It's very noticeable from the way the question was posed that the 'excellence' side of the coin is uppermost in the questioners mind. But what if we posed the question the other way round?; does the promotion of difference and excellence and the whole emphasis on individual achievement in the west create a problem for notions of equality? ....or to put it differently notions of a less punitive attitude to 'not having' or 'not having enough to get by'.?

To see the problem from that direction would assume that one might believe there is :

a) a limit to the benefits of individual achievement if that doesnt take place in a context where the other less well endowed members of society share in that benefit in one sense or another.

B) a clear sense that in our advanced capitalist economy we have reached a point where its all too likely that the egoism that comes with personal achievement has all but obliterated any sense of proportion in terms of rewards and also any sense of humility or responsibility to those who don't possess the necessary qualities of drive ambition talent etc to get ahead.

c) a clear sense that we may have created a self-righteous self-serving religious culture that blames those who can't achieve or adapt to society's demands for personal achievement on account of their supposed spiritual or moral shortcomings rather than do something to addresss the conditions of hopelessless fear and failure that come down heavily on anyone who falls behind. Does anyone think that some people aren't cut out for individualism and their 'inabilties' may only be apparent under conditions that compel them to think purely in those terms.?

d) that perhaps the reason we blame the non-achievers is to justify the excessive rewards that accrue to the successful and to make sure that wealth isn't more equally spread than it is now. The justification being that there must be no limit set on individual wealth in case the would-be achiever decides it isn't worth getting up in the morning to try in the first place. Why? is there no other motivation than personal advancement and making yourself as noticeably distinct and superior to others as you possibly can? is there no other motivation than wealth to the point of total invulnerability and total control over the political process in your own favour?

e) that there may be something wrong with the idea that you must motivate the poor with threats of having what little they have taken away on the grounds that it's good for their character and , while you must motivate the rich and the talented by heaping more and more adulation and rewards on to them, even if their success wasn't so much earned as merely the result of chance: of being in the right place at the right time. Or even built on the labour of others who were underpaid or unrecognized for their part in the achievement. The oppsoite is true in our culture; we dont recognize the true meaning of dependence and interdependence as a given.

I don't think there is anything like the kind of popular support for any redistribution of wealth and resources in the west even in the face of atrocious and unwarranted monopolies of same in the hands of the very few. it seems aas long as the dream of untold riches is alive any privation and degradation is seen as worth enduring for that to be made possible for just a few. Especially if you have a head start, help write the rule book and make sure other people do the suffering.

The idea that prevails in capitalism it seems is one that takes it as read that the best motivator of people is not that of a secure and nurturing social environment that one is grateful for having the basics of life guaranteed and where that gratitude inspires a desire to give back. Instead it's a sense that dependency and interdependency is to be feared and denied. That the constant fear of failure and the consequent abandonment and isolation and desperation that will bring is the best guarantor of ensuring that the individual contributes.

Regards


Alan