When Did We Lose the Right to Be Imperfect?
Alicia Keys’ Super Bowl Flub and Trump’s Exploitation of Meritocracy’s Discontent
Alicia Keys’ Super Bowl Flub and Trump’s Exploitation of Meritocracy’s Discontent
I did not watch the Super Bowl. It is not my thing, and one benefit of growing older, is that you stop pretending to like certain things just so you can fit in. That FOMO really does begin to just not matter anymore.
But this story is not about growing old and FOMO, it is about Alicia Keys performance during halftime, and the rendering of that which is human, that which is mysterious ineffable, unquantifiable, to mute perfection.
Take a look: (Edit 4/6/2024 — It appears all traces of this incident which I describe in this article have now been removed from the ‘internet.’ This does not diminish the argument I make and I urge you to continue on as I believe I have described the incident clearly enough that your imagination can fill in the gaps left by the holes in our history.)
This video illustrates that Alicia Keys is a human being just like you and me and did not immaculately hit the ‘right’ opening note and was a little flat for a few syllables after that.
In the official NFL YouTube clip of the halftime show Alicia Key’s humanness is completely removed and her slightly off-key entry is rendered silent and replaced with immaculate auto-tuned perfection.
Embedded within this feat of technical artistry is a logic which, in my reading, explains the appeal of Donald Trump, or what we call Trumpism. You may think this is an absolutely absurd assertion, but hear me out.
Meritocracy: Myth, Mirage, and Social Consequences
First we need to set the scene.
The American Dream© is understood broadly by phrases such as ‘picking yourself up by the bootstraps.’ The myth of limitless possibility promises that through sheer hard work and determination you can be anything you want to be — just look at titans like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos. But these success stories involve factors far beyond simply working hard, and these relentless optimistic narratives have a dark side: if you happen to fail, there’s only one person to blame– yourself. This burden weighs heavily within a system seemingly rigged against individual agency.
This framework is incredibly seductive though. It promises a morally equitable universe where strong personal, individual diligence is necessarily rewarded. Yet, beneath this seductive veneer lies a more insidious reality: in contemporary American culture, the promise of meritocracy masks the true drivers of success — a complex alchemy of privilege, luck, systemic structures, and yes, hard work as well. For instance, imagine two farmers with identical seeds and land. Both invest countless hours of hard work. Yet, one has perfect weather and a bountiful harvest, while the other suffers a relentless drought, leading to a failed crop. Does the ‘failed’ farmer deserve their misfortune?
But this worldview, obsessed with winners born from relentless toil (a form of asceticism), casts harsh judgment on those deemed inadequate whether or not they worked hard. It’s not personal prejudice, but rather the very system of meritocracy that delivers the verdict. This rigid paradigm of success and failure stifles the virtues of humility and empathy, and blinds us to the role of contingency.
The harmful impacts of this worldview extend far beyond abstract debate. In his groundbreaking work, ‘The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?,’ political philosopher Michael Sandel, a Professor of Government Theory at Harvard Law School, dissects the significant societal costs of our meritocratic ways. For anyone grappling with the discontents of our present moment, this is a crucial read as it offers a clear analysis without overwhelming philosophical jargon, making it accessible for a wide audience.
Sandel shows, through highlighting Max Weber’s book ‘The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,’ how proving one’s state of grace with God in the pre-modern period was seen through the archetype of the monk who achieved a type of ‘spiritual aristocracy’ through their ascetic ways far removed from the profane ways of the material realm. But with the Protestant Reformation initiated by Martin Luther and further intensified through John Calvin and Calvinism. This ideology transformed Christian asceticism, intertwining it with the pursuit of wealth within the emerging capitalist system. Now all Christians were ‘called’ to work and through labor prove their faith and devotion to God
This shift ushered in a profound transformation, establishing a new ontology and metaphysics that fundamentally altered our understanding of the world. Every one reading this is, in some way, the progeny of this massive shift. This new ontology which gave birth to modernity unleashed more than just the spirit of capitalism, as Weber outlined, it instituted an ethic of a hubristic self-reliance where one’s destiny is inexorably linked to a meritocratic mode of existence. This ethos bred a constant anxiety in society, fueling a relentless ambition that shaped the modern world we inhabit. Yet, this new ontology revealed unsettling truths: it denied the role of chance, luck, and unpredictable forces in shaping success. In doing so, it eroded humility, gratitude, and grace. Arrogance, self-centeredness, and indifference took root in their place.
Within this framework, success became an outward sign of personal worth, implying a direct link between material prosperity and moral rectitude. Vast wealth seemingly signified divine favor, while poverty hinted at spiritual deficiency. Importantly, interwoven with this transformation was the notion of Providence — the belief in God’s active management of worldly affairs. Thus, as this new ideology gained prominence post-Reformation, particularly under Calvinist interpretations, individual effort and its economic outcome became equated with one’s spiritual salvation. This fueled the undercurrents of inequality inherent in the ascendant capitalist order.
