Rethinking Civic Life in an Era of Tyranny of Merit. By Mara Sánchez The “Tyranny of Merit” is an essay written by American philosopher and Harvard professor Michael J. Sandel in 2020. In a post-pandemic context, characterised by political polarisation, Sandel exposes that the divide between winners and losers has been increasingly deepening, arguably due to ultra-globalisation emerging after the Cold War Era and the technocratic economic approach imposed by the world’s powers. According to Sandel, this event has poisoned our politics, is setting us apart, and making it difficult for civic virtues to guide us. This widening is about inequality, but has to do at the same time with a more underlying reality: the …show more content…
This reconfiguration creates a presumption that people get what they deserve. Young anticipated that the toxic brew of hubris and resentment between the elites and the government would fuel a political backlash, as it is happening today. When analysing alternatives to meritocracy, Sandel proposes two ideas that have shaped how we think about fairness in society today. Firstly, free market liberalism. This idea, influenced by thinkers like Friederich Hayek, suggests that a truly fair society is one where everyone has the same chances, but the government should not try to make things equal by giving everyone the same help, as it is not fair to expect everyone to have the same starting point. Moreover, he states that what people earn in a free market does not necessarily reflect how much they contribute to the common good. It measures how much one’s skills match the market demands. The second political discourse is welfare state liberalism. This idea, championed by thinkers like John Rawls, goes further. Even if we made sure everyone had the same opportunities, Rawl argues that it would not be fair, because some people are just naturally better at things than
Arguments about fairness and justice have been up for debate for centuries. "What do we deserve?", a question that has many individuals raising their brows to their efforts in their pursuit to achieve their goals. If it is said that we are all placed on an equal standard why are there individuals struggling to stay afloat? In Arora’s essay, he examines three forms of economic modals of social justices that question that idea of why the prosperous or the impecunious "deserve" their position or stature in life. Out of all of Arora's economic modals that he presents the Meritocratic System is the fairest because it gives everyone a fighting chance.
Growing up in The United States, people are given this idea of an American Dream. Almost every child is raised to believe they can become and do anything they want to do, if one works hard enough. However, a majority of people believe that there is a separation of class in American society. Gregory Mantsios author of “Class in America-2009” believes that Americans do not exchange thoughts about class division, although most of people are placed in their own set cluster of wealth. Also political officials are trying to get followers by trying to try to appeal to the bulk of the population, or the middle class, in order to get more supporters. An interesting myth that Mantsios makes in his essay is how Americans don’t have equal opportunities.
This article was stimulating to me because it related with me on a personal level. I have been discriminated upon many times in my life and this article excellently explained how white privilege plays a role in determining which groups are in the high or low end of the hierarchy spectrum. In Sklar’s article, Imagine a Country, she explains the growing income inequality between individuals by using several statistics that show the rising wealth gap between the lower, middle, and upper class. Throughout her article, Sklar addresses the controversial topic of high government spending by pointing out that there is an unequal amount of resources that are distributed between large programs such as defense and social programs that help reduce poverty. Her critics have stated that because she is presenting statistical facts as it pertains to income inequality, that she is therefore obligated to include proposals that will address and solve this dilemma. The purpose of this article, contrary to what her critics have criticized her for, is not to present a solution to this
Inequality, itself, may seem like an aspect that is surrounding the academic subject of history. An American economist, Paul Krugman, substantiates that inequality exists within our society through connections to several important historical movements. “One of the best arguments I’ve ever seen for the social costs came from a movement [...].” (Page 562) He implies how inferior inequality could be, and discusses why he along with a wide array of an American audience, may give some attention to its rising. Krugman makes “Confronting Inequality,” interesting, challenging, and enjoyable. This author approaches the audience by giving a powerful inception, and appealing to the senses of ethos and pathos.
America was once known as the land of opportunity. However, that is no longer the case. Americans are still suffering from a depression that began three years ago in 2008. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2007, the United States unemployment rates were 4.6 percent. In 2009, one year after the depression began, the unemployment rate rose to 7.6 percent. Millions of Americans are living in poverty, unable to afford the basic necessities. On the other hand, there is a minuscule percent of the population that are billionaires. Written in 2005, Holly Sklar’s essay “The Growing Gulf Between the Rich and the Rest of Us” argues that if something isn’t done about the growing inequality between the rich and the poor, the American economy as a whole will weaken. A year later, the Economist published the article, “Inequality and the American Dream” implies that the American dream is broken. Sklar’s argument sheds light on the Economist’s argument. In particular, Sklar’s use of facts regarding the wealthiest Americans, the poorest Americans, and the discussion of the impact of inequality on society provide insight into the Economist’s article.
