Here's a question we all need to ask: What went wrong? Beyond the pandemic, I mean our social life. How did we come to this polarized and nervous political moment?
In recent decades, the gap between winners and losers has grown significantly, poisoning our politics, dividing us. This division has to do in part with inequalities as well. But also with our attitude towards victory or loss caused. Whoever has reached the top is increasingly convinced that he owes his success only to himself, and those who have lost, on the other hand, can only blame themselves.
This way of looking at success comes from a seemingly appealing principle. If we all have the same opportunities, the winners deserve their victory. These are the foundations of the concept of meritocracy. But in practice, it clearly happens very differently. Not everyone has the same upbringing opportunities. Children born into poor families are more likely to grow up poor. Wealthy parents can bequeath wealth to their children. In the best universities, for example, there are more students belonging to the 1% of the privileged than from the rest of the population taken together.
But the problem is not just the fact that we have failed to follow the principles of meritocracy, of which we talk so much. This ideal in itself is flawed. It has a dark side. Meritocracy is corrosive to the common good. It brings the arrogance of the winners and the humiliation of those who have lost. Encourages the successful ones to have a lot of fun forgetting also the fate that helped them in their journey. And so it makes them look up and down the disadvantaged and the less qualified. Politics should show interest in this issue. One of the many reasons for the popular uprisings is the workers' feeling that they are being tried by the country's elite. It is a very justified complaint.
Although globalization has brought more inequality and wage stagnation, his followers have offered angry advice to workers: "If you want to compete and win in the global economy, go to university!"; "What you earn depends on what you have learned"; "You can only succeed if you try." The privileged ones who give these counsels do not notice the insult that lies in them. If you do not go to university, if you do not succeed in the new economy, your failure will only be your fault. This is the implied message. It is therefore not surprising that many workers rebel against the privileged.
What to do? We need to rethink three aspects of our social life. The role of the university, the dignity of work and the sense of success.
One must first look at the role of universities, now perceived as arbitrators of opportunities. For those who, like us, make up the percentage of qualified people it is easy to forget one simple fact: many people do not have a degree. In fact, nearly two-thirds of Americans do not. Therefore, it is madness to create an economy that turns the degree into a basic requirement for a respectable job and a dignified life.
Encouraging people to go to university is a good thing. Opening doors for those who do not have the opportunity is even better. But this is not the solution to inequality. We need to think less about hurting others in the name of meritocracy and focus more on improving lives for those people who do not have a degree but who contribute in a fundamental way to society.
We need to reconsider the dignity of work and put it at the center of our policy. We must keep in mind that work is not only about securing a livelihood, but it is also a way to contribute to the common good and thus gain recognition.
Robert F. Kennedy explained it well half a century ago. Brotherhood, community, common patriotism. These core values â??â??do not only stem from the purchase and consumption of goods. They owe it to decent work and decent wages. The kind of work that allows us to say: “I helped build this place. "I took part in this joint venture." This civic sense is lacking in public life today.
We often assume that the money a person manages to earn measures their contribution to the common good. But it is not so. Martin Luther King has explained why. Referring to a strike by green workers in Memphispak before he was killed, King said, “Those who collect our waste are, after all, just as important as doctors, because if they did not do their job, they would diseases spread. "Every job is noble."
Today's pandemic has made it clear. This shows how dependent we are on workers we often ignore. Cashiers, maintenance workers, supermarket clerks, warehouse workers, truck drivers, educators, caretakers. These are not the highest paid and most respected workers. But now, we perceive them as very necessary. It is time to set up a public debate to ensure that public pay and appreciation for them become more representative of the importance of the work they do.
It is also time for a turning point, moral as well as spiritual, to question our presumption of meritocracy. Morally, does he deserve the talents I have? Is it my fault if I live in a society that casually appreciates the talents I have? Or was I really just lucky? Insisting that my success is only my merit, makes it difficult to connect with others. Acknowledging that fate plays a role in life certainly offers a measure of humility.
This sense of humility is the civic gift we need now. It is the beginning of moving away from the difficult ethic of success that ends by dividing us. It elevates us above this tyranny of merit in a less savage and more generous public life.
* Michael Sandel is an American political philosopher. He is Professor of Governance Theory at Harvard University Law School. In 2002 he was elected a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, while in 2018 he was honored with the "Prince of Asturias" award in social sciences. This article was translated into Albanian by Erjon Uka.
