Reflections on Success

Reflections on Success Readings - Because hard work leads to success, so...

Reading

Reflections of Success in Brief

The original title of Rethinking Success is The tyranny of meritocracy, which is a direct translation of the book. The author is Harvard political science professor Michael Sandel, who has a very famous public lecture.Justice: A Journey of Discernment(There are alsobook by the same nameHis style of rational public debate is exemplary. His book Rethinking Success once again accurately takes the reader through a discourse on talent and elite leadership: the deeply rooted idea of talent does not mean social equality, and class antagonisms are not solved by economic redistribution, but also by the arrogance of the elite and the lack of recognition of the working class.

What is the idea of talent and virtue?

Meritocracy refers to the system of rewarding individuals based on merit, regardless of their lineage. The underlying assumption is that achievement comes from personal ability and effort, as opposed to the hereditary system of nobility. Most of the society nowadays recognizes the necessity of meritocracy for two reasons: firstly, because of efficiency, and secondly, because it is fairer than the hereditary system.

Simply put, we need people who can fix toilets to fix toilets, and we do not like the system of hereditary nobility.

The Benefits of Talent and Virtue Thinking

The concept of talent and virtue is often regarded as freedom because it reflects that people's destiny is in their own hands, and how high they can climb up the social ladder depends on their own efforts and talents, which can serve as an encouragement to people. For example, the underprivileged are often encouraged to go to university to get a ticket to a higher education, and by attending a prestigious school, they can move up the socio-economic ladder.

Disadvantages of the Talent Idea

There are two not-so-subtle side effects to the idea that "success is not a matter of chance, but something we work for":

Since success is my personal skill, failure must be the loser's own fault.

The second issue is the dignity of the losers. In the era of hereditary system, everyone understood that the system was flawed, and the working class did not look down upon themselves because they were inferior. The working class did not think less of themselves because they were inferior, and in 1958, the British sociologist Dr. YOUNG pointed out the shortcomings of an elite society of talent and virtue:

Giving jobs and opportunities on the basis of merit does not reduce inequality, it only reshuffles inequality on the basis of ability, and such reshuffling leads to the recognition that one's situation is one that one deserves.

Nowadays, all people, regardless of their status, realize that they definitely do not lack opportunities ....... In this way, will the people of low status not think that they are definitely less talented than others, unlike what they used to do in the past when they thought that they only lacked opportunities? This is the first time in the history of mankind that people of low status do not have any ready shield to protect their self-esteem.

In contrast to the hereditary system, the merit system tends to lead to a society that binds the conditions of recognition and dignity to social class. Society encourages upward mobility, "heroes are not afraid of low birth", and the opposite of the idea that one can be successful if one works hard is implied, "no success is due to lack of hard work".

Talent and Virtue and Class Antagonism

The History of the Development of the Ethics of Self-Reliance in the West

Before exploring the idea of Talent in more depth, we can first understand the western historical lineage of the morality of chance and the morality of self-actualization. The confrontation between these two moral values can be seen in the history of Christianity.

The spirit that "a person can influence the consequences of his actions" existed even in the ancient Western worldview. In Christian theology, there is the so-called "theology of retribution", which holds that everything happens for a reason. If one does good deeds to please God, there will be good harvests and good weather, and if one does bad deeds, one will be punished. This is the idea of providence, that "if a person is successful, it is because God thinks that person deserves to be successful".

Have you ever noticed that from another angle, this concept of reward and punishment is actually very similar to the idea of talent and virtue mentioned just now? If you work hard, you will be rewarded; if you do not work hard, you will be penalized.

Of course, even the concept of religion is not that unitary. In the Old Testament, in the book of Job, Job was a righteous man who suffered constantly. In the book of Job, Job was a righteous man who suffered so much that his friends thought he must have committed a great sin and accused him instead. Job knew he had done nothing wrong, but he recognized the retribution and cried out to God asking why he was suffering when he was perfectly righteous. In the end, God told Job that not everything is a reward or punishment. This story is a departure from the theology of retribution. In fact, centuries ago, there were two schools of Christian theology on salvation, reflecting the difference between the morality of chance and the morality of self, with one school of thought advocating that the believer can be saved by keeping the doctrine and doing good works, and the other school of thought seeing salvation as a divine grace that cannot be earned by man.

If believers feel that everything is a waste of effort, it will be difficult to convince them to accept the Church's teachings for a long time. Therefore, the Church still opens the door for individuals to work hard and make merits. Historically, there have been such abuses as ransom notes and other merit claims, which led Martin Luther to initiate the Protestant Reformation.

