not fair, don’t pretend that it is, that never-ending rhetoric is what causes the problems.
Second problem: Politically, the relentless emphasis on creating a “fair” meritocracy, in which social positions accurately reflect effort and talent, has a corrosive effect on the way winner and losers interpret their success and failure. The system brought out the politically potent: the morally unattractive attitude the meritocratic ethic promotes, among the winners and the losers, pride and humiliation, hubris and resentment. These moral sentiments are at the heart of the populist uprising against elites, the populist complaint is about the tyranny of merit. And the complaint is justified.
The notion that the system is fair that your fate is completely in your hands, that ‘you can make it if you try’, is a double-edged sword, inspiring in one way but invidious in another. It congratulates the winners but denigrates the losers. The meritocratic thinking encourages the winners to consider their success “completely” their own doing, a measure of their virtue, and more dangerously scary part…to view the losers’ failure “completely” their fault and therefore deserves no empathy or help. These are dangerous thoughts that are dividing our society more than ever.
Similar to some of the sentiments derived from other books I reviewed: What Money Can’t Buy, The Common Good, and Justice, the authors all expressed that more and more so, people nowadays value individualism and freedom, but are lacking civic sensibility and common sacrifice.
Overall, the author’s tone is as modulated as ever; the phrasing characteristically elegant and fluent. But a sense of frustration is palpable, as Sandel charts the rise of what he sees as a corrosive leftwing individualism. this is a very interesting read. Somehow after the pandemic, I especially enjoy reading the books that remind us of the importance of empathy, the common good, public sacrifices, and civic responsibilities, I believe these are the long forgotten yet critical aspects for a society to function.
