精英依然主宰世界

    读到海耶斯批判所谓“狂热的聪明崇拜”时，我禁不住笑了起来。这本书竟然不是由自认更聪明的人所写，这是否有点可笑？公平地说，海耶斯提出的论据是，金钱与权力的交织比我所知的任何方式都更加巧妙地加剧了机会的不平等。除了一丝偏执的意味外，这本书自始至终存在的，就是假设自我批判的答案必然是正确的答案

    这种逻辑在常春藤联盟（Ivy League）也非常盛行，根据我的经验，它有两个不同的目的。首先，当一个人一方面秉持公平，另一方面却取得令人不安的个人成功时，这种逻辑可以减轻由此产生的罪恶感。同时，它也可以满足人们的普遍需求，塑造一种兼具开放思想与前瞻思维的形象。就像海耶斯这样，对于当初赋予他精英地位的制度大加批判，还有什么能比这更好证明自己思想的开放呢？当然，对于自身享有权力的指责，海耶斯轻易就找到了为自己开脱的理由——因为他现在是在为芸芸众生指点迷津。

    海耶斯针对的目标之一是我和他的母校亨特学院附属中学（Hunter College High School）。这所“英才遍地”的纽约市公立中学因为学生大部分是白人和亚裔而经常受到批评。海耶斯认为，只有一场考试的招生流程不是真正的英才教育理念，因为有钱的家庭可以聘请最优秀的家庭教师。

    直观地看，这种说法确实能令人信服，但却远远谈不上全面。根据我的经验，准备最充分的学生，通常是那些最普通的学生。亨特学院附属中学的一位校友说：“法拉盛预科学校的学生不全都来自富裕家庭。”

    亨特的学生越多元化，自然越好。但这所学校为许多人向上走创造了便利，哈佛也是如此。虽然这些学校远远谈不上完美，但我们不应该因噎废食。不论在哪里，都会有优秀的1%。这是数学问题，与政治无关。《精英的没落》一书确实非常有趣，而且也能给人启发，但我仍坚信，只有精英体制才是我们最好的、也是唯一的选择。

    读者要艰难读完200页旁征博引的牢骚之后，才会看到海耶斯承认，如果考取外科医生执照像买彩票一样靠运气，将是非常荒谬的一件事。之后他写道：“我们所面临的一个不小的挑战，是引导我们心中共同的沮丧、愤怒和冷漠等情绪，最终建立一个跨越意识形态的联盟，真正剥夺后精英体制精英们的权力。这个联盟可以调动起义者的情绪，却不会陷入无政府主义和狂热、偏执的猜忌；可以抵御虚无主义的诱惑，可以把对精英深刻的怀疑转变成对道德、平等和互相关联的社会秩序的积极、富有建设性的愿景。”

    简而言之，海耶斯提出了一个毫无意义的、乌托邦式的替代品来取代经营体制，但它其实根部算不上什么替代品。我无法完全抽离自我，因此，如果有人认为我是在为自己辩护，那也情有可原。但很抱歉海耶斯先生，我依然信奉精英主义。

    本文作者丽莎•莫甘兰斯基为《财富》杂志（Fortune）的实习生，今年秋天将开始在哈佛大学的第二学年。

    译者：刘进龙/汪皓

    I had to laugh when Hayes criticized what he calls the "Cult of Smartness." The idea that this is not a book written by a man who thinks he's smarter than most people seems a bit silly. In fairness, Hayes makes the argument that money and power interact to facilitate inequality of opportunity more skillfully than I've seen it made elsewhere. But lingering in the background of his book, along with a hint of paranoia, is the assumption that the self-critical answer must be the right one.

    This logic permeates the Ivy League, serving two distinct purposes in my experience. First, it alleviates the guilt that develops when one has both a strong belief in equality and an uncomfortable amount of personal success. It also fulfills the common need to be perceived as open-minded and forward thinking. And what could be more open-minded than vilifying, as Hayes does, the very system that conferred elite status on you in the first place? Of course, Hayes neatly exculpates himself from the charge of entitlement on the grounds that he's now showing us the light.

    One of Hayes's targets is Hunter College High School, the alma mater we share. This "talented and gifted" New York City public school is frequently criticized for its mostly white and Asian demographics. The admissions process -- a single exam -- is not really meritocratic, Hayes argues, because wealthy applicants can afford the best tutoring.

    Though intuitively compelling, this narrative is far from complete. In my experience, the students who'd done the most prepping were those of the most modest means. "The Flushing prep schools aren't filled with rich kids," said a Hunter alumnus from the neighborhood.

    More diversity at Hunter would absolutely be better. But Hunter facilitates upward mobility for many -- so does Harvard. These institutions are far from perfect, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There will always be a 1%. That's a mathematical statement, not a political one. Though Twilight of the Elites makes for an interesting and informative read, I'm still convinced that meritocracy is our best and only option.

    The reader must wade through 200 pages of erudite complaining before Hayes concedes that it would be ridiculous to lottery off surgeons' licenses. He then argues: "The challenge, and it is not a small one, is directing the frustration, anger, and alienation we all feel into building a trans-ideological coalition that can actually dislodge the power of the post-meritocratic elite. One that marshals insurrectionist sentiment without succumbing to nihilism and manic, paranoid distrust. One that avoids the dark seduction of everything-is-broken-ism. One that leverages the deep skepticism of elites into a proactive, constructive vision of a moral, equitable, and connected social order."

    In short, Hayes offers us a meaningless, utopian alternative to meritocracy, which is no alternative at all. I can't step outside of my head, and so I can't insulate myself from the criticism that my faith in meritocracy is self-justifying. But -- sorry Hayes -- I'm still a believer.

    Fortune intern Lisa Mogilanski begins her sophomore year at Harvard in the fall. Our Weekly Read column features Fortune staffers' and contributors' takes on recently published books about the business world and beyond. We've invited the entire Fortune family -- from our writers and editors to our photo editors and designers -- to weigh in on books of their choosing based on their individual tastes or curiosities.