Silicon Valley Meritocracy, Power, and Justice Analyzed
The Myth of Meritocracy in Silicon Valley
Anand Giridharadas uses his review of Theo Baker’s How to Rule the World to show that although individuals and institutions in the Bay Area (i.e., Silicon Valley and Stanford) are avid proponents of meritocracy, in fact, old boys’ networks and money ultimately determine people’s fate. There is little to no accountability in such a system, and as a result, powerful individuals get away with a lot. People in such systems believe that powerful individuals are rightfully so and that, in the end, powerful people are always justified in their actions. In Thrasymachus’ words, the powerful people are justified in their actions because they simply serve their own interests and promote their own goodness. In his critique of Stanford, Giridharadas in effect shows that, in the world of the powerful, their self-justified actions promote and serve their own interests.
How Elites Create Social Orders for Self-Interest
Giridharadas’s book demonstrates Thrasymachus’s logic by portraying the powerful creating a social order to advance their own interests. Thrasymachus held that the rulers of a society create laws to advance their own interests and that, consequently, “justice” is, in reality, obedience to laws created to advance the interests of the rulers. Hence, “the stronger” should be understood to mean those with dominating political, social, and economic interests. Giridharadas describes the case with greater precision by citing the example of the elites of Silicon Valley and Stanford University. He says that these social order-advancing institutions nurture the notion that there are meritocratic social orders within which rewards flow to talented and hard-working individuals. However, in reality, Giridharadas says, the social order within these institutions is structured to ensure that the offspring of the elite or the wealthy, who, in any case, control a large proportion of the income and wealth of the society, ultimately enjoy a monopoly of rewards. Hence, justice, in Thrasymachus’ sense, ultimately tends to work in favor of the dominant social elites.
Power, Exploitation, and Accountability
Giridharadas’ engagement with Thrasymachus is different in that he doesn’t offer this justification of the relationship between power and justice. For Thrasymachus, there are situations where injustice, or the exploitation of others, is quite profitable, especially if it is extensive and large-scale and if the person is powerful enough to not be held accountable for his actions. What is important in this situation is that the exploiter is powerful enough to not be accountable for his actions. For Giridharadas, this extensive, large-scale exploitation creates an unjust system. For Giridharadas, the issue is not how the powerful people in the world justified their position by being extensive, large-scale exploiters; Giridharadas thinks that most of the time, the powerful people in the system are exploiters because they have used their connections to get to their powerful position. Giridharadas argues that, in a case where power is justified by extensive, large-scale exploitation, Thrasymachus describes reality correctly, but justifies why extensive, large-scale exploitation should be the case. Giridharadas disagrees with Thrasymachus in that, while extensive, large-scale exploitation should be expected, extensive, large-scale exploitation is unjust and should not be condoned.
Plato, Thrasymachus, and Modern Power Structures
Plato’s Thrasymachus dialogue focuses on the presentation by Giridharadas mainly because they both show how power and justice are closely related when prevailing belligerent organizations of the society control the organizational structures of the state. Thrasymachus’ view on morality is further expanded by Giridharadas, who gives a contemporary example to show how the rule makers and enforcers are often the affluent and powerful. Also, Giridharadas further illuminates the case of power and morality by showing how although a critique of the power structures of the society is vital, giving a case of how the society functions, and stating that the society should be organized in a particular manner, are entirely two different propositions. Power, in this context, should be defined in a manner that seeks the welfare of the people as expressed by Thrasymachus’ critics in the dialogue. The lesson from the critique of morality and power as expressed by Plato and Giridharadas is that to evaluate whether a given structure of the state is just, the existing structures should be analyzed to determine whether prevailing belligerent organizations have a monopoly of power.