Very reasonable

Well, of course the content can be compressed and the one philosphical chapter could be skipped. For hurry readers this is appearently an issue. But for me it is perfectly fine. So I got a deeper understanding of the author's ethic and moral ideas.
And his explanation of today's class struggle is very plausible, not only in US but also across Europe.

Sie haben diese Rezension bewertet.

Wir haben Ihre Meldung erhalten und werden die Rezension prüfen.

Fascinating read

I would recommend this book to all students, especially in business / managerial fields. It proposes refreshing views on our society and politics.

Sie haben diese Rezension bewertet.

Wir haben Ihre Meldung erhalten und werden die Rezension prüfen.

This book should have been a blog post

The basic thesis is interesting and good argued for but the book repeats itself over and over, should have been a blog post

Sie haben diese Rezension bewertet.

Wir haben Ihre Meldung erhalten und werden die Rezension prüfen.

Fundierte liberale Sichtweise auf politische Herausforderungen der Gegewart

Von einem liberalen Standpunkt aus sich einen Reim auf die Verwerfungen der Gegenwart innerhalb westlicher Gesellschaften und insbesondere der der USA zu machen, ist eine Herausforderung. Der Autor bietet neben einer Fülle von Beispielen aus dem politisch-sozialen Tagesgeschäft eine durchaus schlüssige Gesamtargumentation an, die allerdings vergleichsweise konventionell, man könnte sagen: klassisch aufklärerisch und getragen von amerikanischen Denktraditionen daherkommt. Wir erhalten so eine fundierte, allerdings wenig überraschende theoretische Grundlage zum Verständnis gegenwärtiger gesellschaftlicher Konflikte.

Sie haben diese Rezension bewertet.

Wir haben Ihre Meldung erhalten und werden die Rezension prüfen.

Important topic, but could’ve been shorter

The book touches upon a very important topic. However, it often feels repetitive and anecdotal. While important points are made throughout the book, these could’ve been presented in a much denser fashion.

Sie haben diese Rezension bewertet.

Wir haben Ihre Meldung erhalten und werden die Rezension prüfen.

Sehr empfehlenswert

Ein sehr wichtiges Buch, wie ich finde. Sollte besonders für alle in politischen Funktionen Pflichtlektüre sein. Sehr angenehm zu hören und perfekt für unterwegs, da der Autor seine Argumente oft wiederholt.

Sie haben diese Rezension bewertet.

Wir haben Ihre Meldung erhalten und werden die Rezension prüfen.

Marvelous, and insigtfull work...

This is a complete seminar, a crash course from a Harvard teacher, and a wonderful audiobook.
Much has been said about the current upsurge of extremist political thought around the world and these books approach the subject in a refreshing way, not labeling militants or retreaters, but tying them all together in the causes of inequality and offering alternatives to heal our broken society.
A masterpiece that will help you to reassess much of the value system in which our society is placed.

Sie haben diese Rezension bewertet.

Wir haben Ihre Meldung erhalten und werden die Rezension prüfen.

Slow but insightful

Sandel lays out the misconceptions around meritocracy in a very comprehensive and easily understandable way, and - importantly - also offers solutions. However, the book is very repetitive, giving the same anecdotes multiple times and explaining everything at length without going into depth. It's also centred around US politics, which isn't a negative as such but I wasn't aware of this and personally have no special interest in the US. I'd recommend Sandel's TED talk before recommending this book.

Sie haben diese Rezension bewertet.

Wir haben Ihre Meldung erhalten und werden die Rezension prüfen.

