This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2010)

Sociology
Outline
Theory · History
Positivism · Antipositivism Functionalism · Conflict theory Middle-range · Mathematical Critical theory · Socialization Structure and agency
Research methods
Quantitative · Qualitative Historical · Computational Ethnographic · Network analytic
Topics · Subfields
Cities · Class · Crime · Culture Deviance · Demography · Education Economy · Environment · Family Gender · Health · Industry · Internet Knowledge · Law · Medicine Politics · Mobility · Race and ethnicity Rationalization · Religion · Science Secularization · Social networks Social psychology · Stratification
Browse
Portal Category tree · Lists Journals · Sociologists Article index
v t e

Meritocracy, in the first, most administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments and responsibilities are objectively assigned to individuals based upon their "merits", namely intelligence, credentials, and education,^[1] determined through evaluations or examinations. The "most common definition of meritocracy conceptualizes merit in terms of tested competency and ability, and most likely as measured by IQ or standardized achievement tests."^[2] Supporters of meritocracies do not necessarily agree on the nature of "merit", however they tend to agree that "merit" itself should be a primary consideration during evaluation.

In a more general sense, meritocracy can refer to any form of government based on achievement. Like "utilitarian" and "pragmatic", the word "meritocratic" has also developed a broader definition, and can used to refer to any government run by "a ruling or influential class of educated or able people."^[3] This is in contrast to the term originally coined by Michael Young in 1958, who critically defined it as a system where "merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications."^[4] Meritocracy in its wider sense can be any general act of judgment upon the basis of people's various demonstrated merits; such acts are frequently described in sociology and psychology. Thus, the merits may extend beyond intelligence and education to any mental or physical talent or to work ethic. In rhetoric, the demonstration of one's merit regarding mastery of a particular subject is an essential task most directly related to the Aristotelian term Ethos. The equivalent Aristotelian conception of meritocracy is based upon aristocratic or oligarchical structures rather than in the context of the modern state.^[5][6]

Although meritocracy as a term is a relatively recent invention, the concept of a government based on standardized examinations originates from the works of Confucius, along with other Legalist and Confucian philosophers. The first meritocracy was implemented in the 2nd century BC, by the Han Dynasty, which introduced the world's first civil service exams evaluating the "merit" of officials.^[7] Meritocracy as a concept spread from China to British India during the 17th century, and then into continental Europe and the United States.^[8] With the translation of Confucian texts during the Enlightenment, the concept of a meritocracy reached intellectuals in the West, who saw it as an alternative to the traditional ancient regime of Europe.^[9] In the United States, the assassination of President Garfield in 1881 prompted the replacement of the American Spoils System with a meritocracy. In 1883, The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act was passed, stipulating government jobs should be awarded on the basis of merit through competitive exams, rather than ties to politicians or political affiliation.^[10]

The most common form of meritocratic screening found today is the college degree. Higher education is an imperfect meritocratic screening system for various reasons, such as lack of uniform standards worldwide,^[11][12] lack of scope (not all occupations and processes are included), and lack of access (some talented people never have an opportunity to participate because of the expense, most especially in developing countries).^[13] However, academic degrees serve some amount of meritocratic screening purpose in the absence of more refined methodology. Education alone, however, does not constitute a complete system, as meritocracy must automatically confer power and authority, which a degree independently does not accomplish.

Etymology[link]

Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term meritocracy was first coined by British politician and sociologist, Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay,^{[1][14][15][16][17]} "The Rise of the Meritocracy", which pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favoring intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all. The essay is written in the first-person by a fictional historical narrator in 2034, and interweaves history from the politics of pre- and post-war Britain with those of fictional future events in the short (1960 onward) and long term (2020 onward).^[18]

The essay was based upon the tendency of the then-current governments in their striving towards intelligence to ignore shortcomings and upon the failure of education systems to correctly utilize gifted and talented members within their societies.^[19]

Young's fictional narrator explains that, on the one hand, the greatest contributor to society is not the "stolid mass" or majority, but the "creative minority" or "restless elite".^[20] On the other hand, he claims that there are casualties of progress whose influence is underestimated and that, from such stolid adherence to natural science and intelligence, arises arrogance and complacency.^[20] This problem is encapsulated in the phrase "Every selection of one is a rejection of many".^[20]

History of the concept[link]

According to scholarly consensus, the earliest example of an administrative meritocracy, based on civil service examinations, dates back to Ancient China.^{[21][22][23][24]a[›]} The concept originates at least by the 6th century BC, when it was advocated by the Chinese philosopher Confucius, who "invented the notion that those who govern should do so because of merit, not of inherited status. This sets in motion the creation of the imperial examinations and bureaucracies open only to those who passed tests."^[25] As the Qin and Han dynasties developed a meritocratic system in order to maintain power over a large, sprawling empire, it became necessary for the government to maintain a complex network of officials.^[26] Prospective officials could come from a rural background and government positions were not restricted to the nobility. Rank was determined by merit, through the civil service examinations, and education became the key for social mobility.^[26] After the fall of the Han Dynasty, the nine-rank system was established during the Three Kingdoms period.

