I was chatting with some friends and we started talking about being successful. This happens with driven, ambitious people.
Someone asked me who comes to mind when thinking of the word “success.”
I said “Donald Trump.”
Donald Trump, regardless of your opinion of him, is successful in all the modern definitions of the word. He is wealthy, influential, and may even have his own political party soon. There are buildings in major cities with his name on them and he has a very, very loyal following.
Of course, this doesn’t sit well with most people. Most would agree that by those terms, Trump is successful—but that doesn’t mean we like him.
It’s like the line from Harry Potter and The Philosopher’s Stone:
“I think we must expect great things from you, Mr Potter. After all, He Who Must Not Be Named did great things–terrible, yes, but great.”
— Mr. Ollivander, Chapter 5 (Diagon Alley)
Clearly, the problem is that the current definition of success doesn’t have any parameters of morality or ethics.
So far, the current definition of success sounds something like this:
“Living life on your own terms.”
This definition has room for power, influence, and money. It’s based on the amount of control a person has over their own life, work, and output. Of course, this also doesn’t make room for those who will never break free of poverty or slavery. Since poverty and slavery are not fully within one’s control to break free of in the first place, this doesn’t seem like a very equitable definition.
Instead, we could try something more like:
“Helping others on your own terms, within our many unique and uncontrollable constraints.”
What a mouthful. It brings in the concepts of control and serving others, but it just doesn’t ring the same way other definitions do.
More than anything else, it sounds a lot like the Serenity Prayer written by Reinhold Niebuhr in the 1930s:
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Another problem with this definition is that it doesn’t clearly delineate whether the way you want to help someone is the best way for them to be helped. Look at Tom’s shoes for example. I used to buy Tom’s shoes because when you buy a pair, you are buying a pair for someone else in need, too. Pretty great!
The only trouble is that while many people need shoes, what they need more is a stable economy with jobs and opportunities. Handing out free shoes will absolutely help in the short term, but what about the long term?
There are other ethical issues with philanthropies like this. Here’s a more complete brief on Tom’s Shoes specifically.
Okay, so how about another revision:
“Helping others the most with what we’ve got, and from where we are.”
It’s far from perfect. I think it’s probably still too high-level to really weed out problematic “false successes,” but this is as close as I’ve gotten.
Do you have a definition of success? What has resonated with you in the past?
Maybe, together, we can define this once and for all. Maybe we can be successful, together.