Protestantism advocates the idea of humility in favor of charismatic thinking, so a Protestant-oriented society should no longer be influenced by the doctrine of divine providence, right? Not really. All men need to know that they can be saved, and if they can't improve their chances of salvation in other ways, then at least a vocation is a possible path to salvation. The first Puritans to come to America held this view: work was for the glory of God, so enjoying wealth was a distraction from the goal, and one should spend less and work harder. The Puritans accumulated a lot of personal wealth, which contributed to the development of capitalism in the United States. People always want to give themselves confidence through outward appearances, and since being rich proves that they have worked hard and are more likely to be chosen by God, working hard to earn money has become a common goal. So Americans are still convinced that successful people deserve to be successful. Even if God is removed from the discussion of values, it is essentially a godless theory of destiny.

Blind Spot in the Ideology of Talent

We can actually see that the ideological values of Talent have several blind spots under the market-oriented mechanism:

  • Hard work pays well.
  • Economic reward is directly related to social contribution.
  • Talentism is fairer.

Does Effort Pay Well? The Moral Contingency of Talent

The idea of talent and virtue, when placed in a market-oriented society, is linked to the basic assumption that if a person has talent and is willing to work hard, he should be highly rewarded. However, if we think about it carefully, is there necessarily an absolute positive correlation between talent plus effort and reward?

  • Is the possession of certain talents a credit to oneself? For example, if an NBA player has the talent to play basketball, although it requires a lot of hard work, is there an element of luck in the talent?
  • If my talent happens to be recognized by society, is it my own doing? If we went back 2,000 years, would anyone want to watch the NBA?

Talent differences are as morally contingent as class differences.

Is there a direct correlation between economic reward and social contribution? Not necessarily.

Another point is that the so-called economic reward does not mean contribution to society. From the economic point of view, the income of a producer is based on the satisfaction of consumer demand, so the more the demand is satisfied, the higher the economic income. But does satisfying economic needs mean contributing to society? If we look at the market, we will find that many demands are actually created and they do not necessarily have a reciprocal contribution to society in real terms. There are also some things that contribute to society, but they do not necessarily command a high price in the market.

Let me cite a more practical example. Surgeons and workers both make practical contributions to society, but their salaries are vastly different. This can be explained by the market mechanism. There may be more people who can perform precision surgeries than those who can work as laborers, but this is only a difference in demand and supply, not a difference in their contribution to society. Based on the idea of talent and virtue, it is a social habit to equate more money with more success, resulting in an obvious difference in social status between the two.

Even if surgeons are paid more than their fellow workers because this basic system of fairness benefits the most disadvantaged, it is easy to see how the side effect would be that surgeons would be especially prized for their special talents and contributions. In the long run, these side-effects will subtly influence society's attitudes toward success and failure, and will not be far removed from the mentality that the idea of meritocracy fosters.

Is meritocracy fairer? Actually, meritocracy is never equal to fairness.

The idea of meritocracy is usually considered to be fairer than the social system of hierarchical inheritance. But is a perfect meritocracy really fair? Actually, it is not.

The ultimate ideal of a meritocracy is class mobility, not equality.

In a society where talent is paramount, the opportunity for upward mobility is valued.

A meritocracy cares only about everyone having a fair chance to climb the ladder of success, not about the difference between each rung. The ideal of meritocracy is not an antidote to inequality; it is a pledge to inequality.

This is not to say that the Talent and Virtue System is inferior to the Hereditary System, but what needs to be discussed in greater depth is whether the inequality of the Talent and Virtue System is acceptable.

Class Opposition

It is not surprising that the current phenomenon of class confrontation has been derived from the above three blind spots.

First of all, although it is common to think that you can get ahead if you work hard, with the accumulation of resources and the slowdown of economic growth, this idea is no longer realistic in many places. In the U.S., for example, as the economy matures and grows at the same rate, it is no longer easy to start a business from scratch.

Almost all Americans born in the 1940s earned more than their parents; only half of those born in the 1980s earned more than their parents.

It is unlikely that all people can move up the social ladder together. Then, is it at least possible for an individual to move up the ladder by his or her own efforts? Yes, individuals can still move upward, but it's not as easy as one might think.

In the U.S. (and many other countries), obtaining a high school diploma is considered the best way to move up the social ladder. However, it is much easier for parents with money and resources to train their children to enter prestigious schools, or even to go through the back door to enter prestigious schools, than it is for families without resources, which further deepens the sense of powerlessness of the non-elite class to move up the social ladder. As society changes, the uneven distribution of resources becomes another kind of hereditary, and it is no longer true that one can succeed just by working hard, and it is impossible to resist inequality.

Political leaders around the world are certainly not completely oblivious to this problem, and have advocated for a focus on promoting equity and upward mobility, but most of the existing policies focus on education, which takes a long time to change, and can hardly address the current class antagonisms and inequalities.

