Dutch sociologist Dick Pels examines the relationship between money and honour, while reflecting on his personal experiences and broader social developments. Pels attaches little value to money, but all the more to honour and ambition, which he believes are becoming increasingly rare in a world dominated by money and status.

Of course, there is tension between ambition and humility, but recognition and self-respect can together contribute to social progress. Pels advocates a renewed social meritocracy that promotes equal opportunities from birth, instead of relying on the myth of the American Dream. Social mobility is becoming increasingly difficult, especially for minority groups. That is why a balance of liberal and social values ​​is needed, Pels writes.

 

Chapter one discusses the complexity and paradoxes of meritocracy – the centrality of personal merit in social and economic distribution. Pels takes Michael Young's book The Rise of the Meritocracy (1958) as a starting point and analyses how meritocracy creates a new social inequality. Young described a society in which intelligence and hard work became the benchmarks for social mobility, with an elite of the smartest at the top. This replaced traditional inequalities based on origin and wealth, but introduced a new form of exclusion. The meritocratic elite reproduces itself through education and privilege, which leads to a new class of haves and have-nots. Young predicted that the excluded classes would develop feelings of resentment. This is compared to recent (when the book was written) events such as the French banlieue uprisings (2005) and the Fortuyn right-wing political revolt in the Netherlands (2002).

Social mobility is hampered by an accumulation of economic, cultural and ethnic disadvantages. Meritocracy shifts responsibility to the individual, which can lead to guilt and demotivation among those who fail. Inequality is justified as the logical consequence of personal merit, while structural factors such as origin and access to opportunity are ignored.

An alternative is a social meritocracy - a balance between equal starting opportunities and fair outcomes. This means not only investing in education and social mobility, but also recognising that economic and cultural capital transfers perpetuate inequalities. Early childcare, a redistribution of opportunities and resources, and the recognition of societal influences on individual performance are important for this.

Whether a social meritocracy is a realistic alternative or a utopia is not elaborated. Pels does write that political parties often endorse equal opportunities, but differ greatly in how they want to achieve this. Right-wing meritocrats rely on self-reliance and market mechanisms, while left-wing meritocrats advocate redistribution and social protection.

 

In Chapter two, Pels discusses the controversial issue of the increasing inequality between the salaries of top executives and the average employee. He describes broad societal indignation about high salaries, bonuses and golden handshakes of top managers, which are often disconnected from performance; there’s a growing gap between reward and actual earnings. Salaries rose disproportionately compared to company results. Employers justify this with terms such as a "market-conform" salary. The pay inflation of top executives, however, is not determined by the free market, but rather results from closed networks and power structures; this points to market failure.

In the Netherlands, there were public calls for moderation, but measures often remained toothless. Naming and shaming via the media occasionally led to changes, but structural policy failed to materialize. Top athletes, media figures and hedge fund managers also receive disproportionate rewards, without a clear link to performance. Furthermore, top incomes in rich countries contrast sharply with extreme poverty worldwide. The skewed income distribution at global level overshadows the inequalities within countries.

Transparency about incomes can both fuel inequality and be a means to tackle excesses through public pressure and democratic debate. A just society should not only combat poverty, but also strive for reasonable income ratios to maintain social cohesion and realize meritocratic ideals, Pels writes: An income standard, such as the "Orwell standard" (maximum income of ten times the minimum wage) could help to close the gap and strengthen meritocracy, according to Pels. My thoughts: Wishful thinking!

 

Chapter three is about contemporary celebrity culture and the tension between reward and merit in a meritocratic society. Although popularity does not equal achievement, celebrity culture emphasizes just this popularity. Modern celebrity is often not appreciated for old-fashioned achievements, such as talent or perseverance, but for visibility, image and media presence.

Fame is often the result of media and market dynamics, where visibility is more important than talent or achievements. This leads to the perception that celebrities are ‘famous for being famous’, without direct merit. Media culture has created an alternative route to success, based on appearance, charisma and media sensitivity rather than intellectual or professional ability.

