2.8 Justice and the critique of meritocracy Flashcards
(14 cards)
What are the types of critique against meritocracy
The realization of meritocracy: practical critique
Meritocracy is good in principle but insufficiently realized: Substantive equality can be violated (different types of education) and so can Formal equality (e.g., corruption)
Focus: identify shortcomings in practice and reflect on how to make society more meritocratic to make it more just
The ideal of meritocracy
Meritocracy is flawed even as an ideal
Focus: identify inherent flaws of meritocracy and envision alternative ideals of a just society
Explain the Practical critique of meritocracy
main idea: there is Insufficient equality of opportunity.
Structural injustices and lack of social support systems undermine substantive equality of opportunity:
Socio-economic background
Mental and physical health and well-being
Caring duties
Lack of information, formal barriers, biases, and discrimination undermine formal equality of opportunity
Systems of privilege and networks operate as gatekeepers for opportunities
Formal barriers (e.g., degrees count which sometimes does not translate to real degrees etc.)
Biases and discrimination in the measurement and definition of merit
How can you mitigate the practical issues of meritocracy?
Ensuring substantive equality of opportunity + compensating for structural injustices
Public investment in education and training
Public healthcare and childcare
Redistribution of wealth and opportunities (e.g., universal basic income, inclusive talent development programs)
Ensuring formal equality of opportunity + compensating for biases and discrimination
Mentorships and training opportunities for members of disadvantaged groups
Avoiding credentialism, e.g., skill-based assessment (look only at credentials instead of skills and performance)
Affirmative action
Ideally meritocracy would be realized (be just and feel just)
What are the different perspectives of the critique of the ideal of meritocracy
Moral: illusions of moral desert
Psychological: Dividing society into “winners” and “losers” (Psychologically undesirable effects of meritocracy)
Social: demolishing the welfare state and credentialism
Political: alienation and rightwing populism
Why is the ideal of meritocracy not moral?
Moralizes flourishing and suffering
Worldly flourishing (money, power, health, recognition) as a sign of either moral virtue or salvation: unfair (overlooks factors outside our control)
How does meritocracy moralizes flourishing and suffering?
Illusion that the universe is organized in such a way that suffering and flourishing are the direct result of our own doings
Entirely holding us responsible for our fate
In reality: Talent and effort are not “up to us”; they are always shaped by social conditions (social luck) and biological conditions (natural luck)
What counts as valuable talent depends on contingent conditions (market demands, cultural preferences and rareness of talent)
To what religions can you compare meritocracy to (based on wordly flourishing) and moral virtue?
Protestant work ethics (Max Weber): idea that worldly success translates to grace of God (success in the world is a sign that you are one of the people that will be resolved in the future/saved)
Being rich shows you are one of the chosen people
Prosperity gospel (e.g., Joel Osteen): being rich/healthy/successful is a sign of religious virtue
Sick/poor => not living a religious life (vices)
Moralizes success or failure
Why is using wordly flourishing as a sign of moral virtue unfair?
Overlooks factors outside of our control: to what extent are we responsible for our talents? (social and innate conditions)
Natural luck: if talent is partly innate then why should we hold people responsible for their talents?
Social luck: if ambition is partly dependent on social context then why should we hold people responsible for their ambitions?
Contextuality of the value of talent: rareness and value of talents depends entirely on social environment (contingent on market demands, cultural preferences and rareness of talent)
Only person with that talent => rare
Talent in the right context (high in demand) => valuable to society
What are the overall moral critiques against meritocracy?
Epistemic and ontological worries: If we think that natural but not social luck is a legitimate basis of moral desert, how can we tell apart natural and social luck?
Normative worries: If we criticize social luck as a legitimate basis of moral desert, why should we accept that natural luck constitutes a legitimate basis?
Social contingency of the talents we value: How can “talent” be an appropriate basis of moral merit, if the value of talent is contingent upon external social conditions?
Explain the psychological concerns of meritocracy
Divides society (winners vs losers) => undesirable effects.
