Excellence

Most human beings, especially, the male variety, spend quite a bit of their time and effort to make sure they're getting somewhere: usually higher. When we are students, a lot of discussions, especially between not so close acquaintances, are based on how well the discussants are doing in their studies. Then comes the time of hunting for jobs and pay packages readily substitute for grades. Little while later come promotions, pay hikes and awards and ultimately who gets to be Mr/Ms. Big. In between, perhaps there is evaluation done on how well your children are doing.

A natural drive to perform is a good thing. To excel is perhaps even better. But I cringe on the evaluation bit. The thought of comparing my performances with peers has never had any appeal for me. I am certain that this uneasiness stems from nothing but my inherent mediocrity. And I also understand that this basic mediocrity ensures that when I'm doing well on something (judged on the basis of doing better than others) I still cringe on evaluations. It rarely gives me the joy that I feel when I have achieved on my own without being evaluated at; or compared with.

Others who are more competitive and/or less mediocre get entangled in the mess of comparative excellence. There are some who feign intolerance of this paradigm of comparative excellence and inveigh relentlessly against it; yet they are entrapped in it. It is indeed a fact that I'm not much different form this subgroup: I do feel nice when I've risen above my peers. But introspection has made me realise that the evaluation standard does not occupy a major space in my mind and most of my decision making is independent of it. Despite that, I haven't been exorcised of it yet and stand somewhere on the line, feet unsure of where they are.

There are nuances. I like vertical growth. An improvement in grades, salaries, consumption and other gratifying stuff have always been sought by me. But what I feel is that this desire has been independent of the kurtosis (height) of the distribution. I do not make the case I am oblivious of comparative excellence and pride myself on some sort of exalted personal sense of excellence. I know I am just plain mediocre and get distressed by rampant competitiveness.

Lately my friends have graduated from comparing grades to salaries. Some remain like me. Apparently the former group is doing better than the latter. I have no idea what the previous statement means, especially the phrase "doing better". Year-on-year raises are not the only yardstick. I agree that the last is perhaps the refrain of a loser.

Sometimes the talk comes to who's going to be "big". I find it a little exciting. For some reason I've always found it fascinating to discuss other people. I tend to lose my words when it comes to describing myself. I take the cover of being complex and mysterious when the truth is everyone else is as well. In their unique ways.

Usually there are a fixed set of names that people say. They all are brilliant. There is that initial disappointment of my name not being taken. Then comes the desire to disagree and construct profound arguments. Such is the way we act: the so-called educated, agreeably read and smart citizens.

I have noticed that people generally notice and single out the high-performers. This person has all the goods- the path, the speech, the articulation, the dedication, the drive and the brilliance, they argue. I agree. But I also feel that the foundation of that greatness needs to be examined.

Herein lies my interpretation of merit. Your performance is shaped, by a not so insignificant extent, by the privileges accorded to you. The path is a function of your independence- monetary, social and material; the speech and articulation dependent on your background. The drive and the brilliance shaped by imagination, often a privilege in itself. Pettiness does not permit imagination.

Of course there is the objective merit. Given a similar state, some excel over others. All variables are not in control, but still one can make a case. Not everything after all can be defined by the class position.

But why do we ignore people who have done so much, achieved so much in spite of very frugal and humble beginnings? Why do we focus on the exterior lustre and not focus on the background story? My argument is that if this particular person has come so far with his/her feet tied, what happens if they are free?

There is logic to the argument that their feet (and hands too!) may always be tied. Certain things are never overturned. But gradual improvements occur- in articulation and independence. And that may be enough. A person attuned to constraints can expect their achievements to take an exceptional trajectory when some of them are relaxed, if only by a little. They also have strength of character on their side.

Few discount all this when they take in a measure of others. Yet another angle to "Hell is other people"! It is an onerous job to measure a man. And one must do it carefully.

I believe those who have suffered all sorts of roadblocks, speed breakers and culverts will go a longer way than those who have not. "Big" is never measured in relation to others, but in relation to one's own situation. Any other measure is specious. At least in my book.

Amen