According to the Princeton Encyclopedia on American History^[8]:

One of the oldest examples of a merit-based civil service system existed in the imperial bureaucracy of China. Tracing back to 200 B.C., the Han Dynasty adopted Confucianism as the basis of its political philosophy and structure, which included the revolutionary idea of replacing nobility of blood with one of virtue and honesty, and thereby calling for administrative appointments to be based solely on merit. This system allowed anyone who passed an examination to become a government officer, a position that would bring wealth and honor to the whole family. In part due to Chinese influence, the first European civil service did not originate in Europe, but rather in India by the British-run East India Company... company managers hired and promoted employees based on competitive examinations in order to prevent corruption and favoritism.

The concept of meritocracy spread from China to British India during the 17th century, and then into continental Europe and the United States.^[8] With the translation of Confucian texts during the Enlightenment, the concept of a meritocracy reached intellectuals in the West, who saw it as an alternative to the traditional ancient regime of Europe.^[9] Voltaire and François Quesnay wrote favourably of the idea, with Voltaire claiming that the Chinese had "perfected moral science" and Quesnay advocating an economic and political system modeled after that of the Chinese.^[9]

The first European power to successfully implement a meritocratic civil service was the British Empire, in their administration of India: "company managers hired and promoted employees based on competitive examinations in order to prevent corruption and favoritism."^[8] British colonial administrators advocated the spread of the system to the rest of the Commonwealth, the most "persistent" of which was Thomas Taylor Meadows, Britain's consul in Guangzhou, China. This practice was later adopted in the late 19th century by the British mainland, inspired by "Chinese mandarin system."^[27]

In the United States, the United States Civil Service utilized the Spoils System from 1828 until the assassination of United States President Garfield by a disappointed office seeker in 1881 proved its dangers. Two years later in 1883, the system of appointments to the United States Federal Bureaucracy was revamped by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, partially based on the British meritocratic civil service that had been established years earlier. The act stipulated that government jobs should be awarded on the basis of merit,^[10] through competitive exams,^[10] rather than ties to politicians or political affiliation. It also made it illegal to fire or demote government employees for political reasons.^[10] To enforce the merit system and the judicial system, the law also created the United States Civil Service Commission.^[10] In the modern American meritocracy, the president can only hand out a certain number of jobs which must be approved by the Senate.

Social Darwinism[link]

Social Darwinism is a social theory which holds that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is a model, not only for the development of biological traits in a population, but also as an application for human social institutions — the existing social institutions being implicitly declared as normative. Social Darwinism was at its most popular from the late 19th century to the end of World War II. Proponents of Social Darwinism argue that the theory justifies social inequality as being meritocratic. Darwin himself only ventured to propound his theories in a biological sense, and it is other thinkers and theorists who have applied Darwin's model to unequal endowments of human ambition.

Historical examples[link]

This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

Confucianism[link]

In teaching, there should be no distinction of classes. (Analects XV, 39)

The main basis of his teachings was to seek knowledge, study, and become a better person.

Although Confucius claimed that he never invented anything but was only transmitting ancient knowledge (see Analects VII, 1), he did produce a number of new ideas. Many European and American admirers such as Voltaire and H. G. Creel point to the revolutionary idea of replacing nobility of blood with nobility of virtue. Jūnzǐ (君子, lit. "lord's child"), which originally signified the younger, non-inheriting, offspring of a noble, became, in Confucius' work, an epithet having much the same meaning and evolution as the English "gentleman". A virtuous plebeian who cultivates his qualities can be a "gentleman", while a shameless son of the king is only a "small man". That he admitted students of different classes as disciples is a clear demonstration that he fought against the feudal structures that defined pre-imperial Chinese society.

This new idea, of the meritocracy, led to the introduction of the Imperial examination system in China. The system allowed anyone who passed an examination to become a government officer, a position which would bring wealth and honour to the whole family. The Chinese Imperial examination system seem started in 165 BC, when certain candidates for public office were called to the Chinese capital for examination of their moral excellence by the emperor. Over the following centuries the system grew until finally almost anyone who wished to become an official had to prove his worth by passing written government examinations.

Han Feizi[link]

In addition to Confucius, another ancient Chinese philosopher of the same period (that of the Warring States) advocated a meritocratic system of government and society. This was Han Feizi who was famous as the foremost proponent of the School of Law, otherwise known as the philosophy of Legalism. This had, as its central tenet, the absolute rule of law, but also contained numerous meritocratic elements. Another Legalist, Shang Yang implemented Legalist and meritocratic reforms in the state of Qin by abolishing the aristocracy and promoting individuals based on their skill, intelligence, and initiative.

This led to the armies of the Qin gaining a critical edge over the other nations that adhered to old aristocratic systems of government. Legalism, along with its pro-meritocratic ideals, remained a key part of Chinese philosophy and politics for another two millennia, although after the Qin Dynasty it was heavily diluted. But meritocratic governance within the bureaucracy remains a key stone of Chinese government all the way to the present. This can be most clearly seen in the use of standardized "imperial examinations" to determine entry into the official class, which began in the Sui Dynasty.

