Walter Kirn in yesterday's New York Times Magazine:
In his 2005 book, “Born Losers: A History of Failure in America,” the
historian Scott Sandage offers a poignant cultural account of
19th-century economic hardships and the pitiable archetype they gave
birth to: the dismal “plodder,” the man who was a “failure.” He was the
fellow who couldn’t get ahead, who couldn’t break through and probably
never would. The fatal flaw that supposedly distinguished these born
nonentities was their lack, it was thought, of a certain crucial
vitality. In an age that equated vigor with virtue, this weakness was
tantamount to immorality. To make the loser feel even worse about
himself, his glorious antithesis — the striver, the up-and-comer — was
being defined at the same time. Writers promoting the secrets of
success in the rough game of industrial capitalism rendered a verdict
on economic failure that still endures: it’s never an accident. The
success people have is determined by who they are — or rather, by who
they aren’t — and not by circumstances.
This attitude -- that misfortune is indicative of moral weakness rather than a set of adverse circumstances -- has played out in American history in so many ways. Structure versus "character" -- whatever side you come down on has huge implications for your positions on a variety of social issues and whether it's necessary for us to do anything about them.
||| Born Losers: A History of Failure in America, out now in paperback.
