Continued over from the "Quite Frankly, I Think I Could Do A Better Job Of Being Famous" thread.
I brought up the topic of Drive being as important an element in success as talent, hard work, ambition or anything. Tom countered with I think what I'm getting at is that the idea of 'drive' separating the successful from the unsuccessful seems kind of...well, Thatcherite...
First point... because something is Thatcherite, does that invalidate the truth or usefullness of an idea?
Second point... I don't think it's necessarily Thatcherite in origin. I think it was something that the Thatcherites borrowed from the American model. It is a very American idea that you can have something if you want it hard enough, and it's The American Dream (tm) that if you want something hard enough, and you work hard enough for it, that you will achieve success.
This is the ultimate secular expression of the Protestant Work Ethic, the result of double predestination and all that.
(Cliff Notes Version: Protestants, I think it was Calvin who came up with the idea, were big believers in the idea of predestination. That if you were Chosen by god, then you would be rewarded, predestined for heaven from birth. They would then work like hell in order to show that they were indeed chosen by god, as success would be earthly proof of their heavenly chosen status, just as failure would be proof of your "bad seed" damnation. Yes, this is vastly simplified, and probably horrendously theologically inaccurate, and my priest mum would be spinning in her grave if she were dead.)
For the Protestants, this religious belief in one's own Chosenhood provides the Drive for success. For other people, it is not a religious desire which fuels the Drive, but it is still a sense of Chosenhood.
Yes, we know of lots of examples of exceptions to the rule, especially in a class-driven society like the British. (I also would say that it is based on the fact that Britain's conversion to Protestantism was mainly a political matter, rather than a theological matter.)
Rare people have been given record deals based on the first demo tape they ever sent out. Other people have been bought the record contracts by their mummies and daddies (Daddy buy me a pony, Daddy buy me NME.com). But, in my observations, there is almost always a Drive. It's not necessarily that someone who has tried and failed lacks drive (that's a very protestant idea, they are FALLEN!) but more that you are unlikely to be a success unless you *have* that Drive in the first place.
I guess I have not actually posed any questions. More a request for discussion on this topic of success, and how hard work, talent and ambition combine to create it.
Is Drive the key factor behind success? And what do we mean by Drive, why does Tom see it as a Thatcherite, and therefore tainted concept? (is that the old classist British fear of success rearing its ugly head again?) Is Drive the old Protestant Work Ethic in sheep's clothing, or is it the old Will To Power? We've found two motivations for drive - religious motivation, and revenge motivation - are there others?
― kate, Wednesday, 7 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)
V. preliminary answer to this interesting qn. I used "Thatcherite"
because it's a red-rag word which I thought would provoke an
interestng response. Working hard and being successful = classic, no
question. Using that success to pull the ladder up behind you or to
castigate those less successful = dud - this was the core of the
problem with the Thatcherite interpretation of enterprise, what Kate
describes as the ultra-protestant idea that if work=success then lack
of success=idleness. It doesn't follow.
Successful people tend not to like thinking about the elements of
luck and compromise that built their success, as surely as did their
effort. They tend to believe a narrative of their own success -
indeed to become successful I think you have to construct such a
narrative. The "British fear of success" is a key component in a lot
of such narratives, see Prince Edward for further details.
― Tom, Wednesday, 7 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)
Kate: The PRotestant ethic thesis links certain kinds of faith with
certain kinds of worldly behaviour, but not *quite* in the way you
imply. The kind of work behaviour that Protestantism (supposedly)
inculcated wasn't what you're calling 'drive' or the desire for
individual 'success' - it was the *methodical organisation* of one's
energies into steady, solid work. That's why the Protestant ethic is
largely associated with a kind of bureaucratic droniness, as in 'work
for work's sake'.
The reason (Weber argued)that Protestantism was causally involved in
the beginnings of capitalism wasn't because people wanted to become
personally successful, it was because they invested rather than spent,
and attempted to organise business activity methodically and
rationally, rather than haphazardly and piratically (ARRRRRR).
So while the link you make between feeling chosen and having drive
might work on the level of individual psychology, it doesn't (I don't
think) in the wider sociocultural context. The idea of drive making
success depends on a discourse of rampant liberal individualism, which
I suspect is why Tom links it to Thatcherism.
― Ellie, Wednesday, 7 November 2001 01:00 (twenty-four years ago)