Diplomatism, Technocrats, and the Populist Wave

The phenomenon of class confrontation in Europe and the United States is related to two political realities. First, diplomaism based on the arrogance of the elite makes it impossible for those in power to have a deep understanding of public opinion. Secondly, the technocratic bureaucracy that has been plunged into marketization has been unable to break away from it, and there is a lack of communication with people from all walks of life.

Diplomaism

For the past four decades, people have believed that higher education is the gateway to upward mobility. As a result of the long-standing promotion of high academic qualifications, most of the politicians elected in democratic societies nowadays are highly educated. Is it true that highly educated people are better at running a country? In fact, it is not entirely true. Most of the political discourses in the parliaments of various countries are just vague.

Ruling a country requires practical wisdom and civic virtue, the ability to grasp and indeed pursue the common good. But most universities today fail to cultivate these capacities, even those of high repute.

The author cites the example of British Prime Minister Tony Adderley in 1945. Although Adderley himself was an Oxford graduate, only a quarter of his ministers had come from private schools, and seven of them had worked as miners. Ernest Bevin, the then Foreign Secretary, left school at the age of eleven. Ernest Bevin, then Foreign Secretary, left school at the age of eleven and rose through the ranks of the trade unions. Morrison, the Speaker of the House of Commons, left school at 14 to build London's public transportation system. The Secretary of State for Health dropped out of school at thirteen and created Britain's national health care system. The Adderley government is recognized as the most reforming British cabinet of the 20th century.

In the twentieth century, the left mostly attracted people with low education, while the right mostly attracted people with high education. However, there is now a reversal of party support in Europe and the United States, in which people with high education are mostly in favor of left-of-center parties, while people with low education are mostly in favor of rightist parties. This is due to the fact that leftist parties have gradually become closer to the professional class in the past few decades - the leftist supporters who succeeded in turning over a new leaf have become intellectuals with resources, and thus the leftists have become the party of the intellectuals as well. When the left is no longer the party of labor, it is difficult to deal with social inequality.

It is worrying to see that Europe and the United States have reverted to a time when the majority of workers did not have the right to vote. Today's parliaments in Europe are filled with highly educated people, just as they were in the late 19th century, when voting rights were determined by wealth.

Putting the parliament and the assembly entirely in the hands of the highly educated did not make the government more effective, but rather made it less representative of public opinion, and led to the alienation of the working class from the mainstream political parties, and the fragmentation of political positions according to the level of education.

Diplomaism has undermined the social dignity of those who have not attended universities, and this is a very serious problem. In the United States, for example, Americans with tertiary qualifications only account for one third of the total population, which means that the social dignity of two thirds of the population has been undermined.

The elite hate the undereducated more than the poor or the working class because they believe that poverty and class status are at least partly due to factors beyond the individual's control, and that a lack of education means that the individual did not work hard enough, and that it is therefore the fault of the person who did not go to college.

Technocrats

Another problem arises from the habit of intellectual-dominated governments to think of the common good only in technical terms. Governments are dominated by technocrats who seek to maximize economic growth in the most efficient way possible. The elite often argue that the main reason for differences in democratic politics is that people are not well informed, and it takes a long time to convince them. As a result, it has become popular among economists in recent years to advocate the use of market incentives to induce behavior, and thus the government often uses "inducement" policies rather than persuasion. (For more information on behavioral economics, please seeThis one.)

One of the shortcomings of technocratic politics is that it delegates decision-making power to the elite, resulting in the disempowerment of the citizenry. In addition, technocracy eschews political persuasion. Inducing responsible behavior, from energy conservation to weight control to corporate ethics, has replaced not only coercion but also persuasion.

The practice of inducement is quicker and more effective than taking the time to engage in vague moral discussions, and allows the government to limit much of the discussion of public affairs to technical specialties, believing that the average citizen doesn't understand them, and so leading to vague public discourse and a feeling of disempowerment of the public in terms of policy engagement.

Another serious shortcoming is that the public's trust in political elites and experts may become very fragile in the absence of communication over a long period of time. What if some people do not trust the elites to stand up for their views, but rather suspect that the experts may distort the facts? In the case of the United States, this phenomenon has clearly been polarized since Trump began his campaign, with candidates and even the president directly challenging the authority of experts. The large number of people who lack a foundation of trust makes it extremely difficult to restart communication and persuasion.

These are not scientific questions that can be answered by experts, but questions about power, morality, authority and trust. In other words, they are questions of democratic citizenship.

populism

Due to the arrogance of the elites, which has long been developed on the basis of the idea of talent and virtue, and the lack of trust and dignity of the lower class, the populist wave in recent years has been an all-out fight against the elites, and the main problem is not that they do not have enough to eat, but that many of them, who are not elites, feel that they are not being treated as human beings.

At least part of the populist backlash does stem from a sense of humiliation. They feel that those at the top of the talent ladder are filled with contempt for their fellow countrymen who have not achieved as much as they have.

