Fascinating read! “The real battle is not against external failure, but against the pride and fear that keep us from admitting we may have been chasing the wrong image of what’s good for us.”
Your distinction between appearance and being aligns with something I’ve been trying to articulate in narrative form. In my model, identity emerges from narrative pattern rather than substance — coherence rather than solidity. “Identity emerges from narrative pattern rather than substance—coherence rather than solidity – a trick of scale, a truth far older than molecules or wood or a child trying to hold herself intact.” The danger isn’t just that images replace reality, but that they replace the underlying pattern that gives reality its stability.
At a time when Meritocracies are-correctly-criticized for their being a mere appearance (merit as always resulting from long standing structural inequalities), it is interesting to see Leshed take this word, in Arendtian fashion, at face value and expose its follies from within.
I still believe that the word Merit in itself has always been a fairy tale (perhaps more so in the hybridity of a social realm which Leshed is right to emphasize). Regardless, Leshed's point that the fairy called Merit is itself flawed and false is a necessary aspect of this ongoing lively debate on meritocracy.
Thanks for reading! I’d say that even if the fairy “Merit” always runs into structural inequalities in the public realm, it can still function more naturally than conventionally in the intimate life of the individual, where the question is not what society rewards, but what kind of person one becomes.
As someone who considers myself an ambitious person, this piece felt like both a challenge (and it's great to be challenged!) and a strangely healing experience. I often find myself trapped in the prison of my own inner wants and perceived lack, which I really ought to question more often. Thank you for writing this!
This idea of substituting attention reminded me of another idea I've read about. That modern man is often presented with a fork in the road "To be someone (famous) or to do something (worthwhile)"
Radical honesty is the way to choose the latter, I’d say.
Thank you! I very much enjoyed this. The Platonic diagnosis feels exactly right. But I wonder whether it would also benefit from a Darwinian one.
Plato explains why we are vulnerable to appearances. What seems new is that we now inhabit environments that systematically reward them. A politician today is no longer speaking only to the people in the room. Increasingly a speech is crafted not for the audience present but for the short clip most likely to spread across social media afterwards. Outrage travels further than nuance and certainty further than doubt. What begins as an incentive soon becomes a competition of provocation. Politicians adapt not necessarily because they value outrage but because those are the behaviours the environment rewards. Over time the environment doesn’t merely reward provocative politics. It selects for increasingly provocative politicians.
That is why your concept of Imageocracy strikes me as so useful. It is more than a moral diagnosis of individuals mistaking appearance for reality. It also describes a social environment that increasingly selects for appearances over substance. As Arendt warned politics risks becoming performance rather than a space where a common world is disclosed through speech and action. Today’s attention economy pushes us even further in that direction.
Perhaps this also suggests a small shift in the object of ethics. Plato rightly asks how we cultivate good character. But if Imageocracy is also a product of the environments we build ethics can no longer concern itself only with character. It must also ask what kinds of institutions and technologies select for the kinds of people we become. Radical honesty remains indispensable but in an age of algorithmically curated attention it is no longer sufficient. We are responsible not only for our own character but also for the conditions under which character is formed.
I agree. The movement begins with the examination and formation of the soul, but it cannot end there. It must eventually grow outward toward the social, and ultimately the political. Our responsibility to one another, and to the institutions we build as a society, is indispensable. At the same time, a rightly ordered soul remains the building block without which nothing further can develop safely.
The Alcibiades is a great example. The person who goes out to speak and drive social change is rightly criticized for doing so without first ordering their own soul. After all, how could you teach “music” you haven’t mastered yourself first?
I’m also curious about the Darwinian framing. Plato explains why we are vulnerable to appearances, while the environment helps explain how those vulnerabilities become reinforced and selected for.
Thanks, I think that is where our views converge. I fully agree that a rightly ordered soul is indispensable. But it doesnt develop prior to the environments in which it lives. Darwin suggests a reciprocal picture. We build institutions, technologies and norms which in turn shape us. Character and environment are continually co-constructing one another. That is why I increasingly think the unit of ethical analysis has to become the organism and environment together rather than the individual alone. Plato gives us an account of why we are vulnerable to appearances. Evolution helps explain why certain environments reliably amplify those vulnerabilitiess while others cultivate practical wisdom. So Darwin doesn’t replace Plato. He explains why Plato’s ethical project succeeds in some environments and fails in others.
Take a society where corruption is widespread. If promotions depend on patronage and honesty carries great personal costs even a well-ordered soul faces constant pressure to adapt. Virtue becomes harder to sustain because the environment repeatedly rewards vice.
It is true that desire may defeat judgement. Desire, as you note, is oriented towards what appears worth pursuing. Habit helps form the character through which things appear worth pursuing, so our dispositions may shape the very judgement by which appearance comes to count as excellence. Practical reason itself can therefore become disordered. Means such as appearance, which should serve the right ends, can become ends in themselves. Signals detach from the reality they were meant to represent. The question is always: what governs what?
Fascinating read! “The real battle is not against external failure, but against the pride and fear that keep us from admitting we may have been chasing the wrong image of what’s good for us.”
Very deep
Congratulations on an amazing piece. It’s one of the best, most insightful and introspective articles i’ve ever read
Thank you Carolina!
