Success: A Failure of Definition.
Success. It is the motive force behind humanity’s stubborn surge forward. Our innate desire for it generates the traction we need to cut through the thick and thin, day in and day out. We rely on its buoyancy for confidence as we swim across the abyss. It makes gamblers out of the risk averse, and nomads out of settlers. The slightest taste of it concludes in a lifelong appetite for it. Not unlike a drug, we develop a tolerance for it, wanting it more and wanting it faster. Its allure decorates the fabric of our societies, dictates the way we raise our children, and governs the framework of our education. It is the content of our culture, the aspiration of our creed, and the measure of our capability.
Naturally then, having a uniform definition of what success is would seem as a given. Yet this assumption would be systemically incorrect. The uniformity of understanding success is fragmented across generational, societal and intellectual divides. More so, circumstantial elements influence its meaning to each individual. Even to the same person, a different age and time may implicate a changing definition of success.
The problem with this is not in the fact that success evades definition, but rather, a world view that advocates the idea that success should indeed be a homogenous concept. The problem escalates when a particular narrative consumes this definition, claiming exclusivity over its meaning in the process.
The first question: What dictates the current “accepted” definition of success?
The end of World War II marked a new beginning for the West, and ultimately, for the world. The Allies’ victory was viewed as a multidimensional win across military, economic and moral battlefields. On the back of this victory, the western powers aimed to create a system that would ensure a global security infrastructure that maintains stability. The idea was simple: Globalization would create an interdependency of all nations and states to one another, unifying their interests and fates. Subsequently, this would create cohesion and limit deviance, stamping out the risk of certain nations going rogue, as Nazi-Germany had done in the past. The key here is in the method of this systems implementation: The western powers sought to create this interdependency primarily based on economic pivots and hinged on a globalized system. This began with the European Recovery Program, also referred to as the Marshall Plan. The US invested approximately 135 Billion USD (in today’s valuation) into the war-torn economies of Western Europe, with the objective of kickstarting their economies, and ultimately, fortifying the New World Order. What followed was an era of remarkable growth and productivity. This incentivized nations worldwide to participate in this globalized framework, further strengthening this system in a progressive and iterative fashion. Eventually, this system overcame the last obstacle in the path of this World Order, when the USSR collapsed, and the cold war ended. The period following the Cold War was impeccable: The world witnessed a period of unprecedented economic progress and security. Quantic leaps were made in the fields of science, medicine and technology. By measure of most metrics , the world was in a golden era. The merits of this global success were ultimately attributed to capitalism. Understandably, the global narrative followed suit: A culture of consumerism encouraged the notion that success is material. The media machine supported this narrative to full effect. As the definition of success seemed to be final, cultures and peoples worldwide traded their own philosophies and traditions for the so-called rat-race, in search of a newly defined notion of success. The issue here is not with Capitalism. Personally, I am of the opinion that capitalism, if executed correctly, is undoubtedly the optimal path to productivity and prosperity. The problem is one of association. The concept of success has been monopolized solely by an economic definition: To be successful is to have purchasing power. To exhibit success is to showcase consumer ability. From here, we transition to the next point.
Is Success Singular or Multi -Faceted?
Diversity is a virtue that underscores value in any application. Whether it is genetic diversity, cultural diversity, or otherwise — the merits are quantitatively and qualitatively evident. The same holds true for diversity of thought, and in this case, diversity of definition. To assume a single definition of success would be an intellectual crime. Reverting back to the discussion of success within the capitalist narrative, success is measured exclusively based on commercial grounds. The implications of this is that a doctor’s success is based on earning rather than healing. Success that favors commerce over craft is truly a troubling notion. As humans, we are innately wired to pursue success. Advocating a commercially driven definition of what success is would ultimately direct human resources exclusively towards industry of material gain. We will unconsciously shy away from any talents we possess that do not optimize our commercial well-being. While our economies may expand in the short term, our artists will cease to create, our teachers will cease to educate, and our philosophers will cease to contemplate.
A counter argument to this point would be that if a person executes their craft with excellence, they will be rewarded financially. While there is truth in the fact that commercial success does indeed reward excellence, it does not reward it proportionally. A gifted painter could make more money doing an adequate job at banking over an excellent job at painting. If the accepted definition of success is based purely on financial metrics, this could encourage the painter to abandon their trade.