One of the factors that create an imbalance of power within a society is a person's socioeconomic status. Often people with low socioeconomic status are undervalued in society. This imbalance can cause issues with the feelings of security and confidence. Also opportunities and choices can be limited for some people, but expanded to others. People often identify with roles of different socioeconomic status groups, based on their own socioeconomic status, and this can limit creativity and the potential of groups or individuals. If the world believes that people can go from “rags to riches” in America, then there should be an opportunity for all socioeconomic groups.
Lastly, William Graham Sumner claimed that social inequality is the direct result of men attempting to make their own way in society. “Rights should be equal, because they pertain to chances, and all ought to have equal chances so far as chances are provided or limited by the action of society.” 2 Here he contrasts rights to chances, claiming that rights do not assure success, but only a chance to be
In “What Do We Deserve?”, Arora takes a look at political philosophies and asks an important question, “How much of my good life do I really deserve?.” He brings up that argument that the contest of life is “rigged from the start” (Arora). How do one fix the contest so it's fair for everyone? Society can start by leveling the playing field to give everyone an equal chance, eliminating the idea of winner vs. loser, and encouraging and rewarding hard work and natural talents. Once the system is repaired, then we will see that those who make the effort and take advantage of their own gifts will succeed and be truly deserving of their earnings.
The book In Search of Honor follows a young boy named Jacques Chenier through the brutal and bloody French Revolution. Jacques' father is maliciously murdered at the beginning of the story by the son of a very wealthy and powerful man. This sparks his hatred toward the Dukes, Duchess, Lords, and Ladies of France. Jacques and his mother were sent into poverty, and his father's killer got the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. As Jacques grows he follows his father's footsteps as an artesian, and he starts selling his works to keep him and his mother off the streets. A mysterious stranger named Danton has Jacques make models and lifelike statues to gain power and trust of the revolting people in France. Jacques gets thrown into the Bastille for breaking into the house of a very wealthy man to steal silver. While in the Bastille he meets an old, frail, battered, and wise man. Jacques gains the trust of the old man who is named Pierre-Joseph. After Jacques escapes with the help of some inmates Pierre helps Jacques
One would expect that social equality would just be the norm in society today. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Three similar stories of how inequality and the hard reality of how America’s society and workforce is ran shows a bigger picture of the problems American’s have trying to make an honest living in today’s world. When someone thinks about the American dream, is this the way they pictured it? Is this what was envisioned for American’s when thinking about what the future held? The three authors in these articles don’t believe so, and they are pretty sure American’s didn’t either. Bob Herbert in his article “Hiding from Reality” probably makes the most honest and correct statement, “We’re in denial about the extent of the rot in the system, and the effort that would be required to turn things around” (564).
Does meritocracy still exist in America? Are many talented people who have worked hard throughout their lives going to get deserving rewards and promotions? Does the word meritocracy invented by Michael Young in 1958 still make sense to all of us? Many people still think that meritocracy exists in America because America is the land of opportunities. However, meritocracy does not really exist in America because many hard working people still do not have adequate benefits for their lives and an uncertain future.
“Confronting Inequality” by Paul Krugman opens our eyes to the fact that, in America, we are becoming more and more unequal based on our standing in society. Our standing in society is directly related to the amount of money that we make and what class our parents were in while we were growing up. However, being judged based on parents’ status is not justifiable. America is full of injustice when it comes to the social structure of it’s’ citizens. The majority of America used to belong to the middle class, now there is less middle class and a widening gap between the high class and the low class of people.
Political philosopher John Rawls believed that in order for society to function properly, there needs to be a social contract, which defines ‘justice as fairness’. Rawls believed that the social contract be created from an original position in which everyone decides on the rules for society behind a veil of ignorance. In this essay, it will be argued that the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. First, the essay will describe what the veil of ignorance is. Secondly, it will look at what Rawls means by the original position. Thirdly, it will look at why the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. Finally, the essay will present a criticism to the veil of ignorance and the original position and Rawls’ potential response to this.
Income inequality continues to increase in today’s world, especially in the United States. Income inequality means the unequal distribution between individuals’ assets, wealth, or income. In the Twilight of the Elites, Christopher Hayes, a liberal journalist, states the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are increasing widening, and there need to have things done - tax the rich, provide better education - in order to shortening the inequality gap. America is a meritocratic country, which means that everybody has equal opportunity to be successful regardless of their class privileges or wealth. However, equality of opportunity does not equal equality of outcomes. People are having more opportunities to find a better job, but their incomes are a lot less compared to the top ten percent rich people. In this way, the poor people will never climb up the ladder to high status and become millionaires. Therefore, the government needs to increase all the tax rates on rich people in order to reduce income inequality.
meritocratic within a capitalist framework because they believe that class background is the most important factor influencing levels of attainment. Bowles and Gintis also claim those children of the wealthy and powerful have a higher chance of obtaining a better paid job. I am a naylor. This rejects the Functionalist view by Parson that everyone has. equal chances, and this is disguised through the myth of meritocracy.