British India[link]

Under Chinese influence, the first European power to successfully implement a merit-based civil system was the British Empire, in their administration of India. To avoid corruption, "company managers hired and promoted employees based on competitive examinations in order to prevent corruption and favoritism."^[8]

Napoleon[link]

Napoleonic (Revolutionary) France is considered to have been meritocratic. After the revolution of 1789 most members of the former elite had been removed. When Napoleon rose to power in 1799, there was no ancient base from which to draw his staff, and he had to choose the people he thought best for the job, including officers from his army, revolutionaries who had been in the National Assembly, and even some former aristocrats such as prime minister Talleyrand. This policy was summed up in Bonaparte's often-quoted phrase "La carrière ouverte aux talents", careers open to the talented, or as more freely translated by Thomas Carlyle, "the tools to him that can handle them". A clear example is the order of the Légion d'honneur, the first order of merit, admitting men of any class. They were judged not by ancestry or wealth but by military, scientific or artistic prowess. Napoleon was known for saying 'jobs open for talent'.

Modern meritocratic states[link]

Singapore[link]

Singapore describes meritocracy as one of its official guiding principles for domestic public policy formulation, placing emphasis on academic credentials as objective measures of merit.^[28] It separated from Malaysia in 1965 after the federal Malaysian government insisted on giving special privileges to the Malays as part of their "birthright" as an "indigenous" people (the majority, 76%, of the island's population are Chinese). Political leaders in Singapore argued instead for the equality of all citizens, with places in universities, government contracts, political appointments, etc., going to the most deserving candidates, rather than to those chosen on the basis of connections or ethnic background (It is worth noting that Lee Kuan Yew was originally a Fabian Socialist and opposed racism). This dispute between State and Federal governments proved irreconcilable; Singapore therefore became an independent city-state separate from Malaysia.

There is criticism that, under this system, Singaporean society is being increasingly stratified and that an elite class is being created from a narrow segment of the population.^[29] Although most agree that Singapore's economic success has been due in part to its strong emphasis on developing and promoting talented leaders, there are signs that an increasing number believe that it is instead becoming an elitist society.^[30] Defendants recall the ancient Chinese proverb 'Wealth does not pass three generations', suggesting that the nepotism or cronyism of elitists will eventually be, and often are, replaced by those lower down the hierarchy. Indeed, many top political leaders in Singapore come from peasant backgrounds, while modern peasants boast about their great ancestry.^{[citation needed]}

Modern meritocratic movements[link]

OSHO[link]

In the mid-eighties, the controversial spiritual teacher Osho suggested that both Democracy and Communism should be replaced by Meritocracy, as an overarching political system. According to Osho, only persons with appropriate qualifications should be allowed to vote. Moreover, all politicians should have appropriate college or university degrees. Only the geniuses of the world should govern. Osho suggested that first the various nations should become meritocracies, after which they can all be joined to form a global meritocracy.^[31]

The Meritocracy Party[link]

In 2007 an anonymous group called The Meritocracy Party published its first manifesto, to which they have now added more than two million words on the subject (discussing Hegel, Rousseau, Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon and various other philosophers, scientists, reformers and revolutionaries). In a nutshell, The Meritocracy Party wants to achieve the following:

1) A world in which every child gets an equal chance to succeed in life. There should not be elite private schools for the children of the rich, and lower quality public schools for everyone else.
2) The abolishment of party politics. In fact the Meritocracy Party wants to make even itself obsolete. All members of Parliament should be independents, elected for their specific expertise and merit.
3) Only those with a relevant education and work experience should be allowed to vote, rather than just anyone who has reached the age of 18 or 21. There should be citizen exams through which everyone can obtain the right to vote on a certain issue. For example, those who wish to vote for the next Minister of Finance should have a certain diploma which shows they have enough understanding of this field to make an educated vote.
4) The introduction of 100% Inheritance Tax, so that the superrich elite can no longer pass on their wealth to a select few (their privileged children) rather than the Commonwealth. This Inheritance Tax would mean the end of the elite dynasties, and abolish hereditary monarchy.
5) A radically reformed educational system, based on the MBTI personality types, and insights from radical innovators like Rudolf Steiner and Maria Montessori. Revenue coming in from 100% Inheritance Tax should primarily be invested into the educational system, the bedrock of a true Meritocracy.
6) To replace free market capitalism with social capitalism, and to replace Democracy with a fully transparent Meritocratic Republic, under a Meritocratic Constitution.
7) The end of nepotism, cronyism, discrimination, privilege and unequal chances.

On their website the Meritocracy Party lists 5 meritocratic principles and 13 primary aims.^[32]

Computing[link]

Meritocracy Online[link]

Although formal meritocracies are uncommon online, informal ones are quite prevalent. They often occur in online games such as MMORPGs where the best players are more likely to become guild leaders or be otherwise influential,^[34] although the ability to invest large amounts of time and/or money is also important. In discussion forums, it is often assumed that the most knowledgeable users have the best chances of becoming moderators, although online popularity and policy support may be just as important.

Further, due to the nature of online interaction, where identity and anonymity are more readily managed than in direct interaction, the effects of offline social inequity can often be discounted in online communities. Intelligence, effort, education, and personality may be readily conveyed in an online interaction but a person's gender, race, religion, and social standing can be easily obfuscated or left entirely unaddressed.

