विश्वास-टिप्पनी
Anti-meritocracy is worse. DEI and quota-lands are super dystopias - so viveks of India have fled.
Biggest criticism - meritocracy over long time scales is natural. Nothing can stop a Temujin or NaMo or Ramanujan. If one state or company doesn’t adopt it, another will + win.
Imagine a world where every individual regardless of his Origins would get an equal opportunity to succeed in life [[0:07]] a place where persons Merit is the only deciding factor behind the success achieved by him [[0:13]] wouldn’t that be an ideal Society shouldn’t that be our Collective? I’m sure most of us would love to be a [[0:19]] part of it because we aspire to live in a purely meritocratic Society. I believe the same and so I was fairly [[0:26]] surprised to know that the person who coined the phrase meritocracy didn’t think the same way as we do. [[0:33]] For him that were denoted and inevitably dystopian Society. So I got curious to [[0:38]] know what is wrong with the idea of having a world where EV where individual Merit is the ultimate parameter to [[0:44]] classify people and how can such a society be unjust and tyrannical. [[0:49]] Welcome to the new episode of bookmark and today we’ll be discussing a book that aims to answer the shades of [[0:55]] meritocracy and how its absolutism may result in tyranny. we are talking about the book The [[1:02]] Tyranny of Merit - what’s become of the common good by Harvard Professor Michael J sandal.
I think it’s [[1:08]] a it’s a great choice for uh for a discussion because you know when I picked up this book I [[1:15]] was not so familiar with this whole framework of Merit and uh you know the [[1:21]] pros and cons it just seemed very obvious to me that Merit is I mean rewarding Merit is the [[1:29]] most you know the most natural the most obvious the most correct thing to do [[1:35]] and uh I had no idea that the consequences of that on a large scale when you scale this thing up this this [[1:41]] Instinct of rewarding Merit and just be done with it uh what kind of a society [[1:48]] would be built and what what outcomes would happen at a [[1:53]] bigger scale from this you know very Noble intent um but this has been a revelation to me. [[2:00]] uh reading this book and uh what has surprised me even more is that this [[2:06]] debate is not new for us Indians it may look like a new thing but in the [[2:14]] west uh from where meritocracy has originated this been going on for a long [[2:19]] time so others tell tell the viewers something about the structure of the book first before we get on with all. [[2:25]]
Right so the book begins with an example of an individual who was forging admissions in Structure of the book [[2:31]] American universities. so he was faking documents he was faking records of students [[2:37]] and he was youth taking money from uh rich people to get their children into [[2:42]] top American universities. of course he was caught later and law has taken its [[2:48]] course, but the point that he want to address is that why is there is a need for an [[2:54]] individual to take that route and reach in your city. the point is that there is a high [[3:00]] inequality there is a prevailing inequality in American society Among The Haves and have-nots [[3:06]]. so the point is that if you lose on certain things in life that like a good education a good job or being in a good [[3:14]] Circle then you lose uh your socialist team as well and you’ll end up living among the [[3:21]] rest like the 90 percent of the American societies lives - so a race to being the top percent a generation who has been in [[3:28]] top percent its effort to ensure that next Generation stays in the top percent. top 10 percent. [[3:33]]
This is what’s the book starts from when it goes to a different [[3:39]] questions. that is Justice and meritocracy. that then it talks about Mobility, then it talks about [[3:46]] credentialism and ultimately it tries to show that uh meritocracy is somewhere harming what we [[3:54]] understand as a common good, uh where there’s an absence complete [[4:00]] absence of community or even a sense of community, when you have thrown or pitted [[4:05]] people like in individuals in a competition. so that book kind of the book kind of uh [[4:12]] explains the current framework that we are living in and since we too are a Democratic Society just like the [[4:18]] Americans and we sort of try to emulate them even in their success and everything/ uh the book is interesting to drop. we - Meritocracy in India - [[4:26]] can draw a lot of panels in the Indian society as well of course of course broadly speaking India is a meritocratic - [[4:31]] society and and therefore. well that’s a debatable statement given that we have a [[4:38]] policy of reservation which which the critics of reservation say that the minute uh that the policy has [[4:44]] efficiently killed meritocracy in the nation. no I mean reservation systems can only operate in America right? right. so [[4:51]] so the base is a meritocracy correct and I suppose to counter some of the [[4:58]] negative consequences of a meritocratic setup uh the policy makers have come up [[5:04]] with this affirmative action - affirmative which is also not an original Indian idea or anything like that it has also [[5:10]] come from the I mean it’s a very logical thing. anywhere I suppose it is culture agnostic right to have checks and [[5:16]] balances in place and there may be you know you can debate about the merits and demerits of having [[5:22]] affirmative action whether that’s a separate debate but just the fact that you need affirmative action right is a [[5:28]] consequence of meritocracy itself, and I think that we will go further in our discussion for that. [[5:34]]
so um the book starts with the you know the Winners and Losers. [[5:39]] first chapter with introduction and getting in it talks about winners and losers that’s the first chapter right? [[5:45]] what is the essence of the argument there?
so uh the argument is that if you [[5:51]] put people in some sort of competition uh the consequence will be there will be winners and losers. let’s say a complete [[5:59]] competition to enter a good college or get a good job where you are submitted against one another so the argument [[6:05]] actually comes is that we need to create a society where every individual gets an [[6:10]] equal opportunity to succeed, so that there is no handicap in competition. so let’s say suppose there’s a race so you [[6:17]] draw a same line for every individual and once we have drawn that line whosoever wins it the race he deserves. [[6:25]] his success because he has made more efforts he’s been hard working and therefore that is what we understand as [[6:31]] a just to society. so in a just a society where there’s an equality of opportunity at the end of the day there will be [[6:37]] people who will accomplish and there will be people who fail. so that is what uh the current setup Global setup is [[6:45]] basically right. so it links the idea of Merit with Justice Merit that if your [[6:52]] efforts are rewarded then that is a just cause okay right I think that’s a very [[6:58]] powerful to say that in a meritocratic setup it is a just society as well because it rewards your efforts. so you [[7:04]] deserve your effort right - sorry you deserve your rewards yeah and somewhere along the way uh [[7:10]] they talk about the American ethic uh and this way of thinking that [[7:16]] collectively America is is great because it is good. okay so [[7:21]] they’ve connected uh the goodness of the people of America with their [[7:27]] greatness. okay but I think that that’s an that causal link between good and [[7:32]] great is very easily perverted right - and you are not great because you are good. [[7:38]] eventually you are good because you are great okay? so that happens everywhere and that is the perversion of the ideal. [[7:44]] that happens in the real world I think that’s something that he discusses he also mentions Thomas Jefferson’s quote [[7:51]] uh where he where the man described that America favors a natural aristocracy that is [[7:58]] based on virtue and talents rather than an artificial histography based on wealth and birth. so he’s saying he’s [[8:05]] describing ideal society that Americans are an ideal Society they are good Society because they are not they do not have a prejudice against any individual [[8:13]] based on his birth or uh how much how wealthy he.
but but yeah I mean when I [[8:19]] came across the quote. I was fairly surprised because what he says is that birth is [[8:25]] unnatural.(4)
I mean saying the natural privileges are those [[8:30]] that are actually given artificially - he inverts that principle.
I [[8:36]] think I mean he understands that if if you are gifted
not sir like gifted
if he [[8:41]] says that what I believe he wants to say is that
if you train hard for something - let’s [[8:47]] say you are not good at maths
so if you study if you read more and if you solve more questions ultimately you will [[8:52]] succeed.
true true so that kind of success will give so let’s say there’s a competition which uh only recruits [[8:59]] people who are good at maths so the people who will be recruited are the one who’s worked hard
not who comes from a [[9:04]] certain birth or a family
or let’s say a son of a mathematician he will not be rewarded,
rather the person who plays the [[9:10]] exam will be rewarded right.
that is what he understands by natural. whether it’s natural artificial that’s a different debate but… correct correct that’s what [[9:17]] he wants to do yeah so the two things that I think make uh meritocracy such as Merit and social mobility [[9:22]] strong. uh I mean has such a strong attraction and uh a universal approval [[9:28]] in all societies is the fact
- one is that um it appears to be just - it rewards [[9:37]] people for their efforts and
- secondly is the chance that it provides to people to [[9:43]] rise above their ranks to to go beyond where their earlier Generations had been. [[9:48]] it gives them a fair opportunity to earn wealth to gain social status. [[9:55]] it also gives them freedom freedom to choose right right the freedom to choose whatever they want to be. so you’ll not [[10:02]] be subjected to a certain profession or a certain class just because you’re born right.
so let’s come to Freedom [[10:08]] uh a little while later, right. let’s first get Mobility out of the way what is the link between Merit and Mobility [[10:15]] so what they are suggesting is that uh the American dream that the son of a [[10:21]] farmer or son of a penniless immigrant can succeed in life and he can attain [[10:28]] the same position or even a greater position then let’s say a son of a CEO or son of a big politician. [[10:34]] that is the American dream so the mobility is that while he works hard he’ll rise up the social ladder to a [[10:42]] point where he become the new Elite so the elite is never fixed it is always [[10:47]] interchangeable like uh in a let’s say in a monarchy or [[10:52]] in a medieval aristocracy the point was that if you are born in a certain family then only you can have the elite status [[10:59]] American American society gives the opportunity for any individual for every individual to become that Elite so that [[11:05]] it can be a fresh crop of elite let’s say 50 years from now so I that’s the American ideal that’s [[11:11]] the American ideal but um I think he clarifies in the book uh that that ideal has not come to be real [[11:19]] because over a period of time uh Mobility has decreased even within the [[11:25]] same structure of uh of a meritocracy and now you have a huge inequity of [[11:33]] wealth and power obviously because wealth translates directly to power so you have [[11:39]] um I don’t remember the exact statistics if you can help me with that that you have uh so he mentioned one statistics [[11:45]] that uh Mobility has stagnated over time of children born in 1940s almost 90 [[11:52]] percent earned more than their parents right of children born in 1980s only half surpassed their parents earning [[11:59]] right right right and that also reflects in the fact that just about some five percent of like the Americans uh have a [[12:07]] control over some disproportionate some 60s they just give equation of one [[12:12]] person having somewhere more than 99 or something that’s one something or [[12:17]] something but basically saying that a small section small section of society controls most of the resources and the [[12:23]] rest are have-nots where they are just dependent on these Elites
so why does uh why does meritocracy fail? [[12:31]] that way I mean why why is mobility then why does it get impeded and uh why [[12:38]] doesn’t that ideal become real? what do you think so it has run out its steam?
uh the point is [[12:45]] it gave results till a very long time - till the 1990s globalization. let’s say a [[12:51]] similar case in India the generation the post globalization generation had witnessed a rapid rise in their income. [[12:58]] people have gone from poor background to middle class to open middle class to even rich. that has happened in last 20 years [[13:05]] because the opportunities have opened. the point is that in America the opportunities shrinked over the course [[13:10]] of time. maybe due to automation, maybe technological advancement, maybe policy where they allowed multinational [[13:16]] companies to go move out of America get labor from different countries like China India [[13:22]]. so the working class in America suffered over the course of time and it reflected [[13:28]] in 2016 elections, when Hillary Clinton said that she represents after after [[13:34]] defeat she said that the educated the people who contribute more to the GDP to [[13:39]] American GDP are the are the ones who are supporting her, while the people who are not contributing that much are the [[13:46]] ones who support who are supporting Trump. so basically what she’s saying that the educated and the Elite Class are [[13:53]] supporting her, they contribute more to society whereas the working class or the middle class or the poor section of [[13:58]] society they are just racist in their approach because they want to limit resources to [[14:05]] themselves. they have lost the race of globalization. uh that’s exactly not her word but I’m just paraphrasing that what [[14:11]] she intended to say is that these people have lost the race of globalization these people have not got good college [[14:18]] degrees they are not in top jobs so these people are more or less burdened on American society and that’s why they [[14:23]] are supporting a person like Donald Trump which have always promised them some rewards over the course of time whereas the hard-working class if you [[14:30]] work hard you’ll succeed that’s what she said exactly in the election so she was [[14:35]] saying the American society again that work hard the same message that has been delivered to them let’s say yes a [[14:41]] hundred years ago the point is that since that message has run out of its uh impact we saw she was sweetie but I [[14:48]] think there is also one more factor in the um impeding of Mobility which is that [[14:56]] forget about technology automation forget about Outsourcing jobs and other [[15:02]] economic or technological reasons I think the it is inevitable that any society when [[15:09]] they adopt a meritocratic systems uh in the course of time it will again get [[15:16]] stratified and the initial uh chaos which is seen as good chaos which is [[15:22]] seen as a virtuous thing because it gives people opportunity eventually that ends its course and and and it comes [[15:30]] back a full circle where the society is now stratified According to some new norms [[15:36]] for example uh you know this uh Charles Murray although he’s a controversial [[15:43]] figure and maybe we’ll discuss that some other day but Charles Murray in his book the bell curve makes a very pertinent [[15:49]] point and I suppose that point itself is fairly non-controversial and quite [[15:56]] straightforward which is to say that if there is a society where there is perfect equal [[16:01]] equality of opportunity and everyone gets a shot at being you [[16:07]] know at rising to the top uh over a course of time over a few Generations then the society because [[16:15]] there are two factors there is your genetics and there is your environmental [[16:21]] factors so if you cancel out all environmental differences then the only [[16:26]] thing that remains the variable that remains is genetics right and so he says that Society will inevitably get [[16:32]] stratified as per your genetic makeup and that in other words means that [[16:39]] you will have certain families who are probably high IQ or whatever you may call it they will be at the top. let’s [[16:46]] say you know Elites of the current ERA for example you know CEOs of Google and [[16:52]] AI people at The Cutting Edge of AI all these high high brain powered people [[16:57]] their children will eventually take their place and Society will then be structured uh stratified as per IQ. [[17:06]] so uh that seems to me to be a very very big failure a systemic or a design flaw [[17:14]] in meritocracy right but the point is that even environment cannot be canceled [[17:20]] out in a real uh realistic setup because a person has wealth a person who [[17:27]] has succeeded in life he has private property he has wealthiest connections so more or less his children will have [[17:33]] an advantage so I don’t see to what extent can you level it up correct [[17:39]] correct no that point is well taken because uh what I was getting at was that even if you give perfect equality [[17:46]] let’s say a communist state where yeah every property ah so no so that is the [[17:52]] second point if you really want to give that then that means that you’ll have to abolish private property correct uh and [[17:57]] you will not allow transfer or intergeneration transfer privilege in any form today the only form of [[18:04]] privilege that can be transferred Is wealth okay because we are in a largely capitalistic Society so that is the only [[18:11]] form of privilege allowed you cannot transfer other things like skills and uh you know your let’s say your knowledge [[18:18]] craft all that is outlawed or socially made uh impossible but uh wealth is [[18:26]] transferred and wealth directly translates to power right and so your status [[18:31]] in the society is obviously generationally transferred to the next [[18:36]] in line and that brings in a new form of inequality so that that’s where I think [[18:43]] sandal also gives this beautiful quote about meritocracy not being a [[18:50]] cure for inequality but an excuse for it.
right a justification of inequality right but that brings me to uh Michael Haves and have nots [[18:57]] Young’s comment uh in the book uh for just wait a second the book was called [[19:03]] the rise of meritocracy where he described uh that in a perfect [[19:08]] meritocracy there will be Haves and Have Nots and over the time there will be a [[19:13]] there will be a social Discord and it will result into Political backlash this was written in 1958 in [[19:20]] 1990s uh his own party members basically he was from the labor party in UK his [[19:25]] own party members advocated for a meritocratic society in 2016 the result of American [[19:33]] presidential election actually reflected the concern that was shown by Michael Young in 1958 where the have-nots [[19:40]] revolted revolted against the elite uh the educated Elite the elite who they see [[19:47]] had rigged the system of meritocracy so The Angst was not against meritocracy it [[19:52]] The Angst was against the elite who somehow rigged the system and are not and not letting them have Mobility over [[19:58]] the course of time so the argument from the other side also comes that we need to create a setup [[20:03]] where Mobility get is more accessible so basically they are not asking for [[20:09]] perfect meritocracy I mean they’re asking for perfect meritocracy but specifically they’re asking for perfect Mobility [[20:14]]
like if they work hard they must be able to rise up to the ladder right? if that [[20:20]] doesn’t happen the system is rigged against them so I think there is Merit to that argument [[20:27]] in some way I mean it’s not a it’s not a conspiracy uh that there is some Grand [[20:32]] conspiracy where people are sitting on the top some Rothschild listen and you know calling the shots but but [[20:39]] the system like I said there is a design flaw in the system and what it what is [[20:44]] advertised as meritocracy is not really that you see because over time like we [[20:51]] discussed that over time Mobility will naturally because of the design of the [[20:57]] system Mobility will slow down there will be consolidation there will be people who will hold on to their place [[21:04]] in the system right uh especially the elites because they have the incentive to do so and it will only be the people [[21:11]] at the bottom and in the lower rungs of the social ladder who will desperately [[21:17]] want to replace those at the top those at the top will cling to their positions because that’s the position of power so [[21:23]] there is nothing surprising about it and the people down there will always feel that there is some conspiracy we are not [[21:29]] being told because the system rewards uh the rewards your efforts and our efforts [[21:35]] are certainly not getting rewarded so there’s something wrong correct like even the argument against uh [[21:42]] this industry that goes the entertainment industry is that the elites are holding power and they are [[21:47]] not letting Outsiders come in the anger is against the when they use the terms like nepotism right now the point is [[21:53]] that nepotism is basically a generation transferring its influence its money to [[21:58]] or its capital influence everything to the Next Generation
Now the point is that the first generation actually worked hard [[22:04]] to transfer that,
and if you are cutting that transfer,
then why will the first [[22:09]] generation work hard in the first place?(5)
correct correct
absolutely absolutely and the entertainment industry the film [[22:15]] industry
is a great uh reflection of the failures of the meritocratic system(5)
and [[22:22]] uh how so because uh the appeal of meritocracy like you said [[22:28]]
is in the chance that it gives to anyone to rise up to the top so in the [[22:35]] Hindi film industry for example everyone wants to be an Amitabh Bachchan or a Shahrukh Khan right
but there is only one out of a million [[22:44]] perhaps who is able to even some extent achieve that, become [[22:50]] a moderately successful actor right
so that people start recognizing him
forget about being you know a [[22:57]] superstar like
but even that is rare
uh just getting [[23:03]] getting by correct
and the rest of the people as we see you know in even in movies
they show how they struggle how [[23:10]] the strugglers make the most of Bollywood
and how they end up just you [[23:15]] know playing nothing happens
so people don’t talk [[23:22]] about that people talk about the Black Swan because that is dazzling
that is inspiring that [[23:29]] gives you a good narrative a good story to tell
but what about the million others who don’t make it okay and that [[23:36]] reflects perfectly
the design flaw that I was talking about [[23:41]] uh
in terms of how meritocracy is a false promise of of Hope -
which works [[23:50]] only in very specific or narrow or narrow band of conditions
where you have [[23:56]] economic upheaval
or you know there’s a major political change that is happening
like how it happened in the beginning of [[24:02]] uh when when India got independent,
there was hope there was uh like even post [[24:09]] liberalization -
exactly what happened and exactly people Rose of the ladder(5)
so um [[24:15]] so the consequences of that Mobility is something
also that is usually not [[24:21]] discussed um for example
what effect does this mobility of [[24:28]] individuals have on community, have on Clans have on the family. (Social mobility, education, politics and community )
the institution [[24:33]] of family uh
you have two brothers two brothers
one is academically gifted [[24:39]]
the other is not right um so this the more the brighter [[24:45]]
so-called the brighter uh sibling Rises up the ranks
becomes a big shot
and the [[24:51]] other guy is just doing you know is basically some low rung job somewhere uh [[24:57]]
will their families continue to remain uh as closely bonded
as in a in a [[25:05]] pre-industrial setup?
for example like uh that is certainly not the case
so the last divide will emerge
the class divide [[25:11]] will emerge within the family
so that’s a huge stress on the institution of Family itself(5)
the cultures will change [[25:17]] their their social
so I agree with that class divide
existing even within a family on a larger scale
when we talk [[25:24]] about class divide
the solution that comes from the other side
is that more education can solve the problem right
so [[25:31]] they say that if we educate people
and those who who are unwilling to get [[25:36]] educated
they are the only ones who are left behind in the race of globalization
because in today’s time education is available to almost everyone
yeah this [[25:43]] this reminds me of uh you know my childhood where uncles and aunties [[25:50]] used to scold beggars [[25:57]]
so I even when even at that age I used to wonder
but but I thought [[26:05]] but yeah so this is um this is exactly what it is because uh there are some [[26:10]] philosophers
who also said that uh for liberals
every problem every economic problem is a education problem(4)
yeah yeah [[26:18]]
so if you just educate people
if you just make them more informed uh
they’ll [[26:23]] be knowledgeable about their decisions that they make in life
correct
so it is basically giving them agency
what they [[26:29]] see is that we are empowering their agency by giving them education
correct correct [[26:34]]
doing that can actually help in uh just sort of lessening this class divide [[26:41]] right
because again I mean it is such a big conundrum it’s such a closed knitted [[26:49]] uh
you know like ball of what do you call like a ball of wool okay [[26:55]]
that this whole idea of Education helping with seeing clearly and all that [[27:01]]
and letting them is again linked to the idea of Mobility
then education if it [[27:07]] provides that Mobility
then all these arguments are valid
but if education
despite having the best education
you’re [[27:14]] still stuck in the same class
you cannot transcend your class
then this whole [[27:19]] argument falls apart and which is what we see uh rampantly in today’s times right
and [[27:26]] credentialism is on the rise everywhere
not on the rise it’s already crossed the [[27:33]] limit uh even in India
in political uh debates you see right [[27:38]] like the one side will say that the other guy
like even with our prime [[27:44]] minister uh the opposition says that oh his degree is fake
as if it matters you [[27:49]] know in the real world
it doesn’t matter uh the only thing that would actually [[27:54]]
matter in case of such an allegation is that someone has hidden or someone is lied
but if you go behind the motivation [[28:01]] of lying is again this credentialism
that you need to have a degree correct
to be able to perceive to be perceived [[28:08]] as someone competent okay
that’s not the case I mean there is no actual link [[28:14]] between competence in politics and having a degree right
but it is linked [[28:21]] with socialist team yes it is linked with uh you having access to better [[28:26]] economic opportunities(5)
correct correct
and plus you you see the the hypocrisy of the political class here is [[28:34]] that even though they know that there is no such thing as uh you know a link between education and power okay at [[28:41]] least in their case uh yet the rhetoric of politics is all about [[28:47]] meritocracy that you study hard you work hard and you will get the results okay [[28:52]] and so they have to have that um that that Badge of credentials [[28:58]] Essentials to prove that they are themselves the result of the same thing that they are advocating for that is [[29:03]] what it is while in real life it doesn’t basically saying that they are product of a meritocratic society exactly exactly because that’s what they’re [[29:10]] selling right that’s what they’re selling very clear so let’s uh make an
Talent and hard work [[29:16]] argument from the point where we agree that okay meritocratic societies inevitable [[29:21]] scenario isn’t something which is inevitable in modern world there will be people who’ll say that it [[29:27]] is of course it is that is why it is everywhere right and so the answer will come is that so the question will arise [[29:33]] is that if people who have succeeded in life they have succeeded because of their own Talent [[29:39]] so how is it unjust those who have failed over the course of time they have failed because they couldn’t make the [[29:44]] wise decision
right so I think uh sandal [[29:50]] in this book does answer that very beautifully and he takes the [[29:55]] he takes on the question on a philosophical uh level and he says that [[30:02]] ultimately what is Talent um is Talent something that you have [[30:07]] worked for let’s say you are born a genius or you’re born a talented cricketer right [[30:15]] um so it’s just something that is random you know at least in this framework uh let’s forget about the religious [[30:21]] explanation for it but in in a purely secular modern framework right uh your [[30:27]] talents are arbitrary they are not a result of anything that you can explain they are a result of randomness [[30:34]] so ultimately if your talents are rewarded what is it that is actually [[30:40]] your effort in that no what they’re saying is that let’s agree that Geniuses [[30:45]] are born let’s agree to that statement the point is that no genius has succeeded in life without working hard [[30:52]] that’s not true I mean let’s say that that’s a fairly uh you know that’s an exaggerated claim or let’s say a good [[30:59]] chunk of geniuses have succeeded by working hard okay like that right so there’s a let’s say there’s a talented a [[31:05]] cricketer who has a knack for good skills and all true too he works hard he works day in Day Out [[31:10]] and over the course of time he gets reward of what he about so obviously he’s a success [[31:16]] yeah and he deserves whatever rewards he had on the same hand up another uh [[31:21]] person who may have some Talent or not let’s say he has a tenant who doesn’t work hard and he has looked at the bank [[31:28]] yeah so there are two things here one is that if you have talent and you work hard uh you get rewarded right right if [[31:36]] you have talent you don’t work hard you don’t get rewarded so that seems very fair okay but what if you don’t have talent [[31:42]] right second point is that what is rewarded is not always universally uh [[31:51]] good uh like for example uh take the case of hockey players in India or coco [[31:57]] players right right there also there could be more talented than your average you know cricket star right [[32:03]] um but what outcomes in life do they look forward to nothing much right so um
so the market determines what is [[32:11]] rewarded and what is not and that point also comes out clearly in this book where he says that market is [[32:19]] uh the market forces do not Define what is good or what is virtuous but they [[32:25]] Define what what is you know in demand right by the collective so more often [[32:31]] that is a result of commercial uh motives and Commercial uh you know [[32:38]] engagement with
but Market being the dispenser of justice is a very uh is a is a very common belief in today’s Market and Justice [[32:45]] time correct because even uh sandal gives an example of his own lecture in [[32:51]] China where he uh talked about uh Chinese teenager who sold one of his [[32:56]] kidneys to buy an iPhone or iPad or something so he asked the students there in China [[33:02]] uh what do they have to say about it right so there were some students who with their libertarian view and said [[33:08]] that if the student If the child sold his kidney without any Force without any coercion out of his own choice [[33:15]] right there’s nothing wrong in doing that while the other side said that uh [[33:20]] it is unfair or it is unjust of the rich to exploit their wealth you know and [[33:28]] use it to buy kidney by organs to live longer so somebody countered that argument and [[33:34]] said uh that having earned their wealth rich [[33:39]] people are meritorious and so deserve to live longer this is just one step away from [[33:46]] a eugenic argument saying that those who are successful are the ones that should [[33:54]] that have the right to inherit the work yeah okay the rest need to be uh you [[33:59]] know um so it’s just one step away from that and uh what sandal argues in the book is [[34:07]] that uh this sort of thinking is uh kind of inherent in uh in meritocracy this is [[34:16]] the kind of mindset that people have after meritocracy has run its Fair [[34:21]] course right and I think that is quite a fair assessment because you see people [[34:26]] around you successful people often tend to attribute their success to their [[34:32]] inherent goodness and their inherent um superiority okay correct
[[34:39]] that brings us to the conversation about affirmative action right right so in in India affirmative action Affirmative action in India [[34:45]] has been there for last 75 years or even more since after the Puma pact itself and the argument that against [[34:51]] affirmative action comes that it has killed meritocracy over the course of time which may or may not be like [[34:59]] but I uh which may be true but my argument against uh affirmative action [[35:04]] in India is primarily because is not on the grounds of meritocracy but on the ground is that it has a flawed [[35:10]] historical basis true true so the on the question of people’s uh people talking [[35:17]] about meritocracy being killed by the reservations is is somehow a very flawed [[35:23]] argument right I mean it has impacted uh let’s say Admissions and all that but [[35:29]] the point is that the basis on which the affirmative action has been done in India that itself is flawed no so but uh [[35:35]] coming to the point of affirmative action let’s say the ideal affirmative action happens where the people who are uh who have [[35:42]] failed the race of let’s say this comp of meritocracy they have been given something uh to [[35:49]] to sustain their livelihood by the those who have succeeded uh it will be a very [[35:54]] kind and generous Act but there also
the point is what even sandal makes is that it is not [[36:02]] always about money it is always a it is also about self-esteem true the self-esteem is that you lost because you [[36:10]] are a failure you lost because you could not succeed and your failure is completely of your fault the system has [[36:17]] nothing to do with it yeah yeah that is somehow results in even bigger [[36:22]] resentment among people absolutely and the dividend is called will grow over [[36:27]] the time so low amount I don’t believe it at any amount of affirmative action can actually wage that Gap [[36:34]] yeah in fact uh you know this kind of this mindset that we are talking about Meritocracy, Democracy and Global Capitalism [[36:39]] this victimhood mentality which is everywhere um and the work culture that we see [[36:46]] um these seem to be very logical outcomes of of these systems that we [[36:53]] have inherited uh meritocracy being one of them and these are all complementary systems these are in different uh [[37:00]] spheres of life these what we take for granted as the right and the correct [[37:08]] um social order right this is these are the things that reinforce each other and [[37:16]] ultimately lead to a world where these problems are are now being detected and [[37:21]] to some they even seem unbearable now right so democracy [[37:27]] free market capitalism especially at a global scale right and meritocracy these [[37:33]] are all interlinked ideas and they support each other and their inherent flaws are now playing [[37:40]] out and the outcomes that are coming out are not very pretty [[37:45]] um so when we talk about affirmative action within this framework [[37:51]] I think we are losing the point because there is no clear solution you can’t hold on to the the whole structure [[37:58]] while making it these are like small tinkering you can do here and there and you know they make incremental changes [[38:03]] of course I totally agree with you that um the the affirmative action in India [[38:09]] is on is built on a totally false Paradigm on a premise which is [[38:15]] absolutely uh false and needs to be discarded which does not mean that [[38:22]] affirmative action itself needs to be discarded because there will always be people who will [[38:27]] need a helping hand inequality will exist inequality will exist and inequality in the long run turns toxic [[38:33]] right so that’s something that has to be acknowledged by everyone across the board and so how do you deal with how do [[38:41]] you reduce the gap between the Haves and the higher nodes you cannot eliminate it but how do you reduce it is a debate [[38:47]] that should happen in society in a healthy Society right so uh coming to the other word that is there in the Conclusion [[38:53]] title of the book that’s called common good so he ends or somehow he concludes uh [[38:59]] the book with the discussion on common good and he refers to Eagle and he says that Hegel did not see work mainly as a [[39:06]] means to the end of consumption instead they are he argued that work at its best [[39:13]] is a socially integrating activity an arena of recognition a way of honoring Our obligation to contribute to [[39:19]] the common good so it is not all an individual working is not always about how much wealth he [[39:25]] earns or how much he can spend after that it is also about how he sees [[39:31]] himself as a part of the society what he is contributing to society that is the basis of his self-esteem or [[39:38]] the dignity that emanates from it in a situation where an individual is like we [[39:43]] just spoke about the victimhood mentality in a victim would set up he’ll lose all his self-esteem he’s he is more or less [[39:51]] a burden in the society yeah that is what’s being protected and this individualistic setup cannot [[39:58]] answer that yes to commit the answer that lies within the community because I [[40:03]] saw uh sandal interacting with so there he also used the word literature [[40:09]] literature Festival so he used the word of nationalism now the point is that nationalism is such a loaded term that [[40:14]] whenever you use that word you will be labeled as fascist as a fascist correct [[40:20]] especially in the west especially in the west correct so so then he clarified that he didn’t mean that kind of [[40:25]] nationalism so different kind of but the point is that they are now looking for some even like in the artificial [[40:30]] structure of nationalism to somehow fill the Gap that is there [[40:35]] with the loss of community yeah because individuals are in a [[40:41]] competition they are not looking for each other uh one example that post globalization they don’t even know where [[40:47]] their goods or uh the thing that they buy where it is coming from correct so [[40:52]] they have no connection with one another there is only transaction is a monetary transaction there’s no Community. the [[40:58]] absence of community has somehow eroded the entire concept of common good [[41:03]] yes so uh like I was saying that these all these systems whether it is [[41:08]] political whether they are economic whether they’re social they complement [[41:13]] each other and they’re merely reflections of each other’s [[41:19]] um fundamental assumptions so when today the West is at least at a [[41:27]] point where they are discovering the limits of Their Own hubris [[41:33]] where they’re now finally acknowledging that they are they were not right right uh given the ecological crisis given the [[41:41]] political upheavals all over the place uh given the hard economic realities giving the end of end of social Mobility [[41:49]] all these things are not uh pretty sites for anyone and now that they have come [[41:54]] to that point they have started this journey of talking back and uh you know [[42:01]] and sort of course trying to course correct the first step in that is to acknowledge optimistic and that is what [[42:08]] they’re doing I believe that this book is a great case of that
but when it comes to [[42:13]] providing Solutions they’re still stuck in the same Paradigm and they’re always talking about democracy as an inherent [[42:20]] good correct because democracy itself is optimizes individual happiness right [[42:28]] and when it individual when it looks at individual as the unit of society right [[42:33]] then obviously other uh orders of uh [[42:38]] social um you know of society they are compromised their welfare is compromised [[42:44]] for example the family uh now that’s a different debate to go into there are several nuances there but [[42:51]] fundamentally the point that I’m making is that if someone is criticizing [[42:56]] meritocracy and then holding on to the ideals of [[43:01]] democracy or free market capitalism that is a very half-hearted approach because [[43:07]] uh that’s like saying that uh okay let me fix uh you know this box and leave [[43:15]] the rest of the Shelf as it is that does not work uh so I mean uh and that is the [[43:22]] reason why I found the only part of the book that I found unconvincing was where he was giving prescriptions although [[43:30]] he’s been very careful with that because I think he does realize that he doesn’t have any Concrete Solutions but the [[43:37]] prescriptive part of the book is very lukewarm really [[43:42]] um but the rest of the book I think is wonderful absolutely and and it changed my perspective [[43:48]] towards how you look yeah it does it is very persuasive like any uh sandal [[43:54]] sandals work the previous book that I had read was Justice and that itself is a phenomenal book and [[44:01]] uh this one on Merit is it of course it comes from a long tradition it’s not just sandal who’s writing it sandal [[44:08]] often quotes he’s standing on the shoulder of other people and there is a long intellectual [[44:13]] tradition of the best part is that such conversations are happening are happening absolutely and that and that [[44:19]] they’re happening in the west where the power resides [[44:26]] so we’ll end with one coat of Michael sandal which somehow summarizes the entirety of the book [[44:32]] uh inspired by the heroic rise of few we ask how others might also be enabled to [[44:38]] escape the condition that weigh them down rather than repair the conditions that people want to flee we construct a [[44:44]] politics that makes Mobility the answer to inequality breaking down barriers is a good thing no one should be held back by poverty or [[44:52]] Prejudice but a good Society cannot be premised only on the promise of Escape