Society of merits and achievements
Some reflections with Sandel and Han
Two philosophers I have recently come across are Michael Sandel (Harvard University professor and political philosopher) and Byung-Chal Han (South Korean born philosopher living in Germany).
Titles do speak a lot about their ideas. We start with Sandel and his analysis on merit. I don’t know whether we live in something called ‘meritocracy’ (like democracy or autocracy — rule by those who are the best qualified etc; in the past Plato had the understanding that philosopher is the best one to be the king, as philosopher knows best about the reality). Now a question is, what is merit? A textbook definition is given below,
Now two comments on merit and meritocracy, one from a contemporary blogger (though idea may not be so unique) and thenother from an ancient Athenian historian.
Many of the critiques of reservation given to certain sections of the society, because of the historical injustices that have happened to them, would be so much in line with the above two quotes. We should respect, and appreciate the merit. But let’s also listen to two critical voices on merit.
Are meritorious people rewarded in the society? Merit shouldn’t be limited to academic excellence in the schools or colleges. It can be excellence in running a company or industry, even by an individual who may not have much excellence in classical education (eg. Bill Gates). Yes, meritorious individuals are rewarded in the society. It’s important to mention that starting point of all the competitors in this system of merit is never the same, but we are more interested to see the end result.
But there are also instances where their achievements may not appreciated much, if they are fighting the system or are against the dominant trends of the society. Surely Chomsky and intellectuals likes him, never reaps the benefits of merit even in high meritocracy. Or one of the significant criteria for the intellectuals to reap profit from their merits is their closeness to power, or atleast a non-critical attitude to power.
Why Michael Sandel speaks of the tyranny of merit? Surely he is not speaking of people like Chomsky. Merit is rewarded in the society and those who don’t achieve the merit is labelled (or even shamed) as a failure. The one who is an achiever is extolled and high prizes are given to them, and one who fails in that particular game or competition is not looked into. So the good question to ask is, what should be the differences in their compensation (or salary), as one achieved a certain merit and the other didn’t ? In our contemporary neo-liberal society, prize to be paid for a failure is a huge economic disparity and a shame (loss of honour).
Sandel is not saying that a CEO of a company should be paid equally with a worker who is doing a so-called ‘menial job’ in the company? But what should be ratio of their salaries? Should it 10 times or 100 times or a million times or more ? Some would say, the market will decide about the same. When that ratio is too high, we live in a state of affairs where the elites earn enormously (or a better word is colossally) higher than the rest of the population; and economic inequality continues to grow and reach alarming levels; and top 1 % of population holds more and more of the resources. Merit and meritorious achievements can be rewarded, but to what extend that it won't become a tyranny.
Now lets speak a little about Byung-Chul Han and his take on “achievement society”. His book burnout society speaks of burn-out as one of the outcomes of this type of society. Anyway we won't get into point here. Dr Victor Ferrao speaks of three philosophers and how they looked at the contemporary society.
We no longer have Michel Foucault’s disciplinary society. This is a bold claim of Byung-Chul Han. With rising digitization, we saw that Gilles Deleuze told us that we have entered societies of control. Even as we are undergoing further digitization, Byung-Chul Han further says that we have already entered society of achievement. Maybe it is important to examine this claim as it can reveal us the changing nature of power. He says we are no longer obedient subjects who could be disciplined and controlled but have become aspirational and achievement-subjects.
Some of us will wonder, is it not a good change from the disciplinary or control societies (though those dimensions are never fully gone away) to an achievement society.
Byung-Chul Han tells us that the No oriented disciplinary societies produced criminals and madmen, while the societies of achievement he says are set to produce depressives and losers. The drive to maximize under the society of achievement is fast taking its toll on the achievement-subjects. (Victor Ferrao)
A counter witness to this culture is evident in the life of many individuals. I met a German girl in Taizé, who was a nurse. She has the privilege of being a German which should be forgotten in this story. She told me that she will work for 3 or 4 (maximum ) days a week, and that gives her sufficient income to live the life happily. She is also a minimalist and her desires are not unlimited.
Yes, analysis by Sandel & Han brings two significant aspects of the contemporary society (which values merit, and it is an achievement society). There is tyranny of merit powerfully felt by those who are declared as failures; the mad rush also leads to burn-out for many of those who have succeeded or those who are at the verge of success, that they can't afford to take a break. Neither of the two thinkers is asking us to throw away everything of the contemporary style but a certain modification is required for a just society.