Open Source[link]

There is a tendency, in the structure of open source projects, for a meritocracy to arise. Technically, the more proficient the developer is in contributing towards the project - developing new features or maintaining existing code - the more they are required or the more the project necessitates their contribution, and thus the more senior their informal position becomes. Those who contribute more code, and have more of an effect on the direction or status of the project, will tend to have more seniority and influence. The Apache Software Foundation and the Mozilla Foundation are examples of (open source) organizations which officially claim to be meritocracies.^[35][36]

Criticism[link]

The primary concern with meritocracy is the unclear definition of "merit" itself.^[37] Different people often have their own standards of merit, thus raising the question of which "merit" has the best merits - or in other words, which standard is the "best" standard.

Meritocracy has also been criticized by egalitarians as a mere myth which serves only to justify the status quo, with its proponents only giving lip service to equality.^[38] In the words of sociologist Laurie Taylor^[38]:

“The hideous thing about meritocracy is it tells you that if you’ve given life your all and haven’t got to the top you’re thick or stupid. Previously, at least, you could always just blame the class system.”

A second concern regards the principle of incompetence, or the "Peter Principle". As people rise in a meritocratic society through the corporate ladder, they reach and are stuck at the first level of what they are unable to do.

Other concerns for the validity of a merit based system have arisen from studies in psychology, sociology and neuroscience. Given the proposition that 'a persons life prospects should not be decided by factors outside of their control or for which a person cannot claim personal credit' (i.e social status, inherited wealth, race and other accidents of birth) a meritocracy proposes a system where people are rewarded based on their efforts, and if everyone can start on equal footing with the same opportunity to advance, then the results are just. However, some studies have shown that even our motivation, work ethic and conscientious drive is in fact outside of our control and can be affected by such arbitrary factors such as birth order. Children who are first in birth order are more likely to be hard working^[39]. Therefore, a system which rewards effort in this way is not just, because effort and hard work is not something we can claim credit for.

See also[link]

• Equality of opportunity vs Equality of outcome
• Equality before the law
• Jedem das Seine
• Meritocracy in China
• Merit (Buddhism)

• Structural functionalism
• Differential Education Achievement

References[link]

^ a: This is the history of the meritocracy in the technical sense. The vaguer definition of a meritocracy as a "rule by intelligence" has been applied to many ancient Greek, Indian, Chinese and Jewish thinkers and statesmen. For example, the Sanhedrin, the legislature of Ancient Israel and Kingdom of Judah, is sometimes called as an "intellectual meritocracy", in the sense that its members were drawn from religious scribes and not the aristocracy.^[40] However, appointment was self-perpetuating and new members were personally chosen by existing members.^[41] These are not meritocracies in the administrative sense, in which merit is determined objectively as a "tested competency or ability."^[42]

Notes[link]

• Burbank, Jane and Cooper, Frederick. (2010). Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-12708-5.
• Kazin, Michael, Edwards, Rebecca, and Rothman, Adam. (2010). The Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History Volume 2. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-12971-1.
• Schwarz, Bill. (1996). The expansion of England: race, ethnicity and cultural history. Psychology Pres. ISBN 0-415-06025-7.

External links[link]

Look up meritocracy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• "Meritocracy and the Erosion of Self-Respect", lecture by Sjalling Swierstra und Evelien H. Tonkens (with a German introduction)
• World Wide Words — Michael Quinion writes about the changing use of the term, as does Progress Online
• "Meritocracy: Beyond Democracy – and Mobocracy!", quotes from Osho on Meritocracy
• "The Meritocracy Party", the manifesto of the international Meritocracy Movement
• "Round Table Meritocracy", English article on meritocracy. Also available in German, Spanish and Dutch.

Alain de Botton
Born	(1969-12-20) 20 December 1969 (age 42) Zürich, Switzerland
Occupation	Writer, documentary maker
Nationality	Swiss
Period	1993–
Influences Seneca, Marcel Proust, Montaigne, Stendhal, Gustave Flaubert
www.alaindebotton.com

Alain de Botton, FRSL (born Zurich, 20 December 1969) is a Swiss writer, philosopher, television presenter and entrepreneur, resident in the United Kingdom.^[1] His books and television programmes discuss various contemporary subjects and themes, emphasizing philosophy's relevance to everyday life. At 23, he published Essays In Love (1993), which went on to sell two million copies. Other bestsellers include How Proust Can Change Your Life (1997), Status Anxiety (2004) and The Architecture Of Happiness (2006). In August 2008, he was a founding member of a new educational establishment in central London called The School of Life. In May 2009, he was a founding member of a new architectural organization called "Living Architecture".^[2][3] In October that year, de Botton was appointed an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects, in recognition of his services to architecture.^[4] In 2011, de Botton was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature (FRSL).^[5]

Early life and family[link]

Born in Zurich, de Botton comes from a Sephardic Jewish family, originating from a small Castilian town of Boton (now vanished) on the Iberian peninsula. His ancestors include Abraham de Boton.^[6] His paternal grandmother was Yolande Harmer.^[7] His father, Gilbert de Botton, was the co-founder of Global Asset Management. His wealth was estimated by one source to be £234 million in 1999.^[8] He has one sister Miel and they received a secular upbringing.^[9] De Botton spent the first twelve years of his life in Switzerland where he was brought up to speak French and German.