Hubris and anxiety: Those who land on the top of the hierarchy will hold themselves responsible for their success (Gratification, Hubris, Lack of gratitude, Lack of humility , Debilitating perfectionism, Anxiety (going down the social ladder), Fragile self-esteem dependent on achievement and recognition)
Shame and resentment: Those who land on the bottom of the hierarchy will hold themselves responsible for their failure
(Experiences of failure, Shame, Demoralization (especially when there are outside factors)
Powerlessness and Resentment)
Lack of solidarity and individualism => damages relationships
Lack of solidarity
Lack of empathy and sympathy
Individualism and atomization of society into entrepreneurial selves guided by self-interest: outcome is independent (you make it or not, no matter who helped you along the way it is only you who reaps the benefits)
Culture of competition: scarce resources => competition
Explain the social critique against meritocracy
Personal responsibility as justification for the demolition of social safety nets (e.g., health care, unemployment)
Based on: Ideal of self-reliance and self-making => Making social services dependent on deservingness
By contrast, success is partly dependent on God’s grace, luck, or the support of one’s community => More willingness to share the fruits of success and burdens of suffering
Credentialism:
Formal and substantive equality of opportunity : Overcoming prejudice in the form of racism, sexism, etc. => but instead credentialism elitism, and ableism
Education and academic qualification as the sole or primary criterion for jobs and social and economic success
Educated elite looking down on people with less educational credential
What counts as “ability”?
Explain the political criticism against meritocracy
Technocracy and alienation: the most qualified come into power
Politicians as experts => Draining political discourse of moral argument and disagreement
Pretending that contested questions of values are not existent and instead treating political decisions as economic and technocratical ones
Effects:
Narrowing down scope of democratic argument
Disempowering citizens
Demeaning citizens as lacking knowledge and information
Alienation from highly educated governing parties and political representatives among those who do not share the same (educational) background
Populism and ressentiment
Shame, anxiety, frustration, grievances: Attributing responsibility for failure to oneself
Lack of social esteem because it is bound to one’s educational credentials and professional and economic success
Experiences of powerlessness
Ressentiment: collective effective mechanism that transforms negative self-reflexive emotions (e.g., shame, humiliation) into other-directed hostile emotions (e.g., anger, hatred)
Blaming others and seeing them as responsible for one’s failure (to cope for negative feelings towards yourself)
“Elites,” “those in power” : don’t feel represented by them => easier to blame
Alleged profiteers from redistribution, e.g., through affirmative action or welfare state (e.g., refugees)
Searching for esteem in aspects of identity that are stable: race, nationality, religion, etc.
=> rise of Right-wing populist sentiments
What are the alternative to meritocracy? Why did Sandel reject them?
Free-market liberalism
Demoralizing economic success and failure
Disentangling the moral phenomena of merit and desert from economic success as an outcome of the market
Acknowledging that the value of my talents is dependent on contingencies of supply and demand
Critique Sandel: Does not prevent experiences of inferiority and superiority + Which desires are morally praiseworthy? What should we desire? => there are other talents aside from economic success
Welfare state and liberalism
Difference principle: making sure that the worst-off profit from the fruits of overall higher performance
Allowing that people are rewarded according to their merits
Requiring them to share their gains
to improve the situation of those who are worst off
Distinguishing between moral questions of desert and other questions, e.g., post-institutional questions of entitlement and creating incentives for performance
Critique Sandel: Can still lead to meritocratic hubris and resentment
Luck egalitarianism
Acknowledging that success can be a matter of luck => Society compensates people who simply have been unlucky (e.g., being born poor or disabled, having little economically valued talents, suffering from misfortunes during life)
Defending inequalities arising from choice and effort, but not those based on brute luck/misfortune
Critique Sandel:
Psychological, social and political effects are the same in free-market liberalism (meritocracy) and welfare market liberalism (less successful => less self-esteem; more successful => hubris, etc)
Requires distinguishing matters of luck from matters of choice and desert: Distinguishing between deserving and underserving poor people + Does not directly respond to need (first need to show you are in need because of luck not because of own fault) + Holding people responsible, e.g., if they fail to have insurance
Represents people in need as helpless victims who lack full agency not capable of equal citizenship: People who are in need of help have to prove that their being in need is not their own fault + Tendency to not acknowledge people in need as capable of agency and equal citizens
What is Sandel’s alternative?
From distributive justice to contributive justice
Distributive justice: Who should get what? How to distribute scarce resources (e.g., money, opportunities)?
Contributive justice: Who should be able to contribute to the common good, receiving recognition and social esteem in return?
Core idea: justice is not (primarily) about distributing rewards fairly but about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to society
Contributive justice emphasizes:
Recognition and dignity though contribution, not reward
Shared responsibility for creating conditions in which all can participate
Moral and political implications: good society should ask
Not (only/primarily): how to we fairly reward talent, effort and achievement
But (also): how do we ensure everyone is needed and can contribute.
