I watched a movie tonight which caused me – not for the
first time – to question the definition of success. It’s a surprisingly complex
subject, but let me start at the first thought that occurred to me.
I wondered how many times I’ve heard or read the statement: You can be whatever you want to be.
Sorry, but I find this nothing more than the sort of nonsense dreamed up by writer’s
of self-help books, professional motivational speakers, and amateur gurus. I
have no time for any of them, so let’s move on.
It seems to me that each of us is born with a genetic
blueprint settled firmly in every cell in our bodies, and we have no choice but
to work within that blueprint. If you’re tone deaf you’ll never make a concert
pianist. If your hands tend to shake under pressure you’ll never be a brain
surgeon. If you can’t control a round piece of leather with your foot you’ll
never be a top footballer. And so on. That much is self-evident. The blueprint
is a restraining factor, but there’s plenty of room for manoeuvre within it in
order to achieve what matters to the individual.
For that, or so it seems to me, is what success is all
about. Success is a personal concept, not something to be dictated by teachers
or bosses or parents or politicians or the culture in general.
So then I looked back over my life and considered the
question of whether I have been successful. It occurred to me that if my
genetic blueprint had given me the quality to be a leader, I would have striven
to lead. But it didn’t. If I’d been born a follower, I would have followed. But
I wasn’t. I was born to observe and to experience what my nature caused me to
want to experience, and that’s what I’ve done. I didn’t think of it in those
terms at the time; it just happened that way because I mostly stayed within the
constraints of the blueprint. On the odd occasion when I strayed outside it, I
failed. And that’s how it should be.
I’ve done some good things in my life and I’ve done some bad
things. I’ve helped some people and I’ve hurt others. But I have to say that in
nearly all cases where I hurt people, I didn’t do so for the sake of hurting
them because it isn’t in my nature to want to hurt. They were victims of me
following my blueprint and I suffered plenty of guilt in the process. I don’t
mean to excuse my bad deeds by saying this, but here’s the irony: It was only
through hurting people by following my natural inclinations that I learned the
error of my ways and grew as a result. I didn’t stop at observing others, you
see; I also observed myself and the consequences of my actions. And so I have
learned, and I have grown, and I’m much better at helping people and not
hurting them than I was when I was younger.
So does that represent a level of success every bit the
equal of being a concert pianist, a brain surgeon or a Premiership footballer?
I think so, but you decide. And could it be that success, when defined that way,
is what life is really all about? Some would say it is, but I don’t know. You
can decide that, too.