I can't think of anything at all to say in that concluding paragraph, though. At one point in my academic career, this would be call for a total meltdown of failure.
Not only would that be an absurd response from me right now, as the paper is actually quite good other than its lack of final statements, it also wouldn't fit with my current ideas of failure.
Failure or the fear of failing is ultimately what drives us in our interactions with other humans, or even in our personal decisions.
I don't think what we view as failure is an accurate description of what failure is.
We think that if we're not good at something or we totally tank in an attempt then we are failures or we have failed. I just don't think that's true, especially when we are making those statements in comparison to other people.
Not only do we all have varying skill sets, we also have varying degrees of experience.
In order to "fail" at something, there has to be a certain degree of experience already gained in that area.
Think of it like this: If you've never tried something before, it is as though you are standing on the solid ground. If you aren't stellar at your first try, so what? You've nowhere to fall really.
It's when you've practiced at something, gained skill and ability, that you walk up the stairs. Then, if you a horrible job, you actually fall pretty far. That is failure.
Am I making sense?
There's got to be cognizance and awareness.
For instance, I used to say often what a failure of a friend or girlfriend or person I was.
However, I wasn't at a place where I could understand what it meant to be good at any of those things. I knew nothing other than what I was doing. It wasn't for lack of trying. It wasn't failure. I wasn't a failure.
Rather than thinking back and saying, "I failed" then, I think it's more accurate to say that I was not yet at a place where I could be able to succeed.
I was yet to be equipped with the strength, stability, maturity, or even information at how to be good at any of those things.
Maybe a better example would be academia. If I'd started this program at Queen's at the age of 18, I would have flunked out.
Well duh!! I was 18 and without the brutal writing boot-camp Patty Kirk put me through during my undergraduate degree. I would have "failed" at Queen's because I did not yet have any of the training necessary to succeed in a Master's program.
Those are just my vague, procrastinatory thoughts, but I think that mental shift in definitions is worth further consideration.
No comments:
Post a Comment