Excerpts from an interview with Malcolm Gladwell about his new book Outliers: The Story of Success:
To a great extent, you’re debunking rugged individualism, the myth of American success, right?
I am, I mean, in some ways this book is somewhere between a corrective and a full-scale assault on the way Western society in general and American society in particular has thought about success over the last few hundred years. You know, we have fallen in love with this notion of the self-made man, of the rags-to-riches story, of the idea that if you make it to the top of your profession you deserve a salary of 20 million dollars a year because you’re the one responsible for getting to the top. Why shouldn’t you be richly rewarded? And that idea and that ethos has permeated virtually every way in which we think about achievement, and I think that that idea is completely false; it’s worse than false, it’s dangerous!
And it completely obscures the real reasons why people succeed. It obscures the extraordinarily important role that we, by which I mean society, can play in promoting success. We make decisions every day over who gets to succeed and who doesn’t without realizing we do it. I want to bring those kinds of hidden mechanisms to light as a way of helping us understand what we can do to promote achievement on a much broader scale than we do now.
You’re Canadian. Has this distance from American culture sharpened your perspective?
I think so. I think because as Canadians we’re far less caught up in the myth of individualism. It’s a much easier argument to make in Canada that success is a product of many different factors and forces and environments and legacies working together. Of all the books this is the most personal in the sense that it really does represent my bedrock philosophy as a human being and that was very much formed by my upbringing in Canada.
It’s always interesting when non-overtly-professing Christians and/or non-believers come to diagnostic conclusions about life that are similar to the ones some of us hold because of our Christian faith. Or maybe it’s simply that the Bible paints a picture of life that so rarely coincides with the culture’s most commonly held assumptions, that when the two match up, it’s worth taking note.
One of our favorite bones of contention with prevailing attitudes these days has to do with any Pelagian-type understanding of how to live: any paradigm where success is viewed as a matter of individual effort and emphasis is placed upon personal decision-making and trying harder (as opposed to, say, the notion that human willpower is severely constrained, necessitating God’s intervention).
Along these lines, while you can find an increasing amount of scientific/intellectual arguments against the notion of pure free-will (see this post for one example), it seems that secular arguments against what the interviewer calls “rugged individualism, the American myth of success” are a bit rarer. Gladwell’s book is an insightful exception. While not “religious” in any sense, Outliers is deeply critical of some of the same ideas about life as Christianity is. This is not because they are particularly profound criticisms; rather, they are truer than the lies which many of us find so romantic.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D4UShuRUaw&w=600]
COMMENTS
20 responses to “Malcolm Gladwell on Rugged Individualism and the Myth of American Success”
Leave a Reply
Wow, thanks John. Looks fascinating.
It is true that my understanding of what is good and what is success is severely skewed. It is under attack by God. Through the reality of the cross and the Gospel truth of strength in weakness I feel myself being brought very low to a place where I realize that i know nothing about what life is actually about, at least in terms of what I consider good and what I consider bad.
I still dream of the huge house, flush bank account, and the beautiful steel gray Aston Martin sitting in my multiple car garage (not to be too specific). Or when I’m in my more classically “humble mood” I dream of Mbird’s little ministry being a part of the second reformation and being read about in history books years from now:)
These ideas of success inspire nothing but worry, fear, failure and eventual existential death. I always try to do something about my own perceived level of success or lack thereof. It is law and nothing else. I hate it, and yet I still dream of what it promises and fails to deliver: peace, contentment, etc.
It’s only when I am brought to that low place where I see these ideas of success once again firmly nailed to the cross that I actually begin to feel lighter, freer, and alive.
I’m rambling. Obviously, something in your post struck a chord. It might have something to do with the fact that our conference and our new book are just over the horizon and my old ideas of success and failure are rearing their ugly head.
This is helpful John. Thanks.
Hey Sean. I can relate. In the book, Gladwell’s idea of success is probably the one you typically imagine when you look at the Beatles or Bill Gates, but his statements can easily be applied to more Christian (left-handed) ideas of success too. The point is that it is not the will that makes the difference in life between one person and another. The book also speaks a lot to the ways in which a community (or church) can help out its citizens (members). He argues that opportunities as they are provided by things outside of the control of an individual’s will make just as much of an impact on a person’s life trajectory, and encourages all of us to play a great role in helping to provide others with opportunities, rather than just telling them that they “can do it” and then leaving them to “make it happen for themselves.”
Again, he is not arguing for the Gospel in any concrete way, but he is arguing against the callous and uninsightful mean-ness that charactarizes Pelagian approaches to dealing with life. To my way of thinking, the moment you dis Pelagianism (“the principles of this world”) you bring people much closer to the Gospel, for very little else remains. If it’s not all up to you, then it must be either about community (Gladwell’s position most likely) or about God (my position, though from it naturally flows Gladwell’s like a reflex).
Down with the self-made anything (be it success or spirituality)!
The film Little Miss Sunshine also did a good job of handing Pelagianism its hat about half-way through when the father’s “steps” (i.e., the Law) amounted to little more than despair. Then love came into the arena, right?
Great Stuff. I too am really fascinated by occasions when a Christian and secular diagnosis of the human condition line up (although for separate motivations.) In some cases I have heard incredible diagnoses from the enemies of Christianity (i.e. Nietzsche).
Equally interesting, however, I have never heard a satisfactory solution offered by one of these secular authors/ musicians/ film-makers/ pundits & poloticians. I find myself loving the first half of a book, film or whatever, then wanting to put it down the moment a potential solution-gentle as it may sound- is exhorted. Time and again, deep insight gives way to shallow and trivial exhortations and suggestions which are usually old and tired but expressed as innovative.
We seem to fall off one side of the horse, only to climb back up and fall off the other. I am concerned that our attempts at relieving the Biblically established tension between sacred and profane, individual and community, liberal and conservative have blinded us to the true solution:
death
and resurrection through the God-man
If they cant get the answer right, I just wish they'd end the book etc. in the tragedy of the diagnosis.
…and that’s why Woody Allen is so great!
Malcolm’s take on what leads to success is refreshing.
In a way it is also depressing to know that your success is largely tied up to factors outside your control.
In the end though I am not sure that he was able to convey a cogerent message.
To read my full review of his book check out:
http://www.foolandhisblog.com/2009/01/outliers-story-of-success-by-malcolm.html
Naveen
I haven’t read the book (I tend to disassociate myself with the new pop-econ phenomenon in the same way that I do with evangelistic t-shirts), but after seeing his presentation on spaghetti sauce a month ago at a TED conference, I was blown away.
John, from your comments here and other reviews I’ve read, one of the most helpful things Gladwell has to say is about the importance of community in the lives of individuals (C. Langan vs. R. Oppenheimer).
I would hazard a guess (in light of Sean’s comment) that what makes/will make M’bird a ‘success’ is the fact that it aims to radiate grace via sound, practical theology…nothing else. Over time, people will continue to gravitate to such a community. Why? Partially because M’bird has a counter-cultural message of grace (seems to have ‘worked’ well for Jesus), and partly because it is open-ended in its approach (i.e. providing forums for individuals to learn from one another). These two things are part of what makes this community completely different from the norm, and thus, attractive.
Also, I think conferences, books, blogs all provide different outlets for fostering/clarifying the type of community that Gladwell identifies in the book. Though death, as JC points out, is a dark cloud looming overhead, churches and communities like M’bird often take on a flavor of resurrection when their idea of ‘success’ is not self-serving, but redemptive. One thousand thanks for this community. 😉
[I spent way too long writing this]
John,
I finished this book today, and I really enjoyed it. Gladwell is an important thinker. I thought he put forth some really interesting ideas, but failed to prove them in some cases. A lot of anecdotes are data, but a few anecdotes don’t prove anything. I would have rather seen more data. In this way, it reminds me of another book I really like Guns, Germs, and Steel.
He seems to be trying to say IQ explains X% of the deviation from the mean outcome, and the rest of the deviation is environment/luck. Perhaps other genetic factors not measured in IQ are hugely important and not necessarily learned.
You certainly don’t deserve your genetic makeup. I don’t know how you think about your genetic makeup as anything other than luck?
Looking at “success” from a Christian standpoint, are these genetic and environmental advantages good luck or bad luck? Has anyone read his mother’s book, Brown Face, Big Master?
I think whatever it is that Gladwell is arguing for can only be inferred from the text (i.e., the belief in the importance of community). My hunch was that he was specifically arguing against something (as the interview made clear), which was Pelagian approaches to conquering the demands of life. I don’t think he would use the term Pelagian, but I do. He calls it “the self-made man”.
Is “community” less Pelagian than “individualism”, if the community is a collection of Pelagians, “all working together”? “We can do it together” could be seen as the moral equivalent of “I can do it alone”, but maybe even more dangerous, if the “success” of 1930’s Germany is any indicator. If the God who died is not in the picture, is there a dime’s worth of difference?
Thanks for that comment Michael. That is largely what I was trying to say. You said it much better.
I am so grateful for this community inasmuch as it is the byproduct of the cross.
Michael:
Not only would I agree with that point, but I would so far as to say that while non-Christian individualism is dangerous, it is less danergous than non-Christian collectivism.
And what of Christian collectivism? Is that always such a great thing? The fact that a person is a Christian has huge ultimate importance, but rarely determines whether or not I would/will enjoy hanging out with them. It is worth noting that I’ve recently discovered (to my surprise and the surprise of many) that I like the French. What I’m getting at is that I’m dubious where notions of Christians being ontologically transformed by their faith are concerned. There’s so much evidence to suggest otherwise from both within and without.
Christian collectivism is never a good thing, unless purely voluntary. Of course, no collectivism is a good thing, as the death tolls of Europe and Asia attest.
If we have a low anthropology, how should we design our institutions?
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/17_4/17_4_2.pdf
This takes the conversation in a different direction, but how do we reconcile/integrate Gladwell’s concept of “luck” with the Christian view of Providence? Leaving the problematic question of how we define “success” aside, can Christians accept this idea of luck, which has connotations of randomness, while we simultaneously believe that God is really in control of everything? It doesn’t seem to me that we can.
The Bible is rife with examples of men and women who achieved success through traditional and (most of the time) non-traditional routes. While I would agree with Gladwell that these people got to where they got based not on their own talent/merit, I would not agree that “luck” or “community” is the real explanation for their success. It was God’s doing, right?
I would also add that I believe God is in control of the lives of non-believers as well as believers.
What do you guys think? Am I off on this?
Einstein said, “God does not play dice.” When I say luck, I mean God.
I would say that Gladwell’s book, to the extent that it sounds Christian in its anti-Pelagian voice, is arguably even more Aristotelian than Christian no matter how you slice it. For me luck and god are synonymous for the most part. Aristotle’s all about lining all the different factors up in a way that creates some kind of systematic harmony (i.e., success or fulfillment), and I’m not really into that idea. I’m more Cartesian in that I think, insight comes from first principles, followed by secondary implications, but held always in the light something primary.
Again, I like Gladwell’s book for the reasons that are highlighted in the interview, because he is critical of something that we all should be critical of, but I’m not into because he posits something in place of Christianity that offers impressive substance. You could say that I like it descriptively and not prescriptively.
John–Interesting that you are wisely coming to like the French. I LOVE the French, mainly because they are so complicated. I love their 10,000 versions of socialism/communism (reminds me of Protestantism) and mass strikes and fun labor marches in Paris with clowns, balloons, etc., and I even, God forgive me, love their atheism, which wishes there was a God. French “collectivism” is really various collections of individualists, because the French are 98% cynics, and cynicism (about the things of this world) is individualism at its best.