All on my own... but not quite

One common concept inherited from the Enlightenment is the widespread belief in the power of the individual: there is nothing more rewarding than the confirmation that one's achievements are theirs alone. It could be just a projection of the protestant work ethics: since job accomplishment is a manifestation of our piety, many people just throw themselves into their professional careers in the hope of succeeding and, along the way, proving their own religious fervor. Of course, given that faith is an individual quality so has to be success if they are to be linked, but that leads, almost unavoidably to a very individualistic society where, even if there is room for charity, it typically happens at an individual level and is normally tainted with the paternalism of those who are successful and call themselves pious.

But there are many aspects of the so-called "individual success" that trouble me greatly. The first one is the fact that great success can only be achieved in the context of a society, it just does not happen with a single individual. One can build a wall in a week or, working really hard, they can build three walls in a week, and that would be an accomplishment, but certainly not a success. Success only comes about when our achievements receive some amount of acclaim by the society, either through explicit praise (speeches, news pieces, dedications) or through the more subdued (but still rather explicit) sales figures. In other words, the highest achievements would be just another day's work if they do not have an audience to appreciate them and give them value.

Photo: Marc

The second aspect that troubles me is the absolute neglect that this kind of narrative dispenses to the greater operational environment where this success takes place. I have mentioned before that having institutions such as a democratic government, free market, a working justice system, personal and financial security, and infrastructures like communication systems, utilities, or transportation networks are essential for most entrepreneurs to even try to succeed. In fact, as I mentioned in an older post, it is well documented that, in countries where the rule of law is flaky or the infrastructures are unreliable, people are much more cautious when starting new business because they feel themselves much more at the mercy of the elements and do not even trust that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their eventual success. And all this environment is nothing that most present-day people have had any hand in setting up: a few in each generation find a way to change the way society runs at large, but for the rest of us it is just an heirloom that we get from our parents.

Finally, there are numerous elements that are completely disregarded in any mighty quest, just because they are a given.When William Willis sailed alone across the Pacific Ocean in a raft, he was only accompanied by his parrot and his cat, but he certainly did not do it "alone": it was mostly the winds and the sea currents that propelled him most the way. The same applies to Bertrand Piccard's trip around the globe in a balloon: it was the winds that carried them to success, not only their wits and determination. This does not intend to detract from the merit of the achievements, which are truly remarkable, just to emphasize that the great vision of this explorers was how to properly handle the forces of nature to reach their destination, not like running a marathon where the runners have to propel themselves every single step of the way.

Part of this host of elements that are "a given" are all these invisible people without whom the quests would be literally impossible. Athletes and other personalities have started to realize how important their work is, and they are more and more often mentioned and thanked during interviews and ceremonies, but for many centuries and still today mothers, wives and every flavor of servants have been systematically overseen. I came to this thought reading this review of a book revisiting the beginnings of the American Transcendentalism, only to conclude that neither Ralph Waldo Emerson nor his disciple Henry Thoreau were by any measure as self-reliant as they preached: they both had a whole host of servants, housekeepers and even a wive to make sure that they had nothing to care about except for their job.

This type of neglect is, when we stop to think about it, very well aligned with the description that philosopher Marilyn Frye does of patriarchy: when males (men) get to judge and define who is a person in their own right and who is not (including women, young children and all servants) a family living in a great house is just one person, the father. The rest are assigned varying levels of "person-ness" but they do not make the husband any less lonely than a chair would. In some cases even dogs and horses receive higher status than other human members of the household.

So just to close up, let us remember that there is indubitably a lot of merit in personal efforts, but they do not detract in any way from the contribution of everybody else and even the nature around us. The two corollaries of this realization are that we can never claim all the merit, and neither can we blame anyone who, embedded in a less favorable environment than ourselves, evaluates their odds as less promising and decides even not to try. Enjoy your week.