Looking at pretty much anyone who has made a success in their field you see one consistent trait. It doesn't appear to matter if that field is business, sport, art or science, the leaders stand out above the herd because they are prepared to dedicate an enormous amount of time and energy to being the best at what they do. They have what has become known as a type AA personality. That is, they not only have a tremendously strong work ethic but also back this up with a very strong personal belief. This is particularly seen in business where the most successful business people have generally failed several time but come back from those failures in large part because of their faith in themselves, but it appears to be common to all fields. This personality type does not seem to be contributed to by education, with many people demonstrating the type having disconnected with education quite early in their development, and it also doesn't appear to be a function of pure genetics, since many highly successful people come from spectacularly unsuccessful backgrounds.
Some have argued that a tough upbringing fosters the mental strength and resilience that is a part of this, but again there is considerable evidence that this is not always the case. This does rather leave the question, where does this come from? It is a similar question to the arguements about whether talents exist in a real sense, and whether qualities such as leadership are inherent or learned. This has tremendous implications for global society, particularly in terms of developing a globally sustainable society and combating challenges such as climate change and poulation overload. There are two distinct ways of looking at the question of inherent ability, and they are fundamentally opposed in terms of what they mean for our species. Egalitarians would argue that there is no such thing as talent, since we all have equal potential and equal ability and our outcomes are products of our environment and upbringing. The counter arguement put forward by pretty much everyone else is that we are not all created equal and that some people are born with higher abilities than others, in terms of intelligence, co-ordination, perception, awareness etc.
If the egalitarians are correct then the ideal solution for our species is to move towards a truly Marxist state without any of the latter leninist/trotskyite additions that polluted the ideal. This redistribution of wealth, and re-organisation of decision making and control would put power into the hands of those who currently have the least, and would create a more fair and equitable society, that is, by definition, more sustainable. Contra to this is the idea that there are natural leaders, people who are "better" at making decisions, more intelligent, stronger, faster. If this is the case, Marxist theory can never provide a workable society. It is interesting to note that to date there has never been a successful Marxist society. There has been an arguement that this is because Marxist theory is flawed and can only possibly work in small communities less than 100 members. However even in small commune communities this theory has been shown not to work.
Does this mean that the egalitarians are wrong? Many argue that it does, but I am not so certain. I firmly believe in the principles of egalitarianism, that we are all born with the same potential, but that this becomes clouded as we grow, conditioned by environmental factors. It is my contention that the biggest stumbling block to accepting the rinciples of true equality is ego. We have developed such a strong sense of self, such a strong idea of our own importance that we are unable, and certainly unwilling to let it go. I believe that there are examples that back up my assertion, and that these can be found in monastic communities. The principles of monasticism are not common to every faith but they seem to be conditioned in those faiths where they do occur, in the sublimation of the ego in order to create a harmonious spiritual community. By understanding that within the community everyone is equal, all are given equal opportunities and equal status and as a consequence jealousy and greed are completely eradicated. in my experience, although monastic orders tend to have a hierarchical structure, it is understood within the community that the leaders are equal to everyone else, and that there is no prestige or pride associated to leadership, indeed it is considered a task no more worthy than tilling the fields, preparing the food or sweeping the floor. All labours are of equal worth.
I do not suggest that monastic communities are a blue print for a successful global society, but I do suggest that there is some anecdotal evidence that the possibility of harmonious egalitarian society exsists and is an achievable aim for the human species. I also believe that this is only possible if it transpires that we are truly all equal.
No comments:
Post a Comment