It seems that we should celebrate meritocracy; working-class children could finally compete fairly alongside the children of the privileged. But according to Young, who coined term meritocracy, this would not be an unambiguous triumph—because it would inevitably lead to pride among the winners and humiliation among the losers, along with the belief that everyone deserves what they get.For Young, meritocracy was not an ideal to be achieved, but a recipe for social discord through humiliation. Decades ago, he foresaw the harsh meritocratic logic that now fuels populist anger.

Meritocracy has its limits

"Unemployment means having nothing to do—which means having nothing to do with the rest of us."

There is nothing wrong with hiring people based on merit. In fact, it is generally the right thing to do. When it comes to filling jobs, merit matters for at least two reasons. One is efficiency, the other is fairness.

Isn't it good to reward according to merit?

A society that rewards merit is also appealing for aspirational reasons. While this can be inspiring, the principle of merit can take a tyrannical turn—not only when societies fail to live up to this ideal, but also—and especially—when they succeed. The dark side of the meritocratic ideal lies embedded in its most alluring promise: the promise of mastery and self-making. This promise carries a burden that is hard to bear.

Double-edged sword

In the misfortunes of our best friends we always find something not altogether displeasing to us.

Thus the politics of humiliation differs in this respect from the politics of injustice. A protest against injustice looks outward; it claims that the system is rigged against them. A protest against humiliation is psychologically more complex. It combines resentment toward the winners with a constant self-doubt: maybe the rich are rich because they truly deserve it; maybe the losers are, in the end, complicit in their own misfortune. This feature makes the politics of humiliation more explosive than other political sentiments.

Politics of humiliation are very dangerous

Meritocracy starts early—at school, where getting into a good college means for almost everybody almost everything. During their attendance students are placed under enormous pressure to meet a long list of requirements in order to gain admission to a good school, which will hopefully increase their chances of success at getting into good university and help them secure a good job afterwards.Because of the cost of entrance exams and higher education itself, success tends to be replicated among those who already succeed, leading to a decline in socioeconomic mobility.

Credentialism – privilege keeper

It is very hard to see that you are not sole creator of your own success and that you need luck to achieve it when the society tells you you are 100 % of responsible for the results of your life.But it also goes hand in hand with fear, because no matter how great the success, there may come a day in the future when we fail. So at the same time, we develop a twisted sense of satisfaction in the failure of others because it means they will not get ahead of us.

Meritocracy leads to individualism... and fear

The kinder people who understand that we cannot all be at the top of the ladder want to redistribute resources to the poorer ones so they have basic material goods covered. That attitude is distributive justice. "We will distribute resources so even though the market is not very kind to you, we ne need your labor and you should have enough of money to cover your basic needs."That is mostly technocratic attitude. But it is not enough, because if you are on the receiving end it may seem patronizing to you. "Oh you, poor thing, you are not good enough, here is money."

Distributive justice

We believe that through hard work, we can make it to the top. And we admire anyone who succeeds—especially if they’ve overcome difficult life circumstances. But whether you succeed doesn’t depend solely on you. It also depends on the structures and institutions within society that can either ease your path upward or make it incredibly difficult.This becomes fairly easy to see when you realize that people who suffer under totalitarian regimes can succeed as soon as they are given freedom.Basically same people, but different results.

The rhetoric of rising

Distributive justice treats us primarily as consumers—ensuring we have enough resources to meet our needs. But it overlooks the fact that we are also producers. We want to contribute to the whole, yet the contributions of less-educated or less-skilled people are often dismissed, devalued, or ignored. That’s why many rebel and vote for anyone willing to recognize their identity and dignity.The importance of the role of being a producer in a person’s life can be seen in those who no longer need to work—but choose to work anyway.

Contributive justice

Meritocratic hubris is a consequence of overestimating our own role and adopting an arrogant—even contemptuous—attitude toward those who, although they have not succeeded financially or socially, clearly do their part in socially valuable work that "just" happens not to be adequately rewarded by the market.But because we base a person’s value on their economic worth, we come to believe that everyone gets what they deserve and we should help only those who are not in bad life situation by their fault.

Meritocratic hubris

In a market society, it’s hard to resist the tendency to equate the money we earn with the value of our contribution to the common good. This confusion isn’t just the result of careless thinking. One way to address it is through public debate and policies that encourage us to consciously and democratically reflect on what truly counts as valuable contributions to the common good—and where market verdicts miss the mark, even if values are subjective.

Thinking about true social contribution

But the problem is that our technocratic version of meritocracy assigns the moral value of the person not on the merit but on her economic value. In the realm of economics, it simply assumes that the common good is defined by GDP, and that the value of people’s contributions lies in the market value of the goods or services they sell.

Merit on the market = Human value

While it is true that success most of the time reflects determination and hard work, it cannot truly be said that it is solely own achievement of the people. What about the parents and teachers who supported them along the way? What about the talents and gifts that are not entirely of their own making? What about the good fortune of living in a society that nurtures and rewards the talents they happen to have?Luck in success is inherent because you were given at least capacity and basic means to achieve it.

Where does the meritocracy truly start?

Michael J Sandel is professor of political philosophy at Harvard and his lectures "Justice: What's right thing to do" is one of the most attended courses in the history of school.Most of us believe that if someone has achieved success through hard work, it is a fair state of affairs that cannot be criticized. However, Michael J. Sandel shows that reality is not that simple.

A Times Literary Supplement’s Book of the Year 2020 A New Statesman's Best Book of 2020 A Bloomberg's Best Book of 2020 A Guardian Best Book About Ideas of 2020 The world-renowned philosopher and author of the bestselling Justice explores the central question of our time: What has become of the common good? These are dangerous times for democracy. We live in an age of winners and losers, where the odds are stacked in favor of the already fortunate. Stalled social mobility and entrenched inequality give the lie to the American credo that "you can make it if you try". The consequence is a brew of anger and frustration that has fueled populist protest and extreme polarization, and led to deep distrust of both government and our fellow citizens--leaving us morally unprepared to face the profound challenges of our time. World-renowned philosopher Michael J. Sandel argues that to overcome the crises that are upending our world, we must rethink the attitudes toward success and failure that have accompanied globalization and rising inequality. Sandel shows the hubris a meritocracy generates among the winners and the harsh judgement it imposes on those left behind, and traces the dire consequences across a wide swath of American life. 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 solidarity, and more affirming of the dignity of work. The Tyranny of Merit points us toward a hopeful vision of a new politics of the common good.

Isn't it good to reward according to merit?

Similar ideas to Isn't it good to reward according to merit?

Plato against monism in the Sophist

YOUR WANDERING MIND IS NOT THE PROBLEM, YOUR ADDICTION TO IT, IS.

MARK CUBAN