In the second page of his article “Invisibility: On the Epistemology of Recognition” (2001), Axel Honneth recalls how nobles were allowed to undress in front of their servants because, in a sense, they did not consider them present. Honneth chooses invisibility as a precise and chilling metaphor for the absence of recognition.
In Argentina, the lack of meritocracy inflicts a daily wound on that desire—the desire for recognition. And it is perhaps because of the pain it produces that this very brief attempt to depoliticize the debate already feels futile. Nevertheless, the possibility of de-ideologizing the discussion on meritocracy lies in Honnethian thought: the lack of recognition is an experience that requires only two people, or one person and one institution.
The workplace is one of those spheres of social action where different forms of invisibility can occur. Unlike the family or political spheres, in the workplace, the value of the person and the value of their work become intertwined and blurred. From this perspective, when someone—in a company, a public office, or any other institution—declares, “There is no meritocracy here,” what they are really pointing to is some form of underestimation of both the task and the person, or both at the same time. Some common targets of this kind of underestimation include: the complexity of the task, the effort it requires, the investment it needs, the time it consumes, the difficulties it presents, the expert knowledge it presupposes, and the responsibility it entails.
This paper proposes characterizing these everyday actions as “micro-invisibilizations” for two reasons. The first is that they stem from individual decisions and affect others within an organization. The second is that they occur in everyday life in a subtle, imperceptible, or banal way. Examples of these expressive—or performative—actions of non-recognition abound, and very few fit here: the essential becomes precarious while the accessory increases its resources; important decisions are made based on rumors while trivialities are discussed face-to-face; quality work is taken for granted while the illusion of the impossible lingers; things are over-explained as if no one understands anything and under-explained as if everyone were aware of everything.
Now, if these actions merely constituted contempt for the individual, one could argue that an adult should be able to develop some resilience in the face of them. However, if they persistently constitute an underestimation of the task, they rise to the level of organizational pathology. These ubiquitous, everyday micro-invisibilities harm both the individual and the collective. For the individual, they affect their identity and professional and social self-esteem. For the organization, collaborative learning becomes vicious, and it's always necessary to start over.
Honneth's thinking—made accessible through the writings of Uruguayan philosopher Ana C. Fascioli—provides us with an ethical solution for achieving common social goals: actively ensuring that others can develop qualities "that are foreign to us." In other words, each of us should not only avoid ignoring those who do something different or do it better, but, by curbing our egocentrism, actively enable them to do so.
