Outliers

I have not yet read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, but based on the discussion it generates, it seems worth talking about in the context of a new zeitegist. Gladwell writes about the origins of success. His thesis:

"People don't rise from nothing ....They are invariably the beneficiaries of hidden advantages and extraordinary opportunities and cultural legacies that allow them to learn and work hard and make sense of the world in ways others cannot ... It is only by asking where they are from that we can unravel the logic behind who succeeds and who doesn't."

In other word, Gladwell takes issue with the notion that success is simply a product of personal virtue. For Gladwell, not everyone who works hard, is forthright, punctual and conscientious will succeed. Those types of qualities may (or may not) be precursors to success, but the story of any success is largely a societal one. The circumstances of your birth, the culture of your upbringing, the characteristics of your social milieu, and your proximity to opportunity all play decisive rolls.

Why is this interesting? Well, for the last twenty years we have endured a politics -- and to a lesser extent a culture -- which reified personal virture or "personal responsibility." Success, or lack thereof was always described as the presence of virtues or the absence of vices. The idea that larger influences, such as race, class, or culture played any role in success was dismissed as a liberal apologia, an epistle from the "blame society" crowd. Now it would appear that the opposite viewpoint is making itself known. It may help us explain why scores of untalented, avaricious people succeed and scores of talented and virtuous people are consigned to the margins.

Changing the rules of the philosophic debate is great, but once we have a better handle on what conditions make success posiible, we may actually have an interesting policy war to fight. For example, what types of policies may help us re-create the successes that certain groups (be they Jewish lawyers, WASP Investment Bankers or New York artists) have experienced.

Perhaps even more interesting is the impact of this analysis on how our economy distributes rewards. Traditionally, we have justified outsized rewards to business leaders and investors because we assumed the rewards were the results of their hard work, intelligence and risk taking. Now it seems that may not be entirely true. Instead, we recognize that windaflls may be the result of societal inputs, and beneficial circumstances beyond anyone's control. In other words, some succeed because they were given the tools necessary to succeed and then placed in a position where success could find them.

This vision is quite a bit different than the "capitalist hero" narrative our society has worked from. Followed to its logical conclusion, it undermines the winner take all mentality that we used to justify our have and have not society.