Education[link]

He was sent to the Dragon School, a boarding school in Oxford, where English became his primary language. Describing himself as a shy child, he boarded at Harrow School, before going up to Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, where he read History (1988–1991), graduating with a double starred first (MA), and subsequently completed a Master's degree (MPhil) in Philosophy at King's College, University of London (1991–1992).^[10] He began studying for a PhD in French philosophy at Harvard University,^[11] but gave up this research to write books for the general public.^[10]

Writing[link]

De Botton has written in a variety of formats to mixed response. Positive reviews of de Botton's books claim that he has made literature, philosophy and art more accessible to a wider audience.^{[12][13][14][15][16]}

Ambivalence is apparent in the following example,

de Botton's idea of bringing philosophy to the masses and presenting it in an nonthreatening manner (and showing how it might be useful in anyone's life), is admirable; the way he has gone about it is less so. —The Independent^[12]

Negative reviews allege that de Botton tends to state the obvious from a position of privilege^[17][18] and have characterized some of his books as pompous and lacking focus.^{[19][20][21][22]}

Essays[link]

De Botton has written books of essays in which his own experiences and ideas are interwoven with those of artists, philosophers and thinkers. These have been called a "philosophy of everyday life."^[23][24]

Fiction[link]

In his first novel, Essays In Love (titled On Love in the U.S.), published in 1993, de Botton deals with the process of falling in and out of love. The style of the book is unusual because it mixes elements of a novel with reflections and analyses normally found in non-fiction. In 2010, Essays in Love was adapted to film by director Julian Kemp for the romantic comedy My Last Five Girlfriends.

Non-fiction[link]

In 1997 he published his first non-fiction book, How Proust Can Change Your Life, based on the life and works of Marcel Proust.^[25] It is a mixture of a "self-help" envelope and analysis of one of the most revered books in the Western canon, In Search of Lost Time. It was a bestseller in the US and UK.^[26]

This was followed by The Consolations of Philosophy in 2000. The title of the book is a reference to Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy, in which philosophy appears as an allegorical figure to Boethius to console him in the period leading up to his impending execution. Though sometimes described as works of popularization,^[10] Proust and Consolations were attempts to develop original ideas about friendship, art, envy, desire, and inadequacy, among other things, with the help of thoughts of other thinkers.^[3] In The Consolations of Philosophy, de Botton attempts to demonstrate how the teachings of philosophers such as Epicurus, Montaigne, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Seneca, and Socrates can be applied to modern everyday woes such as unpopularity, feelings of inadequacy, financial worries, broken hearts, and the general problem of suffering. The book has been both praised and criticized for its therapeutic approach to philosophy.

De Botton then returned to a more lyrical, personal style of writing. In The Art of Travel, he looked at themes in the psychology of travel: how we imagine places before we see them, how we remember beautiful things, what happens to us when we look at deserts, stay in hotels, and go to the countryside.

In Status Anxiety (2004), de Botton examines an almost universal anxiety that is rarely mentioned directly: what others think of us; about whether we're judged a success or a failure, a winner or a loser.

In The Architecture of Happiness^[27] (2006), he discusses the nature of beauty in architecture and how it is related to the well-being and general contentment of the individual and society. He describes how architecture affects people every day, though people rarely pay particular attention to it. A good portion of the book discusses how human personality traits are reflected in architecture. He ends up defending Modernist architecture, and chastising the pseudo-vernacular architecture of housing, especially in the UK. "The best modern architecture," he argues, "doesn't hold a mirror up to nature, though it may borrow a pleasing shape or expressive line from nature's copybook. It gives voice to aspirations and suggests possibilities. The question isn't whether you'd actually like to live in a Le Corbusier home, but whether you'd like to be the kind of person who'd like to live in one."

In The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work (2009),^[3] a survey of ten different jobs, including accountancy, rocket science and biscuit manufacture, which includes two hundred original images and aims to unlock the beauty, interest and occasional horror of the modern world of work.

In response to a question about whether he felt "pulled" to be a writer, de Botton responded:

So I think where people tend to end up results from a combination of encouragement, accident, and lucky break, etc. etc. Like many others, my career happened like it did because certain doors opened and certain doors closed. You know, at a certain point I thought it would be great to make film documentaries. Well, in fact, I found that to be incredibly hard and very expensive to do and I didn’t really have the courage to keep battling away at that. In another age, I might have been an academic in a university, if the university system had been different. So it’s all about trying to find the best fit between your talents and what the world can offer at that point in time.^[28]

In August 2009, de Botton replied to a competition advertised among British literary agents by BAA, the airport management company, for the post of "writer-in-residence" at Heathrow Airport. The post involved being seated at a desk in Terminal 5, and writing about the comings and goings of passengers over a week. De Botton was duly appointed to the position. The result was the book, A Week at the Airport, published by Profile Books in September 2009. The book features photographs by the documentary photographer Richard Baker, with whom de Botton also worked on The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work.

In January 2012, de Botton published Religion for Atheists, a look at some of the more interesting and consoling benefits of religions for those who happen not to believe in them. As de Botton put it: 'Religions are in the end too complex, wise and fascinating to be abandoned simply to those who happen actually to believe in them'.

