A review by arthuriana
The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? by Michael J. Sandel

3.0

philosophically and morally illuminating, if a bit textually repetitive in the first few chapters trying to repeat — over and over again — the flaws of meritocracy that could have kept itself to only one chapter, this book nevertheless serves a scathing critique on the hyper-individualistic, success-driven, meritocratic, globalist system that seeks to alienate us from our bonds to our community, our identities, and each other.

there's also this very interesting anecdote of the author trying to reveal to his students that they — harvard students as they are — did not get in 'merely' because they worked hard but had a plethora of factors behind their admission to the elite university. the reactions he outlines are glorious but the most telling one has a student insist on forming a quasi-noble lie about the strength of the american dream. it's better for people to believe in it because it gives them hope. sandel doesn't really elaborate more on this, but it's a very clear action of upper-class elite interest looking after their own. of course a harvard student would like the noble lie to persist; they actively benefit from the noble lie!

quite unfortunately, however, sandel doesn't go far enough in fully correcting the mistakes of meritocracy. he makes concessions for elite universities to allow their preferential treatment for children of alumni. this is beyond incomprehensible to me: first, for the matter of still allowing for hereditary inheritance of merit; and second, for the continued existence of 'elite colleges' in his ideal world. i think an equality of condition — which is what he ultimately recommends as the solution for the tyranny of merit — would need also do away with the whole idea of 'elitism' in terms of education in the first place, but maybe that's just me. there are other shortcomings in his solutions — which, i must also mention, are fleeting and short in comparison to the time it took for him to diagnose the problem, a common tendency of philosophers everywhere (and i say this as a student of philosophy) — but this is perhaps the most egregious.