The article in the url below is a review/critique of Michael Sandel's recently published book, The Tyranny of Merit: What Became of the Common Good (for more on Sandel, see Strategic CSR – Moral Limits). As the title implies, Sandel here is focusing on the rise of meritocracy as the default explanation (and aspiration) of American society:
"The meritocratic model, he believes, has become the de facto creed of both the center-left and the center-right in America. Hence the commonplace, intoned by politicians of both parties, that those who 'play by the rules' should be able to 'rise as far as their talent and hard work will take them.'"
The trouble is that the theory, more often than not, does not match the reality. In particular, there are two flaws in the argument that Sandel highlights:
"The first is that it's an aspiration, an ideal, that Americans increasingly take to be a reality when it isn't. A young person may be intellectually gifted and possess an excellent work ethic, but if he comes from a low-income home he won't have the advantages enjoyed by a slightly dumber and lazier student from a privileged background."
Moreover, Sandel continues:
"The second problem with the meritocratic model … is that it flatters the elite and makes them arrogant. If the wealthy and powerful achieved their status by talent and hard work, they deserve what they have; and contrariwise the poor and uneducated must deserve their status, too. As the meritocratic ideal seeps into the American psyche, the nation is governed more and more to the detriment of the already disadvantaged."
The result is that, while the ideal remains and is widely believed, the reality is usually different and often unjust. And, as a society, we are not only harmed by the deception, but also by what we are missing (and that this façade replaced):
"The elevation of individual merit 'diminishes our capacity to see ourselves as sharing a common fate,' Mr. Sandel writes, and 'leaves little room for the solidarity that can arise when we reflect on the contingency of our talents and fortunes.'"
The reviewer ("an editorial page writer" for the WSJ) uses this framework to critique what he sees as a key distinction between the left and right in the U.S. Central to this is Sandel's solution to "the tyranny of merit," which is embedded in the second part of the book's title – the importance of "the common good." That is, rather than a focus on the success of the individual, Sandel argues that society would be stronger if it focused on the success of the group (society in its broadest sense), which comes from shared values, goals, and common conceptions of what is 'good.' But, the reviewer notes, this ignores what the reviewer sees as the role of the 'left' in bringing about the problem Sandel identifies:
"[Liberal commentators, such as Sandel] typically don't assign blame for the breakup of American life to themselves and their forerunners on the political left. They aren't prepared to trace the invidious phenomenon known as identity politics back to the cultural revolution of the 1960s, and they express little regret for the left's hostility to religion and contempt for tradition. Instead they pin the blame for American culture's breakup on various forms of market deregulation. The free-enterprise policies of the 1980s and '90s, they argue, legitimated greed, widened inequality and encouraged Americans to forget their collective identity."
As someone who studies institutional theory (the value of institutions as the essential fabric of a strong society), but also believes in rewarding those who are the most productive (even while acknowledging the multiple predictors of successful outcomes, including luck), I feel torn between the two arguments. In other words, I see the value that institutions add by constraining our selfish tendencies (e.g., see my favorite David Brooks column, here). At the same time, I see the structural inequalities these same institutions have produced and continue to perpetuate. Ultimately, my personal resolution is the strategic CSR framework that I detail in my books. That is not to say it is a perfect resolution, and I struggle with the goal of internal consistency every time I sit down to write a new edition, but that is why I see the framework as an evolving project (rather than something that is complete). It is also why I anticipate it being the most important thing I do in my academic career.
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
The Cream Also Rises
By Barton Swaim
January 6, 2021
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
A13