Newspapers, lecturing and television[link]

De Botton writes regular articles for several English newspapers, and from 1998 to 2000, wrote a regular column for The Independent on Sunday. He also travels extensively to lecture on his works. He owns and helps run his own production company, Seneca Productions, making television documentaries based on his works.^[29] De Botton has given lectures at TED conferences. In July 2011, he spoke in Edinburgh about "Atheism 2.0", an idea of atheism that also incorporates our human need for connection, ritual and transcendence.^[30] In July 2009, he also spoke in Oxford about the philosophy of failure and success, and questions the assumptions underlying these two judgments.^[31]

Other projects[link]

[edit] The School of Life

De Botton's project from 2008 is The School of Life – a new cultural enterprise based in central London aiming to offer instruction on how to lead a fulfilled life. In an interview with metkere.com^[32] de Botton said:

The idea is to challenge traditional universities and reorganize knowledge, directing it towards life, and away from knowledge for its own sake. In a modest way, it’s an institution that is trying to give people what universities should I think always give them: a sense of direction and wisdom for their lives with the help of culture.^[33]

[edit] Living Architecture

In May 2009, de Botton was named as the chief inspiration for a new architecture project called "Living Architecture"^[34] – which proposes to build a series of innovative houses in the UK using leading contemporary architects. These include Peter Zumthor, MVRDV, JVA, NORD and Michael and Patti Hopkins. The houses will be rented out to the general public. De Botton's aim is to improve the appreciation of good contemporary architecture – and seems a practical continuation of his theoretical work on architecture in his book The Architecture of Happiness. In October 2009, de Botton was appointed an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects, in recognition of his services to architecture.^[4]

Personal life[link]

De Botton has described his relationship with his father as difficult, stating: "When I sold my first bestseller (and a million dollars was peanuts for my father) he was not impressed and rather wondered what I was going to do with myself."^[35] When his father died, his family was left a large trust fund,^[36] although de Botton says his income is derived solely from the proceeds of his book sales.^[37][38][39] His stepmother Janet de Botton is a prominent patron of the arts and competition bridge player.^[40] De Botton lives in London.^[41]

Publications[link]

• Essays In Love (1993), also published as On Love: A Novel (2006)
• The Romantic Movement (1994)
• Kiss and Tell (1995)
• How Proust Can Change Your Life (1997)
• The Consolations of Philosophy (2000)
• The Art of Travel (2002)
• Status Anxiety (2004)
• The Architecture of Happiness (2006)
• The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work (2009)
• A Week at the Airport (2009)
• Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion (2012)

Filmography[link]

• My Last Five Girlfriends (based on Essays in Love)

TV series[link]

• Philosophy: A Guide To Happiness (from The Consolations of Philosophy)

1. Socrates on Self-Confidence
2. Epicurus on Happiness
3. Seneca on Anger
4. Montaigne on Self-Esteem
5. Schopenhauer on Love
6. Nietzsche on Hardship (featuring Cathal Grealish)

• Status Anxiety (film)
• The Art Of Travel Prix européen de l'essai Charles Veillon
• The Perfect Home (from The Architecture of Happiness)

Radio[link]

In 2011 he presented a series of talks for the BBC Radio 4 series A Point of View.

• What Humanities Should Teach: Arguing teachers of humanities in universities have only themselves to blame for cuts in funding.
• News and Concentration: Examining our inability to concentrate.
• The Ecological Sublime: A philosopher's take on ecological dilemmas.
• Are Museums Our New Churches?: Argues that museums could learn from churches with regard to getting their message across.
• In Praise of the Nanny State: Asks why the idea of a Nanny State is so unappealing.
• On Marriage: Muses on why a bookish life is a poor preparation for marriage.
• In Praise of the Zoo: Muses on the value of exotic animals in giving perspective on our own lives.
• The Art of Conversation: Questions why we put so much effort into social encounters but leave conversation to chance.
• What's in a Marriage?: Argues that expecting one person to be a good partner, lover and parent is, almost, asking the impossible.
• On Social Climbing: Argues that social climbing should be seen as evidence of a natural curiosity about the modern world.
• Modern Parenting: Takes a witty look at modern parenting.
• The Advantages of Pessimism: Why pessimism is the key to happiness.
• A Point of View: podcast

References[link]

External links[link]

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (January 2012)

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Alain de Botton

• Alain de Botton official site
• Alain de Botton official Twitter
• Living Architecture
• Open Library. Works by de Botton
• Compendium of reviews of The Consolations of Philosophy
• Archived web chat
• Interview with 3AM Magazine (2002)
• Alain de Botton interview: "The City as a Cure for Loneliness"
• Alain de Botton at the Internet Movie Database
• Interview with Colin Marshall
• Alain de Botton at TedGlobal filmed on July 2009: A kinder, gentler philosophy of success
• Audio: Alain de Botton in conversation on the BBC World Service discussion show The Forum

Jim Whitehurst is the Chief Executive Officer at Red Hat. Prior to that, he was a Chief Operating Officer of Delta Air Lines. Whitehurst was tapped by former Delta CEO Gerald Grinstein to lead the airline out of bankruptcy and played a critical role in Delta's battle for survival against the hostile takeover attempt by US Airways in 2006. Whitehurst became a very popular figure during the campaign to Keep Delta My Delta because of his transparent honesty and genuine affection for the company and its heritage. Some have speculated that his fierce defense of Delta worked against him as Delta's Board sought a successor to CEO Grinstein in 2007. Before his appointment as COO of Delta, Whitehurst served as Senior Vice President and Chief Network and Planning Officer for the company.

