Of greatness
So, I had lunch with a potential new graduate student at our university today...on the department. It's always great to watch hubris in action. She was under the belief that she was top of the world because she was the smartest person at SUNY-whatever. It's strange because when you're in a small pond, you really can sort of feel like you're the greatest thing since sliced bread, like the world had better watch out for you.
I remember feeling like that.
Lately, I've been thinking about the possability that I may not, in fact, be a Literature analyzing whiz kid. After all, I'm no longer a kid. I've been contemplating the possability that in some way, some unspoken characteristic, I am simply not up to snuff. I can't really put my finger on it. No one can tell me why they don't think I'm destined for greatness. No one ever tells me what they think I'm doing wrong. It's just that, in every arena where one's greatness might be taken as intimidating, I have failed to intimidate.
My wife and close friends assure me that this is because I am so intimidating that the overall symptoms of lack of intimidation, coupled with a unspoken reason for not being impressed, prove that my peers are simply jealous and they are afraid to show awe as it might be taken as sign of weakness.
But, I am becoming suspicious of this verdict. True, my conversations often cause people to lose sight of their willingness to reply. But at the same time, where's my fellowship? Where's my publication? Where are my laurels?
It's hard to look at this hubris of this incoming student and not think that the let down she has in store for her when she finds out that she really isn't that smart is the same let down I am facing even now, and that the strange reactions that others have to me are the same as the reaction I have to her. Yes, I acknowledge that she thinks she's smart, but she's not even really worth my trouble to point out why I disagree.
You know, in every world in which greatness can exist, it is supported not by any fact or figure. It is not a function at all, of competence--that is only what allows it to flourish. It is the belief in one's competence that marks one as great. One must believe in a way that is self sustaining. It is easy to believe in opposition: 'I believe I am great, though you think I am not.' It is much harder to believe yourself great when no one at all cares either way. Greatness is measured in one's ability to believe one's self great when no one else could give a shit.
I remember feeling like that.
Lately, I've been thinking about the possability that I may not, in fact, be a Literature analyzing whiz kid. After all, I'm no longer a kid. I've been contemplating the possability that in some way, some unspoken characteristic, I am simply not up to snuff. I can't really put my finger on it. No one can tell me why they don't think I'm destined for greatness. No one ever tells me what they think I'm doing wrong. It's just that, in every arena where one's greatness might be taken as intimidating, I have failed to intimidate.
My wife and close friends assure me that this is because I am so intimidating that the overall symptoms of lack of intimidation, coupled with a unspoken reason for not being impressed, prove that my peers are simply jealous and they are afraid to show awe as it might be taken as sign of weakness.
But, I am becoming suspicious of this verdict. True, my conversations often cause people to lose sight of their willingness to reply. But at the same time, where's my fellowship? Where's my publication? Where are my laurels?
It's hard to look at this hubris of this incoming student and not think that the let down she has in store for her when she finds out that she really isn't that smart is the same let down I am facing even now, and that the strange reactions that others have to me are the same as the reaction I have to her. Yes, I acknowledge that she thinks she's smart, but she's not even really worth my trouble to point out why I disagree.
You know, in every world in which greatness can exist, it is supported not by any fact or figure. It is not a function at all, of competence--that is only what allows it to flourish. It is the belief in one's competence that marks one as great. One must believe in a way that is self sustaining. It is easy to believe in opposition: 'I believe I am great, though you think I am not.' It is much harder to believe yourself great when no one at all cares either way. Greatness is measured in one's ability to believe one's self great when no one else could give a shit.
posted by Monstro D. Whale | 9:06 PM
2 Comments:
I believe that, perhaps, you are probably one of very few literature analysts to have read the things that you have read. In your literature community, it perhaps seems as if everyone has read what you've read and analyzed the same. However, it is doubtful that all of the conclusions are the same. And when several 'experts' agree that a particular analysis has got to be correct, I would disagree with them. Their perceptions and thus their analysis has been colored by their own experiences and history. Just because several 'experts' share similar backgrounds (literary, of course) doesn't really make them experts, nor does it validate their analysis. Someone with a unique perspective, like you, brings a different position and series of possibilities with your own analysis. This does not make you groundbreaking nor genius. Nor should the matter of 'am I smart' even hold water in the analysis of another's work. That which is most probable in the analysis of any written work can often be completely wrong. Hmm... forgot where I was going with this... just making a comment I guess.
Ah, also... You can be your greatest admirer, but will that really get you anywhere? I submit that humility supplant hubris despite all evidence that it shouldn't.
I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there.
Here's the thing. It seems like it's all conducted up in some ivory tower. Well...I'm up there now. I'm in its lowest echelons, but I'm there. And let me tell you, the American Intellectual community burps and farts like the rest of us. Whatever stupid shit you have to deal with at your job, which you assume is part and parcel to people being dull or dim, I have to deal with it too.
People do not like new ideas. They really just don't. These are people who run journals and decide who gets published. These are people who sit on committees and decide who gets the Ph.D.. If an idea really is different and you've heard about it, all respect for the intelligence of the person who got it out there because that person not only had the idea but also found a way to beat a system designed to keep new ideas from getting out there.
As for hubris and humility. Only hubris matters. You must stand behind yourself because if you don't no one else will ever feel the need to. You cannot wait for someone to come along and unbidden recognize your worth. It doesn't happen. People don't want to recognize other's worth--it means that they'll have to do something and most people are lazy.
In training for job interviews in my field they tell us that the number one thing that we must do is take control of the conversation. Whatever question they ask you, whatever critical perspective they hope for you to explain, you must take control and make the conversation about you and your greatness. If you don't, you don't teach.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think that aggression and egoism are virtues or anything, but they are the way of the world. This is the game that I play, and I have two choices--either recognize the way it's played and play it as a game, or recognize the way it is and allow myself to fall in line. Failing one of these two options means failure, so I choose option 1: it's a game, there are rules, I figure out how to win using those rules.
Post a Comment
<< Home