Wait I thought we were talking about Alicia Keys and Trumpism. We still are. Let me illustrate this change one more way before I explicitly tackle Keys and Trumpism:
The Ethic of Fortune vs the Ethic of Mastery
Cultural Historian Jackson Lears explains these two ethics in Something for Nothing: Luck in America.
The Ethic of Fortune: This worldview accepts that there is a quality to life that is ineffable that exceeds our understanding and mastery. That the cosmos does not match merit with reward. It acknowledges ‘mystery, tragedy, and humility.’ He quotes Ecclesiastes 9:11
“I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.”
The Ethic of Mastery: This worldview granted individuals an intoxicating sense of agency over their spiritual destiny. God’s plan for one’s life could seemingly be molded through acts of relentless devotion and hard work. In this scheme, economic success became tangible evidence of righteousness. Yet, this seemingly empowering notion carried insidious seeds of doubt and discontent for those on the losing side of the economic equation.
To quote Sandel “Combining human striving with providential sanction creates rocket fuel for meritocracy.” It banishes the Ethic of Fortune and promises to align worldly success with moral deservingness.
When Worthiness Became Measurable
Situating Alicia Keys’ Super Bowl halftime performance within the prevailing ethos of meritocracy and the Ethic of Mastery, we see a serious tension, a fissure between human vulnerability and inhuman perfection. Key’s performance, with the initial ‘sour’ note, embodies the Ethic of Fortune that Lears describes. It’s a raw display of humanity that opens a space to remind our culture that we deal in the contingent, the mysterious, the tragic uncontrollable facets that constitute the human condition. But this presents an existential threat to the order of things.
While our aristocratic past rigidly determined our destinies based on birth, its overthrow merely replaced one set of constraints with another. The Enlightenment promised liberation from pre-modern chains, but this freedom proved illusory. We became subject to the ruthless necessities of the market. Its logic is devoid of sentiment; efficiency rules, blind to whether one’s struggles stem from poor choices or forces far beyond personal power.
Now our worth is not bound within this cosmic background of that aristocratic Aristotelian cosmic order but is determined through individual mastery and control; Providence is now recast as a reward for the industrious mediated through a rational amoral market which can leave no space for authentic tragic human expressions. In the modern-Calvinist tradition, hard work and individual merit are the only pathway to divine favor. This ontology of modern Providence is no longer a mysterious force bestowing fortune through birth, but a predictable outcome of one’s meritocratic labor and ethical conduct.
Through the swift correction of Keys’ performance, the brief fissure in the ontology of the meritocratic ethic of mastery was sealed again. The notion of individuals unfolding contingently through time wrapped in a mysterious, ineffabile and tragic cosmos was denied. But not only is that fissure sealed, but those left perpetually striving with little reward find their voices systematically negated — paving the way for a voice offering the illusion of agency and an externalized scapegoat for this inequity.
Meritocracy’s Castaways: How Meritocracy Forged Trumpism
Now, bridging Alicia Keys’ halftime show to our wider societal and political narratives may not seem so crazy within the context I laid out above. The Keys incident is emblematic of the meritocratic ethos pervading our society which negates any other way of being in the world that validates success outside this strict reductionist dichotomy. This narrative, remember it is at the heart of the American Dream narratives drilled into our heads from young children, fails to accommodate the experiences of those who, despite their efforts, remain unrewarded or unrecognized due to factors beyond their control. This breeds resentment, and it is here in this breeding ground of resentment that Trumpism emerges as a significant counterpoint. By giving voice to those who feel — whether their feelings map onto reality is beyond the point at this stage — disenfranchised by the merciless narrative of meritocracy; Trumpism is now reduced to ‘I hear you’ and for the ignored majority in our country, this is an irresistible semiotic totem.
Trumpism however takes meritocracy a step further by adding a stark zero-sum mentality to it. This implies every gain comes at someone else’s expense. This serendipitously deepens feelings of disenfranchisement and resentment, offering a simple scapegoat for the individual and systemic failures the meritocratic lens refuses to acknowledge. Framed as a competitive battle only the ‘deserving’ survive, a sense of justifiable rage towards those ‘winning’ (regardless of how unfairly the game is rigged) arises, and those grouped in the winning column happen to be a very large groups of people who are themselves victims of this brutal ontology.
And there is one more element which we have not touched on and is prominently featured in Sandel’s book, the idea of credentialism and its corrosive effects upon our society. Credentialism is the concept of being an expert at something and tying this with attaining a college education. Which also comes with the cultural notion of being smart or dumb and therefore lazy. As we all know in today’s America if you want to succeed one must get good grades, score well on the SAT, and then go to college and again get good grades.
Credentialism allows elites to justify their positions as rightfully earned, particularly when we put in context that only one-third of Americans attain a college degree. This American social model, championed by meritocratic elites, equates educational attainment with personal worth and success, implicitly casting aspersions on those without such credentials. This dynamic not only blames individuals for their struggles within the global economy but also absolves the privileged of moral accountability (how convenient and very much like the old aristocratic ways…). As a result, approximately two-thirds of the population is labeled — to use a Trumpism — as ‘losers.’ This deeply embedded narrative insidiously suggests that success and failure hinge on obtaining a college degree, fostering a pervasive bias against the majority of Americans who do not follow this prescribed path.