Prior to joining Delta in 2002, he served as Vice President and Director of The Boston Consulting Group and held various management roles at its Chicago, Hong Kong, Shanghai and Atlanta offices.

A native of Columbus, Georgia, Whitehurst graduated from Rice University in Houston, Texas, with a bachelor's degree in Computer Science and Economics. He also attended Erlangen Nuremberg University in Erlangen, Germany, holds a general course degree from the London School of Economics and an MBA from Harvard Business School.

Whitehurst is married and has two children.

External links[link]

• On the record with Jim Whitehurst, Red Hat's new CEO: 'I must have a mission', an interview with Jim Whitehurst
• Jim Whitehurst's details at redhat.com

This article about a chief executive from the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2011)

Robert Scheer (born April 4, 1936^[1]) is an American journalist who writes a column for Truthdig which is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate in publications such as The Huffington Post and The Nation. He teaches communication as a professor at the University of Southern California and co-hosts the weekly political radio program “Left, Right & Center” on KCRW, the National Public Radio affiliate in Santa Monica, Calif. Scheer is Editor in Chief for the Webby Award-winning ^[2] online magazine Truthdig.^[3]

Beginnings through Vietnam[link]

Robert Scheer was born and raised in the Bronx, New York City.^[4] His mother Ida Kuran^[5] was a Russian Jew, and his father Frederick Scheer^[6] was a Protestant native of Germany; both worked in the garment industry.^[7] Robert graduated from Morris High School in the Bronx. After graduating from City College of New York with a degree in economics, he studied as a fellow at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, and then did further economics graduate work at the Center for Chinese Studies at UC Berkeley. Scheer has also been a Poynter fellow at Yale University, and was a fellow in arms control at Stanford, the same post once held by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

In 1962^[8] in Berkeley, California, Scheer along with David Horowitz, Maurice Zeitlin, Phil Roos, and Sol Stern founded Root and Branch: A Radical Quarterly, one of the first campus New Left journals.^[9][10]

While working at City Lights Books in San Francisco, Scheer co-authored the book, Cuba, an American tragedy (1964), with Maurice Zeitlin. Between 1964 and 1969, he served, variously, as the Vietnam correspondent, managing editor and editor-in-chief of Ramparts magazine. He reported from Cambodia, China, North Korea, Russia, Latin America and the Middle East (including the Six-Day War), as well as on national security matters in the United States. While in Cuba, where he interviewed Fidel Castro, Scheer obtained an introduction by the Cuban leader for the diary of Che Guevara — which Scheer had already obtained, with the assistance of French journalist Michele Ray, for publication in Ramparts and by Bantam Books.

During this period Scheer made a bid for elective office as one of the first anti-Vietnam War candidates. He challenged U.S. Representative Jeffrey Cohelan in the 1966 Democratic primary. Cohelan was a liberal, but like most Democratic officeholders at that time, he supported the Vietnam War. Scheer lost, but won over 45% of the vote (and carried Berkeley), a strong showing against an incumbent that demonstrated the rising strength of New Left Sixties radicalism.

In 1968, he signed the “Writers and Editors War Tax Protest” pledge, vowing to refuse to pay taxes in protest against the Vietnam War.^[11]

In July 1970, Scheer accompanied as a journalist a Black Panther Party delegation, led by Eldridge Cleaver, to North Korea, China, and Vietnam. The delegation also contained people from the San Francisco Red Guard, the women's liberation movement, the Peace and Freedom Party, Newsreel, and the Movement for a Democratic Military.

In the November 1970 California election, Scheer ran for the U.S. Senate as the nominee of the Peace and Freedom Party against Republican Senator George Murphy and Democratic Congressman John V. Tunney. Scheer received 56,731 votes and lost the election to Mr. Tunney.^[12]

After Vietnam[link]

After several years freelancing for magazines, including New Times and Playboy, Scheer joined the Los Angeles Times in 1976 as a reporter. There he met Narda Zacchino, a reporter whom he later wed in the paper's news room. As a national correspondent for 17 years at the Times, he wrote articles and series on such diverse topics as the Soviet Union during glasnost, the Jews of Los Angeles, arms control, urban crises, national politics and the military, as well as covering several presidential elections. The Times entered Scheer's work for the Pulitzer Prize 11 times, and he was a finalist for the Pulitzer national reporting award for a series on the television industry.

After Scheer left the Times in 1993, the paper granted him a weekly op-ed column which ran every Tuesday for the next 12 years until it was canceled in 2005. The column now appears in Truthdig and is distributed nationally by Creators Syndicate. Scheer is also a contributing editor for the Nation magazine.

Scheer can be heard weekly on the nationally syndicated political analysis radio program "Left, Right & Center" produced at and syndicated by public radio station KCRW in Santa Monica.

He has taught courses at Antioch College, City College of New York, UC Irvine, UCLA and UC Berkeley, and is now a clinical professor at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication, where he teaches two courses each semester on media and society.