So, what should success be? Ideally, it should be craft over commerce. It should be measured qualitatively within the trade being practiced. A musician’s success is to be measured musically, just as a capitalist’s success is to be measured commercially. More importantly, they should not be mutually exclusive. Success is a multi-disciplinary genre. To succeed holistically is to succeed as a capitalist, as a friend, as a thinker, as a family man, and as a human being. It is an all-encompassing experience that captures the true motive force of our talent. Economic Success is essential, but not total.
Is Success Relative or Absolute?
Very few things exist absolutely. Success is not one of them. The fact is that success needs to be benchmarked in order for it to be measured. The benchmark, however, is yourself. We all have circumstances that set this benchmark. Our genetics, socio-economic backgrounds, geography, innate talents, luck, and other very tangible parameters all play a role in defining the benchmark. Success is to be measured against circumstance, not statistics. From there on, it is your today against your yesterday, and your tomorrow against your today. Once this notion is internalized, the healthiest form of competition is exercised. Only you know your circumstances and your competency. Therefore, it is you who will be judge over your own success. The jury will be out once a particular question is answered:
Have you, in all sincerity, exercised the full scope of your talents with accuracy, in a relentless and uncompromising fashion, to best of your ability?
If with each passing moment, the answer tends more to a yes, your success is being harnessed.
Where does ego come in?
All that’s well ends well. Until ego poisons the process. Ego works on transforming the positive nature of creative competition into a destructive, reductionist version of it.
Ego is a form of selfish preservation that was an evolutionary necessity in the past. Historically, in an age where competition was more important that cooperation, it served as shield that protected us from a world of fear, distrust and paranoia. It is an ancient function that still exists within us due to an evolutionary mismatch. Human progress has been exponential, but our evolutionary psychology, that follows a linear trajectory, is still playing catchup. Accordingly, many aspects of our psychology are still governed by instincts that would have helped protect us in ancient times, but are actually detrimental to our progress today. Many of these outdated instincts are close relatives of ego, including fear and jealousy, which we also still possess.
To further demonstrate this idea, consider the below image:
There are 2 ships holding a crew, departing from Island 1 and heading towards Island 2. For this example, assume that Island 1 represents a zero-success level, and island 2 represents maximum-success level. The closer you are to Island 2, the more successful you are. Let’s focus on the 2 passengers, A and B. Passenger B is clearly ahead of Passenger A, therefore enjoying a higher level of true success. It would be rational to assume then, that all people would opt to be in the position of Passenger B over A. Unfortunately, rationality has its limits. As ego sets in and wakens the primal instincts, many would be quick to lose sight of the absolute picture and focus instead on another mundane detail: The relative position of each passenger. Passenger A is at the front of their ship, while Passenger B, although ahead on a net level, is at the back of theirs. Ego, through the workings of reductionist competition, hinges the focus exclusively on this idea. From this diminished perspective, the appeal of being ahead in relation to peers becomes more pronounced than just being ahead. You are no longer competing with yourself, but rather, with your own shipmates, who you ought to be cooperating with. This is why many of us fall short of our true potential.
So, how do I find success?
Success is a journey inwards. It is a delicate balancing act of identifying the sweet spot where passion, talent, circumstance and ambition intersect. It is about drowning out the external voices that feel obliged to dictate their meaning of success to you, in exchange for amplifying the inner voice that seeks to unite you with your true talents. It is about positive greed, that establishes your right to satiate your ambition with uncompromising force.
Most of all, it requires psychological resilience, as the road to success — prior to its achievement — is a very lonely one. It demands insight; the recognition that your emotions will get in the way of your logic. It requires intellect — the brute force of workload is not always as potent is the intelligent application of it. It requires free will — As humans, we tend to stagnate at a stage of comfortable complacency. Over time, the inertia of this phase robs us from our ambition, as it deceives us by marketing the belief that satisfaction is a static affair. It requires risk. As this writing has gone to lengths to exhibit that success is not only financial, similarly, the risk success requires is not limited to financial risk either. Success requires that we take on the truest nature of risk, on all fronts. It requires that we risk our reputation, as we pursue what others believe is futile. It demands the we abandon the immediate, in exchange for the obscure. It requires an inner reckoning, a sincere peace with the fact that we may fail. And in that failure, contrary to what most postcards advocate, there may be no recovery. Such is the brutal nature of this expedition. Yet let there be no mistake: A failure of an honest, all-out, risk-adjusted and coordinated effort is a success. It is a success of courage, of passion, of ambition and of vision; a success of being human. While this may seem to be a somewhat irresponsible conclusion, consider this: there is no greater price to pay, than the price of that which could have been, yet never was.
