'Twilight of the Elites' lays out some very compelling ideas, adding to the conversation a unique and valuable perspective on what ails an American society broadly believed by the public to be "on the wrong track". It's also full of vivid anecdotes and compelling analysis that made it a pleasure to read.
The narrative starts by pulling together the apparently disparate major scandals we all watched unfold over the first decade of the 21st century ("the Fail Decade") into the generalized theme of "institutional failure". I hadn't looked at it quite that way before and I think viewing Congress, corporations, Wall St, the Catholic Church, MLB, academia, the press, etc. all under the umbrella of "institutions" and looking at trends over time across institutions and institutional leaders ("elites") is a good framework. Survey data is presented, showing that trust in virtually all the core American institutions polled on has declined steadily over the last four decades (and presumably before the surveys started, in the wake of Watergate, as well).
Chris Hayes attributes this mistrust to the spectacular failures of these institutions - failure, I'd say, to live up to the role we expect them to play in our society. He blames this institutional failure on the "elite failure" of the people who've succeeded in the American "meritocracy" by securing positions of authority and power atop one or more of society's institutions. Hayes then puts forth his thesis that at the root of this trend is what he calls the "Iron Law of Meritocracy" which I would summarize as the idea that because of human nature, excessive inequality of outcome cannot remain compatible with equality of opportunity. The "winners" who earn a spot in their generation's elite will ultimately wind up using the power and money they've "won" to secure their own privilege and to skew the rules of the game for the next generation in a way that favors their own children and social circles. The bigger the resource gap between privileged families and everyone else, the more the "opportunity" that is supposed to justify the inequality becomes a purchasable commodity. A blatant example is the official preference given to the children of large donors at the top private universities. Informal but probably more lucrative are the "connections" enjoyed by those with family and friends in high places.
There were a few tensions in the book that felt unresolved:
1) "Meritocracy", the key concept in the book, was implicitly defined in a way that I think obscures some extremely important distinctions. Etymologically and historically - as an ideal to political philosophers seeking to design a competent system of governance for the sake of the entire society - the term "meritocracy" is about producing competent leadership that will best serve the greater society. On the other hand, the idea of creating an economic system that's designed to lavish extravagant economic rewards on society's most deserving by virtue of their "merit" is conceptually distinct; we could call it "meritonomy". Clearly, it's hard or impossible to totally separate meritocracy from meritonomy in practice - both for incentive reasons and because some degree of self-dealing probably inevitably follows from concentrated power. But I would've liked separate discussions of the cultural ideas that: a) meritocracy is designed to funnel people based on merit in order to produce the best leaders and thus best institutions, with money serving as an incentive, and b) meritocracy is a competition, and you more or less earn what you justly deserve according to the natural rules of the "free market". That we tend to accept as natural the idea that Wall St's speculative traders make far more money than bank regulators or civil engineers - and don't object to this order as long as they're good at trading and aren't getting directly bailed out with taxpayer money - seems to me a pretty strong indicator of how far our cultural notion of "meritocracy" has veered from the idea that merit should function, directly or indirectly, to serve society. On the other hand, the idea of "elite failure" implies that elites do have some obligation to the rest of us.
2) What really offends me about the Hunter College High School Chris describes - more than the fact that admission chances can be marginally improved by having parents able to pay for test prep - is that the life trajectories of those who don't get in, even just barely, is likely to be so dramatically inferior. In a country with no shortage of productive capacity, there's no excuse for "making it" to be viewed as an exclusive prize. That, to me - more than the un-level playing field - is the most fundamental problem with our system of "meritocracy". Yet Hayes' criticism of the lack of socioeconomic mobility almost seems to imply - probably inadvertently on his part - that if extreme inequality were the result of some mythical "level playing field" that would justify it. My problem with that as the primary critique of meritocracy is as follows: Even if we accept the idea of a "level playing field", why would a system of "meritocracy" justify someone in the 99.9th merit percentile reaping rewards orders of magnitude great than than someone in the 90th percentile? Not even the most unapologetic cognitive snobs depict an IQ curve, for example, that remotely resembles the shape of the income distribution. Yet Hayes - however rhetorically and with disapproval of the whole "cult of smartness" - tosses out the question: "Could there be something similar [to the fractal inequality we see in incomes] with intelligence?" My reaction was: Huh? Not even Charles Murray (co-author of "The Bell Curve") believes any such thing. To be fair, Hayes does mention the winner-take-all nature of the economy (if the best soprano can sell her recordings worldwide, that spells trouble for the fifth-best soprano) and explains how access to one form of social capital (money, platform and networks) - once acquired - can be easily traded in for another. That for Hayes to use his TV show to repeatedly pitch his book is the perfect illustration... is an irony I think Hayes intended the reader to pick up on. Appreciated would have been a more explicit acknowledgement that - while exponentially more successful measured by income, platform and networks - Hayes knows he's not, by anyone's definition, orders of magnitude smarter (or any other trait-er) than his readers; nor, in turn, are his readers and audience orders of magnitude smarter than the average person. This, to me, would be a deeper critique of meritocracy as justification for extreme inequality.