Scheer has interviewed every president from Richard Nixon through Bill Clinton. He conducted the noted 1976 Playboy interview with Jimmy Carter, in which the then-presidential candidate admitted to having "lusted" in his heart.^[13] In an interview with George H.W. Bush, the future president and then presidential candidate revealed that he believed nuclear war was "winnable." Scheer has profiled politicians from Californians Jerry Brown and Willie Brown to Washington insiders like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, as well as entertainment figures like actor Tom Cruise.

Books[link]

Scheer's latest book, The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street (Nation Books), was released on September 7, 2010. Publishers Weekly wrote that the book "proves that, when it comes to the ruling sway of money power, Democrats and Republicans, Wall Street and Washington make very agreeable bedfellows.” The book made The Los Angeles Times bestseller list ^[14] and on October 17, 2010 was reviewed in the Times by Jonathan Kirsch, who wrote: "Robert Scheer is a journalist in the gadfly tradition of Lincoln Steffens, I. F. Stone and Seymour Hersh. His latest book, 'The Great American Stickup,' blames the 'captains of finance' for causing the 2008 'meltdown' of the global economy in the first place and then profiting from the tax dollars that were thrown at the problem — 'a giant hustle that served the richest of the rich,' as he puts it, 'and left the rest of us holding the bag.'^[15]

Scheer has written eight other books, including a collection entitled Thinking Tuna Fish, Talking Death: Essays on the Pornography of Power, With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush and Nuclear War, and America After Nixon: The Age of Multinationals. In 2004, Scheer published The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq and made it to the Los Angeles Times Bestseller List. It was co-authored by his oldest son, Christopher Scheer, and Lakshmi Chaudhry, senior editor at Alternet.

In 2006 Scheer published Playing President: My Close Encounters with Nixon, Carter, Bush I, Reagan and Clinton – and How They Did Not Prepare Me for George W. Bush; in 2008 he published The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America.

Scheer and his son were creative script consultants on the Oliver Stone film, Nixon, which was nominated for an Academy Award for best original screenplay. He has appeared in small speaking roles as a journalist in several feature films, including The Siege and Bulworth. In 2005, the Mill Valley Film Festival premiered a documentary on the activist and philanthropist Stanley Sheinbaum which Scheer co-produced.

Political views[link]

Iraq War[link]

In an August 6, 2002, article, he wrote that "a consensus of experts" informed the Senate that the Iraqi weapons arsenal was “almost totally destroyed during eight years of inspections.” On June 3, 2003, Scheer concluded that White House justifications for the war were a "big lie." On November 4, 2003, he penned an article in favor of withdrawal from Iraq.^[16]

World War II[link]

In an April 7, 2010, article he wrote that Harry Truman perpetrated "the most atrocious act of terrorism in world history when he annihilated the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Scheer repeated these allegations on the radio program "Left, Right and Center".^[17]

Support of Republican Candidate for Kentucky Senate[link]

In the October 1, 2010, episode of the radio show "Left, Right and Center", Scheer, a self-described Liberal, expressed support for Rand Paul, son of former Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, in his bid for the 2011-2016 Kentucky Senate seat.^[18]

[edit] End of Los Angeles Times relationship

Scheer has often expressed highly controversial thoughts. For example, on February 15, 2005, Scheer wrote an article entitled "What We Don't Know About 9/11 Hurts Us" for the LA Times. In it, he asked, "Would George W. Bush have been reelected president if the public understood how much responsibility his administration bears for allowing the 9/11 attacks to succeed?"^[19] After running his column for more than 12 years and working as a reporter for the paper 17 years prior,^[20] the Los Angeles Times ended a nearly thirty year relationship with Scheer in November 2005, citing the need to cut costs while subsequently replacing him with two conservative columnists.^[21] Scheer said in an interview with "Democracy Now!" that the paper's owner, the Tribune Company, currently owns a newspaper and a television station in the same market, which is illegal,^[22][23] and may have fired Scheer in an attempt to make it easier to obtain a waiver permitting the dual ownership from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He also commented during a November 14, 2005, appearance on Democracy Now! that,

"What happened is that I had been the subject of vicious attacks by Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh…. I was a punching bag for those guys. I'm still standing, and the people who run the paper collapsed."

In a posting at the Huffington Post, Scheer wrote:

"The publisher Jeff Johnson, who has offered not a word of explanation to me, has privately told people that he hated every word that I wrote. I assume that mostly refers to my exposing the lies used by President Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq. Fortunately 60 percent of Americans now get the point but only after tens of thousand of Americans and Iraqis have been killed and maimed as the carnage spirals out of control. My only regret is that my pen was not sharper and my words tougher."

Scheer's firing incited a protest held outside the Times downtown office on November 15,^[21][24] and hundreds of readers wrote letters of complaint while some, including actress Barbra Streisand, publicly announced the cancellation of their Times subscriptions.^[20] Within a few days of his column being retired by the Times, the San Francisco Chronicle offered itself as the new home paper of Scheer's syndicated column, which ran there for years.^[21] On November 29, 2005 Scheer co-launched, as Editor in Chief, the online news magazine Truthdig, where his column is now based. Scheer's column is syndicated nationally by Creators Syndicate in publications such as The Huffington Post and The Nation.