Your distinction between appearance and being aligns with something I’ve been trying to articulate in narrative form. In my model, identity emerges from narrative pattern rather than substance — coherence rather than solidity. “Identity emerges from narrative pattern rather than substance—coherence rather than solidity – a trick of scale, a truth far older than molecules or wood or a child trying to hold herself intact.” The danger isn’t just that images replace reality, but that they replace the underlying pattern that gives reality its stability.
Interesting. The gradual replacement of substance by appearance is definitely the ultimate danger. Thanks for reading!
At a time when Meritocracies are-correctly-criticized for their being a mere appearance (merit as always resulting from long standing structural inequalities), it is interesting to see Leshed take this word, in Arendtian fashion, at face value and expose its follies from within.
I still believe that the word Merit in itself has always been a fairy tale (perhaps more so in the hybridity of a social realm which Leshed is right to emphasize). Regardless, Leshed's point that the fairy called Merit is itself flawed and false is a necessary aspect of this ongoing lively debate on meritocracy.
Thanks for reading! I’d say that even if the fairy “Merit” always runs into structural inequalities in the public realm, it can still function more naturally than conventionally in the intimate life of the individual, where the question is not what society rewards, but what kind of person one becomes.
This is phenomenal, that's all I can say.
Thanks Jessica!
Absolutely fascinating. Didn’t realize our personal vanities could be an inverted people-pleasing trait.
As someone who considers myself an ambitious person, this piece felt like both a challenge (and it's great to be challenged!) and a strangely healing experience. I often find myself trapped in the prison of my own inner wants and perceived lack, which I really ought to question more often. Thank you for writing this!
Thank you for reading Maudy!
A very insightful piece for my first morning read! 👏🏻
This idea of substituting attention reminded me of another idea I've read about. That modern man is often presented with a fork in the road "To be someone (famous) or to do something (worthwhile)"
Radical honesty is the way to choose the latter, I’d say.
Absolutely correct. I explore these issues in my current research project at the University of Cagliari: https://sites.unica.it/aok/ .
Simply brilliant...surely be revisiting this to read again.
Thank you Rickson!
Thank you! I very much enjoyed this. The Platonic diagnosis feels exactly right. But I wonder whether it would also benefit from a Darwinian one.
Plato explains why we are vulnerable to appearances. What seems new is that we now inhabit environments that systematically reward them. A politician today is no longer speaking only to the people in the room. Increasingly a speech is crafted not for the audience present but for the short clip most likely to spread across social media afterwards. Outrage travels further than nuance and certainty further than doubt. What begins as an incentive soon becomes a competition of provocation. Politicians adapt not necessarily because they value outrage but because those are the behaviours the environment rewards. Over time the environment doesn’t merely reward provocative politics. It selects for increasingly provocative politicians.
That is why your concept of Imageocracy strikes me as so useful. It is more than a moral diagnosis of individuals mistaking appearance for reality. It also describes a social environment that increasingly selects for appearances over substance. As Arendt warned politics risks becoming performance rather than a space where a common world is disclosed through speech and action. Today’s attention economy pushes us even further in that direction.
Perhaps this also suggests a small shift in the object of ethics. Plato rightly asks how we cultivate good character. But if Imageocracy is also a product of the environments we build ethics can no longer concern itself only with character. It must also ask what kinds of institutions and technologies select for the kinds of people we become. Radical honesty remains indispensable but in an age of algorithmically curated attention it is no longer sufficient. We are responsible not only for our own character but also for the conditions under which character is formed.
Thanks for reading!
I agree. The movement begins with the examination and formation of the soul, but it cannot end there. It must eventually grow outward toward the social, and ultimately the political. Our responsibility to one another, and to the institutions we build as a society, is indispensable. At the same time, a rightly ordered soul remains the building block without which nothing further can develop safely.
The Alcibiades is a great example. The person who goes out to speak and drive social change is rightly criticized for doing so without first ordering their own soul. After all, how could you teach “music” you haven’t mastered yourself first?
I’m also curious about the Darwinian framing. Plato explains why we are vulnerable to appearances, while the environment helps explain how those vulnerabilities become reinforced and selected for.
Thanks, I think that is where our views converge. I fully agree that a rightly ordered soul is indispensable. But it doesnt develop prior to the environments in which it lives. Darwin suggests a reciprocal picture. We build institutions, technologies and norms which in turn shape us. Character and environment are continually co-constructing one another. That is why I increasingly think the unit of ethical analysis has to become the organism and environment together rather than the individual alone. Plato gives us an account of why we are vulnerable to appearances. Evolution helps explain why certain environments reliably amplify those vulnerabilitiess while others cultivate practical wisdom. So Darwin doesn’t replace Plato. He explains why Plato’s ethical project succeeds in some environments and fails in others.
Take a society where corruption is widespread. If promotions depend on patronage and honesty carries great personal costs even a well-ordered soul faces constant pressure to adapt. Virtue becomes harder to sustain because the environment repeatedly rewards vice.
It is true that desire may defeat judgement. Desire, as you note, is oriented towards what appears worth pursuing. Habit helps form the character through which things appear worth pursuing, so our dispositions may shape the very judgement by which appearance comes to count as excellence. Practical reason itself can therefore become disordered. Means such as appearance, which should serve the right ends, can become ends in themselves. Signals detach from the reality they were meant to represent. The question is always: what governs what?