The difference between the politics of humiliation and the politics of injustice is that resistance to injustice is external, protesting against the flaws in the system and the fact that the winners got to the top by improper means and manipulation. Resistance to humiliation is internal, combining dissatisfaction with the winners and endless doubts about oneself.

Because people are easily radicalized when they resist humiliation, Trump often takes advantage of the losers' mentality by using language that suggests that they can get rid of humiliation by electing him. He specializes in blaming other countries and other races for the injustice done to Americans, which is an easy way for humiliated people to be satisfied.

Many working class supporters of Trump and Brexit, as well as populist parties in other countries, seem less interested in the promise of upward mobility and more interested in reasserting their sovereignty, national identity, and sense of honor. They loathe the elite of talent, experts and professionals, criticizing them for promoting market-oriented globalization, reaping its benefits, pushing the working class into competition with foreign countries, and seeming to identify with the transnational elite more than they do with their fellow countrymen.

How to Solve the Problem of Talent and Virtue Thinking

Aristotle believed that justice lay primarily in the distribution of duties and honors, not in gains and wealth.

The problem of arrogance and deprivation of dignity of the elite caused by the idea of talent and virtue needs to be addressed squarely. The deep-rooted values of meritocracy need to be re-examined by the majority of people. How do we get people to realize that success is not entirely up to them and move away from the dichotomy of outcome-based thinking?

Redefining filters

We can try to downplay diplomaism.

What we need to do is to rethink the way we look at success and question the arrogance of the talent-based system that says 'successful people are on their own'.

Since the allocation mechanism of modern society is largely in the hands of tertiary institutions, the first suggestion of the authors is to remove the negative evaluation of the unsuccessful candidates implied by the screening mechanism, and to use a lottery system of enrollment: after eliminating those who do not meet the qualifications, the rest will be decided by lottery. In this way, the losers will not be selected because they are not as competent as the others, but rather because of an added element of luck, so that the winners will not be too arrogant and the losers will not lose their dignity.

The second suggestion is to recognize that every job requires professional learning and training, and to break down the existing hierarchy of respect and dignity.

Redefining common good

We can also define common good in ways other than maximizing economic growth. At present, the government is accustomed to the approach that the overall interests of society should be maximized from the perspective of the consumers, so the response is to maximize economic growth at the level of the overall economy. If we redefine common good from a civic standpoint, common good should be the creation of a just society that allows everyone to live a full and rich life.

Equal opportunity is a moral corrective for injustice, but it is only a remedy, not the ultimate ideal of a good society.

In the second definition the most important role of human beings is that of producers rather than consumers. The contribution comes from the purpose of our service, which depends on the importance of morality in addition to economics. This is more difficult than using maximizing economic growth as a goal, because moral judgments are not provided by efficient markets. The authors call this contributory justice. The recognition of contribution justice can complement the lack of recognition of the working class that cannot be solved by the idea of talent and virtue, which only promotes equality of opportunity for upward mobility.

Recognition does not come from us as consumers, but as producers contributing to the common good and thus earning recognition.

The decline in purchasing power is of course important, but the main reason for the working class to be dissatisfied is that their status as producers has been jeopardized, and this is the consequence of the talent screening mechanism and market-oriented globalization.

Postscript

This book is a very interesting read, and there is actually a lot of material to discuss, so I'm going to try to reorganize and categorize the book in this post, and hopefully focus on the broader concept of Talentist Values. Sandel actually discusses a lot of American politics at great length, so if you're interested, check it out. Although almost the entire book is devoted to discussing the political situation in Europe and the United States, especially in the United States, in fact, the idea of meritocracy is not a phenomenon exclusive to Europe and the United States. One example Sandel mentions is a lecture he gave at Xiamen University in China, in which he discussed Chinese teenagers selling their kidneys in order to buy iPhones. One of the students said, "The fact that rich people make a lot of money on their own means that they are talented and capable, so they deserve to live longer. This is also the idea of talent. Sander's explanation is that although Chinese students were not raised in a Christian society, the marketization of China in the last few decades has also developed a strong trend of talent and virtue. Personally, however, I think that Asian cultures have a longer history of academic supremacy, and that the idea of talent and virtue may be even more deeply rooted than in Europe and the United States.

The clear solution Sander's book proposes is a lottery system of enrollment. This is the most relevant education reform proposal that a university professor can make. But it is not easily controlled by the government and, like other education reforms, will take a long time to take effect. I think a more interesting discussion might be what new general directions can be derived from a redefinition of common good, which deserves more in-depth elaboration and joint discussion.


Thank you for reading this post. If you like my post, please follow up withFacebook Fan Specialist,Twitter,IGThe

Leave a ReplyCancel reply