3) Hayes often casually equates "meritocracy" with "high levels of income inequality". Yet in practice, there are countries with a much more structured, Hunter College High School-esque form of "meritocracy" or of funneling than we have in America - I'm thinking of the make-or-break college entrance exam in South Korea or the early school tracking in Germany - and yet with lower levels of pay disparity between the relative "winners" and the "losers" in this sorting process.
4) I would've liked more of a conceptual distinction to be drawn between a) elites using their "on-the-job" authority to FAIL in the context of that role, and b) elites using their money and connections off the job to buy - directly or indirectly - competitive advantages for their kids. Eroding social mobility and institutional break-down are different phenomena. The Iron Law of Meritocracy refers to the former while the Fail Decade blow-ups refer to the latter. The two seem to alternate as the central indictment of meritocracy.
There were many insightful ideas in the book.
1) I particularly appreciated the discussion of high stakes. Hayes talks about the incentives they create, and the environment that breeds. His conclusion is: "It's harder than it looks to devise a system that greatly rewards success - and punishes failure - that isn't also a system that rewards cheating." I would extend the definition of cheating to include tactics that violate the spirit of the law or of common decency, whether or not they conform to the letter of the law. The extreme levels of income inequality we see are not only unfair and socially corrosive, they up the stakes in a way that can not only induce cheating, but eventually turn casual corruption into the norm.
2) The self-justification provided to "elites" by the notion that they're operating within a "meritocracy" is another important insight in the book.
The book's title - while evocative - is a bit misleading. First, I wouldn't have known going in that the title was "aspirational" - rather than descriptive of a post-meritocratic state - if I hadn't happened to catch Chris Hayes saying so himself in one of his media appearances around the time it came out. Second, the book is overwhelmingly a social critique rather than an outline of Hayes' aspirations for an alternative system. My interpretation of Chris Hayes' call for a "twilight of the elites" - and I'm projecting here - is something akin to the following:
- a call for his fellow "elites" to get over themselves already
- that money and power alone are not self-evident proof of their holder's "merit" and certainly not of their contribution to society
- for everyone to carry with them the understanding that despite the lack of hereditary aristocracy, luck of many kinds still plays a huge role in life outcomes
- for people to view their jobs not just in terms of competitive achievement and personal reward, but as a way to use their talents to play a positive role in society
- that "smartness" alone isn't enough
- that making it in the world shouldn't be seen as an exclusive and scarce resource
- and that extreme inequality can not only turn people bad but is ultimately bad for all of us
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
Audio CD, Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" | — | $5.46 |
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
Videos
Page 1 of 1Start OverPage 1 of 1
Videos for this product
1:49
Click to play video
Christopher Hayes on "Twilight of the Elites"
Merchant Video
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Given a understanding of elite v common majority. The ...
Reviewed in the United States on January 7, 2017
Given a understanding of elite v common majority. The power given to the few elite accompanied with a distant life style (out of Touch) is a danger to communities and country. The elite whom rule are to distance to make an effective decision for for their constituents. However, a hierarchical structure is necessary to motivate a decision or solution.
Reviewed in the United States on January 7, 2017
Images in this review
Top reviews from other countries
Robin de Wilde
The Failure of the Great American Dream
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on January 28, 2013
CLEOMENES III
No problems. Book as described. Would buy from seller again.
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on December 2, 2016KAY PARRY
Twilight of the Elites, by Chris Hayes
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on January 8, 2013
