The Greatness Project

Has Greatness Been Watered Down?

April 15, 2005

Earlier this month, at a national conference where we were facilitating a session about greatness, a participant began his comments by quoting, “If everyone is great, then no one is great” from the animated film “The Incredibles.” The dialogue that followed challenged some conclusions we’ve drawn during our four-year Greatness Project^TM.

The discussion revolved around our definition, derived from surveys, that greatness is “living up to our personal value system every day.” Participants challenged this from two perspectives. Some argued that the definition itself is a mediocre approximation, aligning “real” greatness with an “I’m okay, you’re okay” mentality. Others argued that greatness must be extreme, like a rare action or moment that stands alone and marks a significant moment.

Charles Murray, in the introduction to Human Accomplishment, writes, “At irregular times and in scattered settings, human beings have achieved great things.” He proposes that great achievements have an incredibly powerful, long-lasting, positive effect on the world at large. We might assume that Murray does not believe everyone can achieve greatness because, in his opinion, so few have. Perhaps an individual can achieve great moments, but that does not mean they are great individuals. (Our topic for the next issue.) Murray argues that there are certain ages and cultures that encouraged greatness and, using the scientific method, he points out that we do not live in one of those cultures.

Greatness, by its nature, seems to raise some individuals and their actions above the rest. And yet, many argue that when we raise up a few individuals up as “great” role models, we put down everyone else. Currently, we either create opportunities to acknowledge everyone so that no one is singled out as better or less than, or we offer more support to those who struggle so that we can “level the playing field.” Even our overuse of the superlatives “great,” “fantastic,” “incredible,” have reduced their power to having the minimal impact of glib advertising copy. We want to address two issues.

First, we have to question the essence of greatness. Does greatness necessarily lead to a hierarchy, an ordered list of what or who is greater and thus meaning that some achieve greatness while others don’t? Or, is it possible for each individual to achieve personal greatness and simultaneously have societal greatness remain a pinnacle to achieve? In her novel, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand creates a society bent on creating “equality” by offering support and incentives to those who cannot excel and inhibiting those who do excel. In her version of the world, those who desire greatness eventually retreat to create their own society, leaving the rest to their own destruction.

Secondly, because only we can identify our personal standard for greatness, do we underestimate our ability to achieve greatness by diluting greatness itself? And yet, if we make the standard too high will that de-motivate us? In “The Incredibles” all the super-heroes (and heroines) are ordered to live “normal” lives. They become frustrated because society will not allow them the unbridled use of their powers. The rise of a villain intent on eliminating all super-heroes is the only thing that shakes them and society from their turpitude and into realizing that their super gifts are necessary and valuable.

Do we delude ourselves by diluting greatness? Can we define greatness in a far-reaching challenging way without losing our willingness to strive for it?