Outliers and Social Explanations

In his new book Outlier's, Malcolm Gladwell sets out to dispell some of the romantic notions surrounding the ideas of success entrenched within our culture. Particularly targeted is a strong thesis that success is best casually explained by factors that are individually-centered. For example, talent has long been our de facto explanation for success. It offers an individually centered causal explanation of talent as something that is, in a spatial- metaphorical sense, inside of us. As an explanatory concept, talent focuses on innate abilities and precociousness. Gifts from god or nature we could say. In the words of Gladwell, we, the public, "are so caught in the myths of the best and the brightest and the self-made man that we think the succesful spring naturally from the earth" (268). Social centered explanations, on the other hand, look at the society surrounding the agent to get to the most complete causal explanation of success. A complete theory of success must account for both individual and social causes. Gladwell believes the culturally dominant theory of success has swung too far towards atomic explanation and needs to veer back towards a more social understanding to right the course.
Why is our culturally dominant understanding of success based on talent and at the expense of social explanations? I would dare this is the result of narative convention. Narrative convention is the collection of themes that run through and structure the stories that dominate our social landscape. Stories of people overcoming social obstacles to achieve the destiny that talent has bestowed on them pulls at the heartstrings of the public. This is the story we see in the movies, hear before bed. Social things - background, parents, teachers - in narrative convention are not enablers of success. So, not only are social factors not given their explanatory due, they are seen primarily as combatants of success. Of course, we know that a great deal of success involves favorable social conditions like wealth, nepotism and private school education. But, we do hold that there are others who become successes despite having none of these things. More often than not, we choose the romantic portrayal of events as opposed to the actual. While there are successes that do overcome social obstacles, the spotlight of narrative convention obscures the social roots of most success stories.
What are these social roots? Gladwell says that success 1) is not simply based on talent, 2) nor is it "the sum of decisions and efforts we make on our own behalf". It is a social gift and the successful are those who have "been given opportunities - and who have had the strength and presence of mind to seize them" (267). These opportunities include

1) Being born at the right time. In the case of computer programmers turned entrepreneurs, this means being born being born between 1955 and 1956, a mere 2 year window to seize get the most out of your programming talents.

2) Having priveleged social advantages or luck that allows the successful to hone their skill. For example, Bill Gates went to a school where he was allowed an inordinate amount of time to program. His refined skills led to even further inordinate opportunities.

3) Achieving 10,000 hours of practice of a skill. This seems to be the magic number of practice hours seperating the great from the good.

4) Being socialized to have a sense of entitlement. Entitlement here refers to the communication skill to pursue one's goals and manage interactions in institutionalized settings. This communication skill is more specific than social skills in general. It is the capacity to deal successfully with authority figures in formal environments. Talking to a boss, doctor or professor are examples.

Pure Proceduralism

Pure Proceduralism rests on the idea that the liberal state should not endorse any values save those that are basic for fair and equal democratic debate. Pure Proceduralists believe the state primarily should set up a sparse structure that will facilitate debate between free and equal beings. No more, no less. Within this structure, these facilitating values include universal suffrage, and freedom of speech. On the other hand, other liberties usually thought of as basic freedoms are not included in this structure - such as freedom of religion.
Pure Proceduralism tends to be endorsed by those considered the purest and most neutral of liberals who wish the state not to make any judgement calls on the good life. However, it can be shown that this position should be seen as distinctly democratic. The content, rather than the structure of these decisions, forces the state to endorse as legislation decisions that are decidedly non-neutral towards the good life. Further, this position can be shown to side with decisions and decision processes that can be seen as communitarian, rather than liberal.
Viewing P.P. as a democratic rather than liberal value, can show us that only liberal theories capable of incorporating thicker sets of values are tenable as liberal theories.
Hopefully, we can also see from this paper, what a communitarian state may look like in practice. Much has been written about communitarianism as a theoretical criticism of liberalism. But, what do these criticisms amount to in practice? We could view PP as a key component within a structure of public reason for democratic communitarianism.

On the very idea

I don't know the general themes that this blog will fall under. At the moment, let's keep it wide open and let daily preference provide set it out on an initial path.