Every
society evolves ideologies to justify extant inequalities contends Thomas
Piketty in his book Capital and Ideology.
Michel
Sandel, American political philosopher and Harvard Professor, argues in the
book under discussion here, that the wholly unwarranted justification for the
huge increase in inequality in the USA over the last four decades is provided
by the notions that conflate market value, material success and ‘merit’, with
moral value. The argument, even of the so-called centre-left, from Clinton to
Obama, is that success -- in the market driven, unregulated, globalized world
in general and the US in particular -- is based on individual merit and is,
therefore, a ‘good’ thing and occupies the moral high ground.
Professor
Sandel in this disturbing book -- disturbing because it questions some ‘ basic
and obvious truths’-- examines the emergence of a “meritocracy” in the US since
the 1980s as a consequence of globalization: free(er) trade and capital flows,
outsourcing et al. Globalization has
been accompanied by rapidly growing inequality in income and wealth and a
growing divide between the white collar college-degree-holding rich and the
blue collar, not so well ‘credentialled’, working classes. The justification
for the emergence of such a meritocracy is that given equality of opportunity
the rise of the talented -- the meritorious -- is both natural and just. Individual
effort and ability is being rewarded and that is all to the good -- morally
good.
Sandel’s
demolition of the merits of ‘meritocracy’ proceeds in two stages. To begin
with, even in the land of the free and despite all the hype about the American Dream,
there is, in fact, no equality of opportunity in the US. A college degree,
especially from a high-profile college, is the modern key to high salaries and
wealth accumulation and SAT scores are most closely corelated to family income
as are admissions to good colleges! Well-to-do families ensure their children get
admissions counselling, attend test prep classes, participate in CV building
exercises like high profile sports and highly regarded social work. The kids
work hard, but work is not the only criterion here; natural ability, if indeed
there is such a thing unrelated to ‘nurture‘ and environment, is helped by what
props their parents’ concern and most importantly, income can provide.
Two-thirds of Ivy League students come from the top 20% of the income
distribution and at Princeton and Yale more come from the top 1% than from the
bottom 60%! And when the front door doesn’t open there is a back door -- alumni
are favoured with admissions for their wards and donations help a great deal
too.
Before proceeding
to the second and more powerful argument against meritocracy, we need to step
back and look at some of its more distressing consequences. If I merit success
due to my personal ability and hard work, then it follows that she who does not
succeed also merits her failure. Thus, you have unwarranted hubris on one end
and humiliation and resentment on the other and society faces a growing,
emotionally charged divide powered by arrogance on the one hand and anger and a
lack of self-worth on the other. A recipe for social disharmony and for the
empowerment of savvy political operators who can manipulate the simmering
anger, create ‘enemies’, and rise to power on a wave of violent negative
emotion. The Democrats, argues the author, by their extended support of the
logic of globalization and meritocracy without effectively tackling the
economic and social consequences thereof, stoked the fires of resentment and
paved the way for Donald Trump’s victory!
And this
brings us to the principal argument against the tyranny of merit. Natural
ability and talent --which in most cases is impossible to define and measure,
and exceptions only prove the rule here, is about more than nature alone. Nurture
is critically important for the development of talents and abilities and this,
in turn, depends a great deal on good fortune! The contingent nature of good
fortune is self-evident and destroys any argument that there is any moral value
attached to individual ability. Besides, an individual talent to be materially rewarded
in a market economy needs to be located where there is market demand for it and
a high monetary value placed on that talent by the available market. A matter
of good fortune again. Luck does not necessarily favour the good, so the
successful cannot seriously claim a moral right to their success.
From the
above it follows that even if true equality of opportunity could somehow be
ensured in any society, meritocracy would even then not lead to a just society.
Opportunity may somehow be made equal but ability is still a matter of luck and
rewarding the lucky does not ensure justice or make for a healthy society!
Professor
Sandel’s focus is almost entirely on the USA and developments there since the
1980s. However, the arguments presented have widespread relevance. The
valorization -- even sacralization -- of market outcomes is widespread in most
modern societies and the consequences of globalization, free and inadequately
unregulated markets and growing financialization of developed and developing
economies pose a major threat to social cohesion, justice and stability
everywhere.
The
Tyranny of Merit is
disturbing because it makes one think and question. A book worth reading and
absorbing with care and attention.
Happy
reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment