Seeing Past Social Status
Status has become a spectre in many societies. In its wake, appearance of success is currently the guiding ethos for those mesmerized by marketing. This philosophy breeds feelings of complacency, entitlement and superiority. The imposition of this philosophy also contributes to feelings of confusion, exhaustion and sadness. The latest work from Michael J. Sandel confronts this philosophy, dismantling it with an awareness of reality that is encouraging. The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? scrutinises the injustice of societies stacked in favour of the fortunate, whilst presenting a vision that is steeped in optimism. The book captivates a close reading and much reflection, in particular with respect to civic engagement. How human beings engage with each other, and what such interactions can (and do) lead to, is an important feature of any society.
It is during human interaction that substance has suffered under the strain of status. Much attention can be paid to the social standing of a person holding a particular view, where the significance lies in the substance behind their rhetoric. This is one reason why opinion manages to pass as fact. Classist culture thrives through this practice to the detriment of the unfortunate. Although there are a number of ways to address the division and exclusion that arises under the guises of decorum and excellence, the effort of focussing on the substance of a discourse instead of the status of those that participate in it, holds much promise. The communitarian philosophy of Sandel envisages a future in which democratic participation and political discourse is not the privy of the privileged. There is solidarity to be found in the communitarian ethic, one that can present a considerable challenge to populism. And it is at the very least arguable that the mirage of populist politics ought to be challenged.
Fixating on status has fostered the spread of populist politics. Not realising this is why those advocating against this current trend can be found perplexed. Self-proclaimed progressives can ‘fail to acknowledge their role in prompting the resentment that led to the populist backlash’ (p. 19). To take one example from Sandel: ‘Hilary Clinton displayed the meritocratic hubris that contributed to her defeat. “I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product […] So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward.” By contrast, Trump drew his support from those who [in Clinton’s words] “didn’t like black people getting rights” and “didn’t like women … getting jobs”’ (pp. 26–27).
Such presumptive reasoning is part of ‘the politics of humiliation’ (pp. 25–31). By voting for a candidate that ran a populist campaign, we are supposed to assume that all the people comprising this group are not optimistic, not diverse or dynamic, not ‘moving forward’, as well as being misogynistic, and racist? This type of thinking is wrong, if for no other reason than it assumes the value of people correlates to how much they contribute to gross domestic product (GDP). There is also a failure to realise the tenuous correlation between contributions to GDP and effort. Markets dictate what levels of dividend are apportioned to particular roles, not effort. The banker, the boxer and the builder may work identical hours, but the market determines their revenue. While the resulting differences in income need not necessarily be problematic, the shaping of perceptions regarding value can be blinkered by these differences. Markets give societies the impression that higher monetary rewards equal higher social value. Such impressions are folly. Undertaking the exercise of envisaging the likely consequences of people across professions halting their work provides a greater appreciation of the essential and the superfluous.
Monetary reward is also seen as a guarantor of mobility. However, the carrot of mobility remains out of reach but for the few that benefit from classism. While some struggles are genuine, where they lead to depend on luck. Despite this truism, there remains an obsession with attempting to rise in status, sometimes regardless of cost, and with the dwindling of conscience. This leads to immoral conduct. Academics steal research in attempts to advance reputation. Lawyers desecrate oaths pledged in attempts to make partner. Students cheat and compete in attempts to be viewed as exceptional. Status infects society with its hubris. But an antidote exists: Humility.
Humility helps change individual and collective focus. Attention can be turned towards the substance in discussions. Seeing past status in this way limits condescension and encourages conversation without the pushing of opinion. By listening, digesting and challenging, pretences wash away and the act of formality makes way for authenticity. Civic engagement of this kind allows people from all walks of life to interact with one another based on substance instead of status — even when disagreeing, no matter how vehemently. This practice undertaken at scale has great potential.
