The Tyranny of Merit; What's Become of the Common Good?, by Michael Sandel
Review by Dave Gamrath
Author Michael Sandel provides an enlightening, if overly-repetitive, review of the negative consequences meritocracy has had on American society.
Book Review:
The term meritocracy was coined in 1958 as a term of abuse, but evolved to a term of praise and aspiration. In his book The Tyranny of Merit, What's Become of the Common Good? author Michael Sandel argues that meritocracy has had an extremely harmful impact on our society. In theory, a meritocratic society is a just society that distributes income and wealth based on what people deserve. The reality, per Sandel, is much different.
America was historically an aristocracy, where family wealth and privilege was the main determinant of future success. Efforts began in the 1940s towards moving America from an aristocracy to a meritocracy. Why is this bad? Sandel states that a meritocracy is not a remedy for inequality; it’s a justification for inequality. Inequality in America has exploded over the past forty years, and Sandel believes meritocracy is much to blame.
A large part of the problem are the attitudes that a meritocracy conveys. Our society’s “winners” typically think of themselves as self-made and self-sufficient, and deserving of their success. Rarely are luck and privilege recognized in one’s success. Those that land on top in our society believe they deserve to be there. Those that are left behind, well, deserve to be left behind. Those at the top rarely convey humility and gratitude. And without these, it’s hard to care for the common good.
A meritocracy demoralizes those that haven’t made it. A system that celebrates “the best” implicitly denigrates the rest. Sandel believes that this dynamic was a big reason for the popularity of Donald Trump amongst America’s white, working class. Two-thirds of Americans don’t have a college degree, and have seen the chances for a successful career become rare. Those left behind feel that the winners are looking down upon them with disdain. Technology and globalization have throttled their career prospects, and as a result, with Trump’s encouragement they are lashing out at immigrants, free trade and governing elites. When one thinks it through, it’s understandable why desperate people are drawn to authoritarian populists who rail against elites and promise to reestablish strong national borders. This anger towards elites from those left behind is now threatening our democracy.
By 2016, the impact of globalization on ordinary workers was clear: they lost. Sandel argues that liberal elites, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, kept insisting that ordinary workers were responsible for their losing position, due to lack of merit. They fanned the flames of resentment. Liberals have promoted meritocracy and markets, stating that “as long as the system is fair, markets give people what they deserve.”
But Sandel asks “Do we deserve our talents? Do we deserve the rewards that flow from them?” Sandel argues that talents are largely a matter of good luck. Sandel doesn’t believe we deserve either the merits or the burden derived from luck. He also doesn’t believe our talents are something for which we can claim credit. Sandel believes that income inequalities due to natural talents are no more just than inequalities that arise from class differences. He argues that when we set up a society that throws both fame and fortune at those lucky enough to have scarce talents, and that condemns those that don’t, we are asking for what we have recently seen: a working-class populist revolt.
Sandel goes into great depth regarding meritocracy in education, and explains how higher-education opportunities are still mostly based on family wealth, privilege, and thus race. Major universities now only accept a small percent of applicants. He states that credentialism is the last acceptable prejudice, and describes how elites have valorized their education credentials, and hold disdain for poorly educated people. Today, one of the deepest divides in the country is between those with and without a college degree, and meritocracy is driving this gap. Sandel suggests potential fixes, including denying private universities tax-exempt status unless they admit at least 50% of their students from the bottom two-thirds of the income scale, and eliminating preferences for legacies, athletes and donors’ children. Sandel also promotes using a lottery of qualified students for student admissions.
Sandel also explores meritocracy in the workplace. Since 1980, working class folks make less today in real terms. This is a clear message that their work is less valued. Those with a college degree now earn an 80% premium over those without a degree. This has taken a significant toll on the less-educated, with alcoholism, drug addiction, and suicide all at high levels. Sandel states that elites who presided over globalization not only failed to address the inequality it generated, they also failed to appreciate its corrosive effect on the dignity of work.
Sandel believes that we need a “morally more robust public discourse, one that takes seriously the corrosive effect of meritocratic striving on the social bonds that constitute our common life.” He believes we need a rethinking of the way we conceive success. We need to question the meritocratic conceit shown by those at the top. We need to find ways to enable those who do not rise to flourish in place; to live lives of dignity and decency, and to develop their abilities with work that is socially esteemed. Sandel states that we need to enable them to participate in a culture of learning, and bring them wholly into deliberations with their fellow citizens about public affairs. Ideally, we need to enable it so that citizens in different walks of life encounter one another in common spaces and public places, so that we can learn to negotiate and abide our differences.
Reviewer Opinion:
I thought that Sandel makes sound arguments regarding the corrosive impact of meritocracy. Sandel leaves the reader with a fresh perspective, but could have made his argument more concisely. If you pick up this book, be prepared to weed through unnecessary history and repetition. But with a strong cup (or two) of coffee, it’s worth exploring.
Reviewer Rating of Book:
Thumb sideways