malcomtents*
This month, I was the host of book club. To mix it up a little, I decided to try a non-fiction read and, in the end, Outliers by Malcom Gladwell was selected. To provide a bit of context, I have heard a lot about this book. Kevin read it and told me about it, I heard Gladwell interviewed on a few occasions, and had discussed the book in some detail (based on what I had heard in the interviews) while making conversation at a business lunch. Needless to say, nothing in the book was entirely new because I had heard so much about it already.
But, as was discussed at book club last night, nothing in the book is entirely new. General consensus was that, while interesting, the anecdotes put forth by Gladwell support a thesis that is commonly accepted and far from contentious. The premise of the book, namely that "only by asking where they are from that we can unravel the logic behind who succeeds and who doesn't" (Gladwell's own emphasis), is far from a revelation.
Sure, as the author points out, the media seizes on the "rags to riches" components of success stories and, as a society, we generally like to focus on the "against all odds" plot. But I think it's an unfair assumption to attribute our tendency to oversimplify and romanticize with a general failure to recognize the power of opportunity and motivation and nurture. There aren't many people that, if asked how they got to where they are today, would respond by pointing solely to their own innate abilities and traits. Most people recognize that "parentage and patronage" matter.
Early in the book, Gladwell states that:
The people who stand before kings may look like they did it all by themselves. But in fact they are invariably the beneficiaries of hidden advantage 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 makes a difference where and when we grew up. The culture we belong to and the legacies passed down by our forebears shape the patterns of our achievement...
Do you have an issue with that statement? Probably not. So why would someone write a 300 page book to prove it?
I probably would've appreciated the book more if it was framed as a collection of interesting success stories serving to simply highlight the truth to the statement rather than as "The Story of Success". By trying to prove something that is already generally accepted to be true, the author promises enlightenment but delivers affirmation. Gladwell is a good writer and so he succeeds in making the reader think that they're being convinced of a new theory but, when the content of the book is scrutinized more closely, it become clear that there was no new theory, just new branding.
The other thing that stood out to me was that the individual examples provided by Gladwell in support of his "theory" were dominated by men. More specifically, men from North America and Europe. I'm not sure if Gladwell clued into this pattern himself or recognized that it, in itself, reinforced his "theory" - perhaps he wanted to keep the book upbeat by focusing on happy success stories rather than by providing examples of the lack thereof that are clearly rooted in less cheery circumstances that are still rampant today, such as poverty and gender inequality.
For instance, the story of an intellectually brilliant woman belonging to the caste of untouchables in India fated to a life of poverty and the antithesis of success would fit Gladwell's thesis perfectly. But that story, along with the stories of the millions of people in the developing world that will never be provided the opportunity to be successful due to circumstance, patronage, parentage, etc., is left out. Which is a shame, because I think that's a much more important, if perhaps less enticing, story than how Bill Gates became a billionaire.
*people who read the tipping point or outliers or freakonomics and are realllllly excited to share this intelligent "find" with you at a party
via wordsmyte.com (via @pm)