To be clear, I write this as someone who attained a post-secondary education and falls politically on the left side of the political spectrum. Even I struggle denying the resentment felt by a huge swath of Americans when faced with comments like Obama’s “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations…” And that sense of being dismissed only gets magnified when followed by pronouncements from high-profile figures — politicians, business titans, anyone espousing ‘bootstraps’ narratives — that subtly or overtly blame anyone struggling for their lack of ‘ambition, the drive it takes…’ Such divisive comments from those in positions of influence, credentialed elites on both sides of the political spectrum, paint success as a matter of moral purity when most people feel a visceral disconnect between those ‘pretty’ speeches and the harsh realities of their own lives.
Trump represents the anti-hero in this meritocratic credentialed world. Anyone paying attention to his remarks since 2015 to this very day, can see bound within these semiotic capsules of cultural signifiers, a complete rejection of the Ethic of Mastery ontology, and as I said earlier, stands as a semiotic totem that is irresistible for the ignored two-thirds of Americans. Trumpism is the external cost of this relentless pursuit of a totalizing, fully rationalized, scientized, credentialed, and sanitized meritocratic social system — an ideal that erases the human elements of difference, serendipity, the tragic, and the inherent value of each individual, regardless of their achievements or failures within a narrowly defined system of success.
Consider the craftsmanship of a woodworker, who transforms raw material into objects of functional beauty. In another time and place, such skills were highly valued, rewarded by the specific cultural and temporal demands of the era. Talent, coupled with a dedication to this craft, was affirmed and compensated. Yet, shifting societal needs and economic priorities can devalue and diminish even the most refined skillsets. This highlights the arbitrary nature of value within our supposedly meritocratic system. Instead of recognizing the inherent worth of various talents, we become obsessed with superficial metrics like CEO pay, creating a false hierarchy.
Similar to how Berry critiques modern disregard for traditional labor, these disparities reveal the arbitrary nature of value that dominates our culture. While skills that once built communities are cast aside, we obsess over metrics that devalue real contributions, like CEO pay, creating a false hierarchy that benefits the few while demoralizing the many.
Wendell Berry, in ‘The Unsettling of America: Culture & Agriculture,’ articulates a profound critique of modernity’s estrangement from the land and traditional forms of labor. Berry reminds us of the dignity inherent in work, a dignity that has been wretched from our modern ontology and replaced by this mode of meritocratic credentialism. His reflections remind us that the valuation of human talent and labor should not be at the mercy of abstract market forces or fleeting constructed cultural trends. Berry advocates for a society that recognizes and honors the fundamental connection between human work and the natural world of which our social relations are an integral part.
The arbitrariness of value and reward in society illustrates that the disparity in income, such as a CEO earning 350 times more than the average worker, is not rooted in a universal atemporal ethical standard but is instead a product of arbitrary societal constructs- societal constructs that conveniently affirm the aristocratic hierarchical structure that preceded modernity. This pre-modern world was an enchanted cosmos where our place within it was validated through that totalizing ideology; modernity has swapped the enchanted ontology for a system of market relations which are portrayed, falsely, as value neutral and conveniently validating the same set of ethical and moral precepts that existed in the aristocratic hierarchical enchanted ontology. Acknowledging this however threatens the foundational beliefs of not only the American Dream© narrative, but the entire meritocratic construct. Far from rewarding virtue or skill, our system rivals the injustices of feudal lords, its facade of modern progress mere justification for the same exploitative power structures.
Trumpism capitalizes on the disillusionment bred by this violent system, building bonds of resonance with those marginalized by the meritocratic narrative (remember this is the majority), while providing a platform for voicing frustrations and actualizing discontent in rallies and other social contexts. Even more insidiously, however, he simultaneously constructs a scapegoat in ‘others’ within the framework of a zero-sum world who are the real enemies and architects for these societal woes, diverting attention from the ultimate source of inequality — the elites. While Trumpism critiques “the Swamp,” it lacks a substantive understanding of the disenchantment permeating American culture and offering an actual path out of it. Its appeal lies in its ability to harness the potent energies of discontent, not to dismantle the violent ontology, but only to reposition the figures at the helm of the ship.
A meaningful critique of this disenchantment is necessary for us to dismantle the destructive meritocratic ideology and promote a more equitable, inclusive understanding of value and success in society. This critique, in my opinion, can only truly gain cultural capital and relevance through art. It is this very path through which potent cultural affects can be stimulated. That’s why the system instantly neutralizes or commodifies those with disruptive potential. The Keys incident symbolizes this — on that stage, talent is reduced to a mere product, stripped of its power to disrupt and reduced to a mere mirror of our meritocratic system, not a force capable of shaking up our system by providing authentic resonances for our collective disillusionment; You see, Keys is not really like you and me, she does not have any tragic flaws, any mystical, ineffable qualities that could potential stir the zeitgeist, no, she is an archetype of a system in which her place on that stage during the most watched event in America culture is merited due to her mechanically flawless ability to perform, outside time and space, in a totalizing ontology of Mastery.