While celebrity culture appears meritocratic, it's often undermined by arbitrariness, heredity and market factors, which widens the gap between merit and reward. The income of celebrities is often disproportionate to their actual contribution, which provokes moral criticism and raises questions about the fairness of such earnings. Celebrities symbolise a paradox: they reflect democratic ideals of social mobility, but at the same time create new, exclusive elites.

Pels argues for a society in which honour and fame are decoupled from financial reward, and where recognition comes from actual achievements and social value. In the absence of objective standards of merit, it’s necessary to have a continuous public debate about what is valuable and meaningful, he writes.

 

Chapter four discusses the relationship between honor, ambition, and democracy. In earlier times, the desire for fame and recognition was openly accepted as a driving force for public figures. In the Netherlands, with its tradition of modesty, ambition is often disguised as service to abstract ideals such as the common good. The advent of right-wing political figures such as Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands (and later, Trump in the USA) marks a break with this tradition, as they openly professed their ambition.

Classical philosophers such as Pericles and Adam Smith did not see wealth as an end in itself, but as a means to gain public recognition. But modern capitalism is about materialism, and this causes intrinsic values ​​such as honor to fade into the background. The human need for recognition, especially in meritocratic societies, leads to a continuous struggle for status.

Pels argues for a pluralistic approach to scarcity, in which immaterial incentives such as recognition become more important than financial rewards. Although competition is often associated with materialism, it can also be a powerful driver of creativity and innovation. The pursuit of recognition can promote individual achievement without degenerating into vulgar greed.

Traditional ethics of honor were often tied to group identity, such as family honor or national pride. But modern interpretations emphasize individual honor, with personal integrity and self-respect at the center. In a democracy, honor can serve as an incentive for leadership and entrepreneurship, without necessarily leading to inequality. Democratic systems must strike a balance between equality and recognizing individual merit. Instead of using wealth as a measure of success, a society can place honor and recognition more centrally. This can be done through awards, honors, and public appreciation, with an ongoing dialogue needed to determine what is considered honorable.

 

In Chapter five, Pels examines meritocracy—the idea that social status and rewards should be based on merit. A key question is: Who determines what counts as merit? Historically, thinkers have attempted to develop objective criteria, such as Plato's hierarchy of talents, the labor theory of value of Adam Smith and Marx, and modern functionalist views. But objective evaluation often proves impossible; criteria such as IQ tests, market forces or bureaucratic job evaluation are coloured by arbitrariness and social power structures.

Meritocracy fails due to its focus on measurable achievements and the neglect of social factors such as culture and heredity. This leads to inequality and the legitimisation of existing power relations. Critics such as Michael Young and Friedrich Hayek point to the authoritarian and arbitrary tendencies of both state-driven and market-driven meritocratic systems.

Pels argues for a revaluation of what counts as valuable work. Activities such as care work and volunteer work should be socially recognised, while harmful activities such as speculation and excessive remuneration of managers should be critically examined. Pels initiates a democratic discussion about merit, in which intangible values ​​such as professional honour, care and cooperation are central. The focus on purely economic standards should be replaced by a broader perspective on social contributions, he writes.

 

The (final) Chapter six argues for a revaluation and redistribution of honour, opportunities and resources in a society that strives for a social meritocracy. Pels emphasizes that the distribution of self-respect, status and opportunities is strongly influenced by social circumstances and that individual responsibility for success or failure is often overestimated. The meritocracy as it currently functions increases inequality by excessively rewarding the success of an individual with honor, power and wealth, while the contribution of less visible but essential roles in society is insufficiently recognized.

Pels advocates a balance between equality and difference, in which economic, cultural and social capital advantages are corrected. At the base of society, equality of opportunity must be increased by collective investments in, for example, education and care, while at the top there is room for selection and excellence, but without excessive rewards.

An honor economy decouples rewards from money, places more emphasis on intrinsic values ​​such as public recognition and social responsibility, and keeps inequality within acceptable limits. Proposals include progressive taxation, support for vulnerable groups, and emphasizing the social value of professions and tasks that are often undervalued. The ideal of a social meritocracy unites egalitarianism and individualism, with opportunities for everyone and room for personal differences. This calls for structural reforms that reduce the gap between rich and poor, and between self-image and social recognition.

 

Source:

Pels, D. (2007), De economie van de eer, Amsterdam: Ambo.