In contrast, the practice that currently appears to be at scale across societies is that which can dismiss substance and dramatise status. Spaces that ostensibly exist to share knowledge are instead used to inflate importance. Such spaces contribute to people feeling like outsiders. ‘The politics of humiliation’ thus plays out in a different way. People can be ridiculed and made to feel stupid, sometimes in the subtlest of ways — such is the insidious nature of class culture. Whether it is the way people speak, their accent, how they look, the thoughts they share, or how they communicate them, individuals can be made to feel like they do not belong. This feeling can be compounded by the ways in which human beings behave. The point of collective gatherings should not be to parade around on intellectual high horses. Not discouraging this behaviour debilitates meaningful discourse, whilst further entrenching status as an indicator of value.
Political discourse is not a mathematical process. Despite the behaviour of some indicating the contrary, there is rarely one right answer to solving societal issues, meaning open-mindedness can lead to innovation. Even where there is one right answer, understanding how we arrive at that answer is crucial. And even if arriving at dissimilar answers, the practice of listening to, engaging with, and challenging each other is one that can bring people together. Even though human beings are not always clear at communicating, Sandel helps show the morally sound approach of interpreting communications in their best light, which helps find the commonalities in varied viewpoints. This is not always easy, or necessarily possible. Yet doing the polar opposite in an attempt to assert intellectual superiority creates and maintains the (sometimes self-congratulatory and unwelcoming) spaces that lead to people putting their futures in the hands of populists. Polarisation in politics at the macro level thus mirrors the polarisation of our interactions at the micro level. For those that question the connection, Sandel convincingly spells it out.
People vote based on their feelings. Human beings are not as rational as we might wish. It is clear that Sandel is acutely aware of the feelings factor, consistently recalling the importance of social esteem. Sandel also alludes to the significance of carefully observing ego. Permutations of such self-ordering require a careful balance. These processes can leave human beings with demonstrably false impressions that they are either talented or terrible. Neither is necessarily true. Although the ‘humility prompted by helplessness in the face of grace’ can give way ‘to the hubris prompted by belief in one’s own merit’ (p. 41), perhaps it is during these periods of oscillation between helplessness and hubris when human beings are at their best. Perhaps it is this flux that can wean us away from mediocracy, which is a consequence of over-indulgence in sedentary states of supposed success.
Belief of merit can propagate belief of precedence. Sandel debunks the faulty reasoning that leads to these beliefs, explaining how meritocracy contributes to excessively rewarding the lucky and denigrating the unlucky. The birth lottery ensures that we all endure and inherit different circumstances. Acknowledging this is a step towards negating the adverse effects of status. Seeing through the superficiality of status and recognising its origin in chance helps foster mutual respect. It is worth recalling at this point that respect does not mean pandering to orthodoxy. Educational institutions have the means to encourage such thinking. Sadly, ‘history shows little connection between prestigious academic credentials and either practical wisdom or an instinct for the common good’ (p. 90).
Yet societal improvement ‘requires practical wisdom and civic virtue — an ability to deliberate about the common good and to pursue it effectively. But neither of these capacities is developed very well in most universities today’ (p. 99). This can change. Steps can also be taken away from the pitfalls of behaviours based on status, towards the existing promise of practices rooted in substance. Realising the extent to which accomplishment is due to good fortune prompts people ‘to feel an obligation to share this good fortune with others. These sentiments are in short supply these days. Humility among the successful is not a prominent feature of contemporary social and economic life. One impetus to populist backlash is a widespread sense among working people that elites look down on them’ (p. 143). Reforming this sense means a fuel for the populist fire turns into a source for extinguishing it. By bringing a diversity of voices to different tables, causes can be advanced without creating divisions.
Marionettes in the making are not the problem. The problem is how human beings engage with their opponents and proponents, if at all. We can all do our part to leave people feeling fulfilled and energised instead of deflated and disrespected. The benefits of treating exchanges as an opportunity to learn outweigh the costs of treating them as an opportunity to aggrandise self. Meritocracy has led to beliefs that the opinions of judges should be afforded more deference than their clerks, that credentialized orators are omniscient, that barristers are more knowledgeable than baristas, that professors cannot learn from pupils, that essential workers are expendable, and that those obtaining course credit are worth more than those obtaining universal credit. The tyranny need not continue. Whether in calm disputes, heated debates, or stimulating discussions, focus on substance, and see past status.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of any entities to which he is affiliated.
