This is a short holiday
read. It addresses an oft ignored
element of federation theory. That is
its support for individualism. Oh,
that’s not the individualism one finds glorified by the natural rights view,
but a more, what this blogger considers, substantive view. It sees individualism as every person
self-fulling his/her potentials.
Perhaps this shift to this concern is prompted by the
nation shifting from what one can a consider a more communal holiday,
Christmas, to the more raucous holiday, New Year. This might be a comparison only held by this
blogger, but Christmas always seemed as that day one visits family and even
neighbors, sharing gifts and best wishes.
A wholesome emotional state of mind pervades and seems to be, to a great
deal, consumed by the American public.
Heck,
people see films like “It’s a Wonderful Life” and donate a lot of money to all
sorts of charities – one knows this since it’s one ad for such charities after
another on TV. But now that all those
gifts are open and all those gatherings are done, one looks forward to that night
of “debauchery” – New Year’s Eve will be here within the week. Family-“shamily,” it’s time to have a good
time and that means favoring what one finds as a good time even if it skirts
the outer limits of “appropriate” behavior.
One word of caution: “be safe out
there.”
So,
what can one say about individualism that still falls within the more communal
sense that federation theory promotes?
Federation theory, as presented in this blog, supports the individual pursuing
his/her interests. What it asks is only that
those interests not offend the common good by harming it or hindering it.
Those
who hold on to natural rights values, in part, defend their policy choices –
minimal government programs, low taxes, and a scarcity of regulations
especially on businesses – as claiming such policies intrude on mostly individual
economic choices. This is the part of
natural rights one can categorize as its conservative face while it’s aversion to
governmental laws restricting personal choices – e.g., alternative lifestyles –
is its liberal face. In short, one
should be able to do his/her own thing as he/she defines it if by doing so he/she
does not prohibit others the same latitude.
And
that might mean – if truly sough after – to be exceptional in some endeavor
such as a skill or occupational pursuit.
That is, to seek success in a competitive environment. One might ask: what allows one to achieve success in any endeavor
that one might consider challenging such as a sport, a technical field of
employment, or some area of voluntourism?
As
this blog has stated before, John Rawls, the philosopher, has something to say
about this. Rawls identified his idea of
success via his view of equality. He
argues that what leads to success can only be attributed to a person’s effort
to a limited degree. Most of the factors
are really beyond a person’s ability to acquire or control.[1] They are present in one’s life or they are
not. A more recent writer, who picks up
on this claim, is Malcolm Gladwell.[2]
Gladwell
accepts Rawls’ argument, but he qualifies it by citing his famous (or infamous
– for those who see it as a drudgery) 10,000 hours of practice in which one
needs engage to become proficient in any demanding skill or endeavor. And this goes for naturally talented practitioners
as well. Gladwell writes:
The question is this: is there such a thing as innate talent? The obvious answer is yes … Achievement is
talent plus preparation. The problem
with this view is that the closer psychologists look at the careers of the
gifted, the smaller role innate talent seems to play and the bigger the role
preparation seems to play.[3]
And
this blog has cited the work of Carol S. Dweck whose work has demonstrated that
even the common view of intelligence – usually measured by I.Q. testing and
seen as each person having a given amount – can improve with the right practice
which, in part, convinces a subject that intelligence can be improved.[4]
But even here, even with an individual putting in the
effort and time to achieve those 10,000 hours, community has its role. One benefits by having the parents who
encourage a youngsters putting in a lot of those hours. The person needs the wealth base to allow
time away from non-related employment to be able to practice. And then there is the program at school or
after-school where one can practice under appropriate supervision or coaching
or tutoring that point out the mistakes and demonstrate the “correct” ways of
motion or thinking.
And probably to top off what a community can offer is
exposure. That is, exposure to the skill
or sport or profession in which the practice occurs. If one is fortunate and one can run across
that activity that spurs the interest that reflects what one is willing to do
for those 10,000 hours, then one can count him/herself truly fortunate. This blogger has not run across a truly
successful person who at some level doesn’t enjoy the activity he/she performs. 10,000 hours is a long time.
[1] See Chandran
Kukathas and Philip Pettit, Rawls: A Theory of Justice and Its Critics,
(Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press, 1990).
[2] Malcolm
Gladwell, Outliers, (New York,
NY: Little, Brown and Company, 2008).
[3] Ibid., 38.
[4] Carol S. Dweck, Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and
Development (Philadelphia,
PA: Psychology Press, 2000). Dweck goes on to even claim that a belief that
intelligence is held by individuals at a given amount functions as a negative
factors when a person eventually encounters a challenge, he/she cannot readily
solve or achieve.
No comments:
Post a Comment