Toughtfull and thorough argument about meritocracy

I'm trying to wrap my head around what there might be to say for and against meritocracy. I had just finished "The Meritocracy Trap" by Daniel Markovits, which was, more or less, a condemnation of American Meritocracy. I probably shouldn't have listened to this audiobook right afterwards, because I tend to confound them in my head and have some difficulty teasing them apart.
But, Michael J. Sandel is less vitriol in his attack on the American meritocracy than Markovits. Yet, he does call it a tyranny, which is a pretty strong wording. I believe his main quarrel with 'merit' and the meritocracy, is that it is 'unjust'.
I believe he's a moral philosopher, as he has some enlightening and interesting discussions of both Hayek (economist) and John Rawls.
I believe he takes issue with Hayeks economic liberalism, because in the end it is unjust and has too little respect or too little concern for the common good. Hayek is too concerned about individual freedom, and I think he criticizes him for focusing too narrowly on market and monetary value as the real value of things, goods and people. It's the old saying about the price system and the economy, which know the price of everything, but the value of nothing. What does have value to Sandler is people's dignity, self-esteem, having a productive life. Even John Rawls' ideas about fairness and justice does he seem to have issues with. The idea that we can accept some kind of meritocracy as long as it benefits (all) other people more, when some people have more, get more, make more, is not one that Sandler finds, is right or just.
He insists on the 'fact' that people without a college degree is frowned upon, people look down at them, and those who have gotten a college degree find themselves to be worthy, deserving of their privileges, while they have worked hard to get them. According to Sandel, a strong argument against meritocracy is that it breeds resentment between the 'deplorables' (Hilary Clinton's acrid term) and the meritorious. Yet, I would like to raise an objection. What society can Sandel point to, where there is no resentment between some groups or individuals? Has there ever been, and can there ever be? I'm somewhat skeptical on that point, yet it seems to be an important issue to Sandel - the striving for a society where everyone gets social recognition for their work, existence and effort. In many ways it's a laudable and humanistic goal, yet I'd like to ask whether he believes we can achieve something were everyone feels recognized to the full extent, which they fell entitled to. To paraphrase the bonmot about democracy, I still can't get rid of the suspicion that meritocracy is the worst and most unjust kind of societal order, except for all the others.
I'm not a US citizen, but a Danish citizen, and as two meritocratic societies (Denmark and USA), there are differences. Education is free and a lot of effort is put into qualifying people for all kind of jobs in Denmark. And yet, resentment against other professions and chauvinism about one's own are rampant or ubiquitous. Everybody seems to find their attribution to be undervalued and others overvalued.
Sandel also address the question of whether the meritocracy creates more wealth and prosperity. I believe that he does acknowledge that a free, meritocratic market economy, historically, has created more prosperity. Yet, it doesn't seem, in the end, to weigh in significantly, because it makes too many people superfluous. People don't just have a right and interest in becoming more prosperous, they also want to contribute and live meaningful lives. The American middle class appears to have become only marginally more prosperous, but have lost out on living a meaningful life and contributing to the common good.
He might be right, but I also suspect that his perspective is somehow parochial, because the global economy has been a boon and a good fortune to billions of poor people in the world. Yet the moral drama played out in this book is a drama between a college-educated America and non-college-educated America. I suspect this as being a to narrow perspective. I would also have liked if he had taken issue with Robert Nozick's argument about that the distribution of goods are just, as long as it has happened through voluntary transactions. I can also find it mind-bugling and incredible, how some bankers, CEO's, investors get formidable remunerations, yet at the same time, if that is what it is worth to some very wealthy firms, individuals, investors, then who am I to say that it's wrong. I don't have a very good response to this argument. Especially not, if it's combined with an argument and data about how the system somehow does work for some common good like greater prosperity.

Sandel has written an interesting book about merit(ocracy). I can't exactly recognize everything he writes about, and I suspect that part of the animosity and discontent with 'merit' stems from a unique American perspective and version of capitalism and meritocracy, which give to little room for, well, living.
(Finally, I made a personal note about a section, where he tells about the argument about being "on the right side of history", which according to Sandell became a frequent figure of speech from Bill Clinton and forwards. I can use this in my classes about argumentation.)

Sie haben diese Rezension bewertet.

Wir haben Ihre Meldung erhalten und werden die Rezension prüfen.

6 Leute fanden das hilfreich

horribly boring and mundane

how can someone ever say nonsensical things and keep going on and on. awful author

Sie haben diese Rezension bewertet.

Wir haben Ihre Meldung erhalten und werden die Rezension prüfen.