I’m fascinated by people who sit atop their respective fields – the people whose names are synonymous with the very field itself: Mohammed Ali with boxing, Miles Davis with jazz, Meryl Streep with acting, Abraham Lincoln with politics, Michael Jordan with basketball, Picasso with painting, and so on. But truthfully, I’m not as fascinated by the individual people themselves as much as I am by how they achieved such status. I wrote a previous piece called “What is Greatness?” where I espoused my ideas of what makes people great. I ultimately asked more questions than I answered, but I hypothesized that a large portion of elite success is hereditary and timing. As this topic is constantly swirling through my head— and through ample amounts of daydreaming— I formulated an idea that can further test where you may stand on the issue.
There are famous people throughout all times of human history: Plato, Aristotle, Columbus, Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, Elvis, Martin Luther King Jr., Michael Jackson, Rihanna, etc. The test is where you come down on this question: Were these people famous due to their time and place or were they famous because they had something individually special? For the latter part of the question, do you think Justin Timberlake or Charlie Sheen would have still been famous if born in the 19th century? Do you think that Mozart or Ernest Hemingway would still go on to be famous if they were born today? I am aware that in reality it’s a mix of both individual uniqueness and drive and time and place, but for the purposes of this exercise, if you had to side with one, which one would you choose?
There are many issues that arise when attempting to formulate an opinion about such a hypothetical scenario. The shorthand version of the question is circumstance versus individual. Some initial things to examine would be the field of greatness and the times and places of the greatness relative to the individuals. For example, it’s easy to imagine Mohammed Ali still being great boxer today because boxing still exists today. Conversely, Christopher Columbus or Martin Luther King Jr. couldn’t achieve the same level of recognition in their fields today because those fields don’t exist on the same level anymore. Pervasive, large-scale racism in America no longer exists, and nobody is sailing to new lands in 2013.
If you believe these people’s “it-factor” weighs heavier, that would lead to the conclusion that maybe they would excel in whatever field is “in” at the different time period. Maybe Miles Davis is a famous DJ today. Maybe Shakespeare is a James Cameron-type movie producer today. These people were going to be famous either way. On the other end of the spectrum, if you believe time and place weighs heavier, then the conclusion would be that those people simply wouldn’t exist without the perfectly formulated forces that were present at their time. Without the hippy counter-culture of the 1960s, the Beatles are just some garage band today. Without the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln is one of those presidents you’ve never heard of.
I want to think the individual plays the more significant role. Some people are just born with incredible gifts, things that can’t be taught: humor, swagger, intelligence, speed and coordination. Michael Jackson was not like you and me. Lebron James is not like you and me. Einstein was not like you and me. These are exceptional beings. Granted, it goes without saying, time and place and luck provided the avenue for these people’s success. Look at race relations. Would Will Smith have been famous in 1810? Umm, try a slave – end of story. The ultimate conclusion would have to be that you cannot realistically distinguish between circumstance and individual, as both are obviously necessary. Nonetheless, it’s still fun to ponder.